# Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions



## SBUS-CXK

http://mil.eastday.com/a/180106172653768.html

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## FuturePAF

Pakistan should stop getting t-72 mods, we should find a way to make more affordable leopard class tanks; something like the Turkish Altay but slightly smaller and more affordable.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Reichsmarschall

how good is this tank compared to M1a2?


----------



## Abu Zarrar

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949602911067062272

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

Abu Zarrar said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949602911067062272


Is OPLOT also back or not ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Max

any special reason for acquiring this instead of funding HIT to produce adequate numbers of AK-1?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

here comes the improved model. Notice the olive green color of the gun, and it now has a muzzle reference sytem as well.

The older version lacked both these enhancements

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Viking 63

Looking one mean machine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jinn Baba

Abu Zarrar said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949602911067062272



Again, why the F are military personnel releasing such pics on social media!!!?  is there no discipline left in the military?

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Myth_buster_1

u think only pakdef form has confidential info and indian military has no clue about such deals???

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Imran Khan

Jinn Baba said:


> Again, why the F are military personnel releasing such pics on social media!!!?  is there no discipline left in the military?


NOTHING is so secrets these days sir .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beethoven

Dazzler said:


> here comes the improved model. Notice the olive green color of the gun, and it now has a muzzle reference sytem as well.
> 
> The older version lacked both these enhancements


You mean to say these changes were made on Pakistan's request????
And what about the engine....during the last trials engines were reportedly having problems with the transmission....have they been rectified as well?????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Dazzler said:


> here comes the improved model. Notice the olive green color of the gun, and it now has a muzzle reference sytem as well.
> 
> The older version lacked both these enhancements



Which system VT-4 is using to protect against ATGM's ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maxpane

hm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Starlord said:


> Which system VT-4 is using to protect against ATGM's ?


Gl-5



Beethoven said:


> You mean to say these changes were made on Pakistan's request????
> And what about the engine....during the last trials engines were reportedly having problems with the transmission....have they been rectified as well?????



Oplot is also coming so fingers crossed. Engine should be enhanced or changed

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
10


----------



## Muhammad Omar

I thought Oplot P was selected and we have placed an order of 100 Oplot P

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Abu Zarrar said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949602911067062272


Thank you for share

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

Dazzler said:


> Gl-5



how is it compared to Varta Optronic of Oplot M ?



Muhammad Omar said:


> I thought Oplot P was selected and we have placed an order of 100 Oplot P



It was sent back with some Recommendations, its coming back with probable changes PA asked them , I am in favor of Oplot P, and buying 6D-T 1500 HP engine from Ukraine for AK-II .. we should get around 200-300 Oplot-P's .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## war&peace

Dazzler said:


> here comes the improved model. Notice the olive green color of the gun, and it now has a muzzle reference sytem as well.
> 
> The older version lacked both these enhancements


Can you please elaborate the function of muzzle reference system? Is it used for calibration purposes?


----------



## Zarvan

Dazzler said:


> Gl-5
> 
> 
> 
> Oplot is also coming so fingers crossed. Engine should be enhanced or changed


When will OPLOT come for testing ????


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## ziaulislam

i just hope pakistan start manufacturing engines and other subs systems

we should push for indegnization to some extent, look at turkey

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

I am seriously starting to have a feeling that we may opt for both VT 4 and OPLOT. We have around 1200 to 1400 older Tanks to replace even if we don't go for one to one replacement we still would need to replace at least 1000 Tanks so I really doubt that we would choose one Tank and have 1000 of that Tank I really believe it would be at least two Tanks and if we decide to go for one to one replacement that we may even see Altay. Eventually Zarrar will also have to be replaced.

@Horus @Path-Finder @Arsalan.



ziaulislam said:


> i just hope pakistan start manufacturing engines and other subs systems
> 
> we should push for indegnization to some extent, look at turkey


For that we need to increase corporation with Ukraine and get engine technology from them. We have golden opportunity to get our hands on engine technology through Ukraine. Missing this opportunity would be a national betrayal and we would pay the price for next many decades.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

Both will be tested again and one of the two will be selected. We do not have 1400 mbts to replace, rather close to 800. The Alzarrars are not going anywhere for the next 10 years at least. The 85IIAPs have also been upgraded so no need to panic. 

For now, majority of PA mbt fleet comprises of third gen mbts:

Around 450 AKs
50+ AK-1s
320 UDs (upgraded)
300 85IIAPs (upgraded)
550+ Alzarrars (upgraded 59s and 69s)


Around 1700 uparmored, day and night capable 125mm HMC gun equipped, composite and RHA armored tanks. All can fire modified Naiza series DU rounds. 

That is a pretty decent number of third gen mbts

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## ARMalik

I have this feeling that the older 1200 tanks will go to the FC or other forces on the Western borders. I think the number of troops in general are being increased to counter threats on the Western front.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Globalwarrior

I agree these ranks should not be allowed to post such pictures


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

No problem quite thankful for share it is open knowlege if any vehicle / machine is coming for evaluation or testing

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> here comes the improved model. Notice the olive green color of the gun, and it now has a muzzle reference sytem as well.
> 
> The older version lacked both these enhancements


If you look closely, the improved model install the MW-IFFS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Beethoven said:


> You mean to say these changes were made on Pakistan's request????
> And what about the engine....during the last trials engines were reportedly having problems with the transmission....have they been rectified as well?????


Fake news. There is no problem with engine. There are many lies on social media about Chinese product especially those Western born Pakistanis who still try to cling onto the falsehood that western countries is the best friend of Pakistan while China is a evil nation just trying to lynch Pakistan.

From Chinese forum, some of the Chinese side representative involved in VT-4 tender for Pakistan. Never say anything about engine problem complaint from the Pakistan. And they claim they are confident to meet all requirement of Pakistan. The others competitor tank are simply too outdated to compete with VT-4 in terms of sensor and network. VT-4 is a highy network tank that can share data with a battalion, UAV and even radar that it has very high chance of locate enemy tank first and take action. Ukraine Oplot-M simply lack of such sophisticated network to be the new generation tank.

Thailand army are very impressed with VT-4 and they quickly placed order of it.

VT-4 engine is using computerized fully automatic transmission that makes the response and handling like a sport car. The engine of VT-4 can be swapped out and replace with a new one in just 45mins while Oplot engine needs half day time to complete such task. I do not know why so many Pakistanis think so highly of such an obsolete tank like Oplot?

Reactions: Like Like:
15 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Fake news. There is no problem with engine. There are many lies on social media about Chinese product especially those Western born Pakistanis who still try to cling onto the falsehood that western countries is the best friend of Pakistan while China is a evil nation just trying to lynch Pakistan.
> 
> From Chinese forum, some of the Chinese side representative involved in VT-4 tender for Pakistan. Never say anything about engine problem complaint from the Pakistan. And they claim they are confident to meet all requirement of Pakistan. The others competitor tank are simply too outdated to compete with VT-4 in terms of sensor and network.



The engine failed twice at Tamewala/ Bahawalpur region alone. Why you think they came with an improved model?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Maxpane

great news

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> The engine failed twice at Tamewala/ Bahawalpur region alone. Why you think they came with an improved model?


That is a fake lie from social media. No confirmation from PA. Another american Pakistanis who spread lies about Chinese. You think American is the best friend for Pakistan? Your propaganda will be see thru. You pakistanis American still have the delusion about American/Pakistan alliance and spend no effort in bad mouth anything about Sino-Pakistan r/s. I have seen enough of such petty act.

I have my own source from Chinese forum with regards to tender for Vt-4 tank for Pakistan.
They are the engineer directly involved for the project.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> That is a fake lie from social media. No confirmation from PA. Another american Pakistanis who spread lies about Chinese. You think American is the best friend for Pakistan? Your propaganda will be see thru.



No it is not, i know the person who was a part of the trials.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Maxpane

bahawalpur desert is one of the hottest part of the pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

wanglaokan said:


> MW-IFFS.



What's this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Jon-Snow said:


> how good is this tank compared to M1a2?


It far superior than M1A2

Fully automatic digitalised transmission gear engine. Driving this tank is just like driving a sport car. This mean the tank is very responsive and is critical is evading enemy shot and take quick action to response in a battlefield.
Highly centralized network combat system that can share data with UAV, other combat vehicles and whole battalion group.
Engine replacement can be completed in just 45mins.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Dont lie. I can also say I know... I even drink coffee with PA general.. You are nothing but a traitor for pakistan. Only know how to bad mouth China and claim anything from US is good. A country that keep trying to destroy Pakistan.



@Jango @The Eagle 

Take note, the fanboy is losing it again.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

@Dazzler, you have no guts to back your words? Rather than being a coward to give negative point to me to prove nothing. I challenge you to give a official link statement from PA saying VT-4 tank engine failed the initial trial test? Dont give me some fake link from FB or social media that is absolutely a blunt lies.



Dazzler said:


> @Jango @The Eagle
> 
> Take note, the fanboy is losing it again.



What wrong did i did? Rather you being the cowards that fail to give an evident of VT-4 failed the engine test. Instead making things up about non existent evident of insider knowing the trial test failed. This kind of low life trick I seen too many. You learn that from Indians, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> @Dazzler, you have no guts to back your words? Rather than being a coward to give negative point to me to prove nothing. I challenge you to give a official link statement from PA saying VT-4 tank engine failed the initial trial test? Dont give me some fake link from FB or social media that is absolutely a blunt lies.
> 
> 
> 
> What wrong did i did? Rather you being the cowards that fail to give an evident of VT-4 failed the engine test. Instead making things up about non existent evident of insider knowing the trial test failed. This kind of low life trick I seen too many. You learn that from Indians, right?



Your tank failed on multiple fronts, you brought it back a year later with improvements. 

You see the pics and changes in it?


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> Your tank failed on multiple fronts, you brought it back a year later with improvements.
> 
> You see the pics and changes in it?


LOL... I am stilling waiting on your official proof of VT-4 failed the engine or even so called make up multiple test from Pakistan initial trial. How many lies you want to continue? Yes yes, M1A2 is the world best tank. Anything from China is junk.. Typical cheapshot from traitors like you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAIDER

Maxpane said:


> bahawalpur desert is one of the hottest part of the pakistan


It extremely hard for any foreign tank to pass the Bahawalpur terrain in first go. Even US Abram failed during Zia era. Pakistan tested many tanks but failure rate is extremely high.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> @Dazzler, you have no guts to back your words? Rather than being a coward to give negative point to me to prove nothing. I challenge you to give a official link statement from PA saying VT-4 tank engine failed the initial trial test? Dont give me some fake link from FB or social media that is absolutely a blunt lies.
> 
> 
> 
> What wrong did i did? Rather you being the cowards that fail to give an evident of VT-4 failed the engine test. Instead making things up about non existent evident of insider knowing the trial test failed. This kind of low life trick I seen too many. You learn that from Indians, right?


Calm down, Oplot M failed some of the test as well. It's a business between Pakistan and China, not you and Dazzler.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> LOL... I am stilling waiting on your official proof of VT-4 failed the engine or even so called make up multiple test from Pakistan initial trial. How lies you want to continue? Yes yes, M1A2 is the world best tank. Anything from China is junk.. Typical cheapshot from traitors like you.



There is no official proof. Take it or leave it. And M1A1 also failed in the same desert region some 30 years ago and was rejected.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> Calm down, Oplot M failed some of the test as well. It's a besiness between Pakisan and China, not you and Dazzler.


I have seen too many of these fake lies keep circulate around. When I challenge them for official proof from PA, they keep quiet or try evade my point...

I have visit the Chinese forum, none got the nonsense heard from PDF about VT-4 trial fail. It just like those smearing keep trying to derail the CPEC.



Dazzler said:


> There is no official proof. Take it or leave it. And M1A1 also failed in the same desert region some 30 years ago and was rejected.


LOL.. So now you are comparing 30 years stuff with 2016-2018?


----------



## HAIDER

*Ukraine's New Tank Can Take On Russia's Best—But Kiev Can't Afford It*





An Oplot military tank, produced under contract with the Royal Thai Army, is seen at a workshop of the Kharkiv Malyshev Plant during its presentation in Kharkiv on June 26, 2013.

Ukrainian tanks once boasted the reputation of “super tanks” during the Cold War. When Russian-backed rebels triggered an insurgency in the country’s east in 2014, Russian tanks tumbled across the Donetsk basin to defend separatist positions, with the conflict now at a standstill. 

When Kiev announced it would revive the same spirit of industry that bred its Soviet-era tank manufacture, boosting production for a new tank vehicle by an unprecedented 2,300 percent in 2016, this should have been a sign for worry on the other side of the front line. The Ukrainian-made Oplot tank, built with a Western-style turret and apparently a crack shot against ground and low-flying air targets, has wowed tank experts. Of the new breed in production, 40 will be going to Thailand’s army.

But closer to home, the Oplot may prove too expensive for Ukraine’s own military, Ukrainian independent news channel  Hromadske reported on Friday. Per a vaulation made by Ukroboronprom, Kiev’s state-owned arms-making conglomerate, a single Oplot costs $4.7 million. Kiev first ordered 10 Oplot tanks for its troops before crunching the numbers and realizing the state budget was spread too thin for the pricey purchase.
Even as war flared on the territory and with tank production surging, the kit had gone for export abroad until earlier this month. Visiting the Kharkiv factory that birthed the Oplot, Ukraine’s Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak  praised the tank, calling it a “modern combat machine that is now being exported to many countries across the world but is absent from the arsenal of Ukraine’s armed forces.”

Ukraine’s National Defense and Security Council has said that as of next year work will begin on an order of 10 Oplots for Ukraine’s troops, though there is no exact deadline for full delivery.

This would soon change, Poltorak promised, announcing that Ukraine was ready to commission Oplot tanks for its own troops and, crucially, send them on duty in the war-ravaged Donbas. The 50-ton machine is slightly bigger that Russia’s top-shelf tank in service, the T-90, but the two have many specs in common. Considering Russia has not sent it its own new-generation tank into the Donbas regions, the Oplot would be in a class of its own were it to barrel toward the east. The three-crew behemoth can reach speeds of up to 28 mph off road and 44 mph on roads—a step swifter than the T-90, and matching its eight-rounds-per-minute fire rate.

As recently as August, Poltorak said the choice between renovating Soviet-era tanks or buying an Oplot when war erupted in the east was made in urgency.

“We were acting simply out of necessity,” Poltorak told state news agency  Ukrinform at the time. “For the price of one tank, we could renovate 10.”

The renovation in question refers largely to upscaling Soviet-era T-64 tanks, older than the parent tank of both the Oplot and Russia’s T-90—the T-80—into  T-64BM ‘Bulat.’ Media reports from the front lines have disputed the availability of even these upscaled tanks, as some troops claim they are simply operating the 40-year-old original machines. The story is similar to other new Ukrainian kits such as the Dozor armored trucks, of which none were sent to the front line, according to a report by Radio Free Europe last month, as some soldiers opted to mend their Soviet vehicles by  welding loose change into bullet holes.

Experts are skeptical over whether the government should rush to bring in the multimillion-dollar Oplots on the front line due to the nature of the conflict.

“There is no need to invest a lot of time and money in Oplots,” Michael Kofman, a military expert at the Wilson Center, told Hromadske. “Even if Ukraine had them, the situation on the ground would not change significantly. In the worst-case scenario—that is, full-scale hostilities with Russia and the full use of its conventional weapons—Russia could simply crush the Ukrainian tanks because of its significant numerical advantage alone. In your situation, it’s better to have a lot of basic tanks rather than a few very expensive ones.”

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> I have seen too many of these fake lies keep circulate around. When I challenge them for official proof from PA, they keep quiet or try evade my point...
> 
> I have visit the Chinese forum, none got the nonsense heard from PDF about VT-4 trial fail. It just like those smearing keep trying to derail the CPEC.
> 
> 
> LOL.. So now you are comparing 30 years stuff with 2016-2018?



No, i just answered your stupid rhetoric where you called me an M1A2 fanboy which i am not. 

Get over it kid and learn to accept things as they are.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> No, i just answered your stupid rhetoric where you called me an M1A2 fanboy which i am not.
> 
> Get over it kid and learn to accept things as they are.


It more of you cant accept VT-4 is a superior tank. 3 replies and you still cant give nay proof besides babbling..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> There is no official proof. Take it or leave it. And M1A1 also failed in the same desert region some 30 years ago and was rejected.


business is business.



Beast said:


> It more of you cant accept VT-4 is a superior tank. 3 replies and you still cant give nay proof besides babbling..


Can we just not to get emotional every time? Dazzler is quite straight-up and somehow positive about VT4 performance as I always followed his post. 
What's your problem?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Safriz

Dazzler said:


> There is no official proof. Take it or leave it. And M1A1 also failed in the same desert region some 30 years ago and was rejected.


O chaddo jii.... Khush hoon deyoo bachay noo


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> It more of you cant accept VT-4 is a superior tank. 3 replies and you still cant give nay proof besides babbling..


How superior is that? Even better than T99A2?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maxpane

HAIDER said:


> It extremely hard for any foreign tank to pass the Bahawalpur terrain in first go. Even US Abram failed during Zia era. Pakistan tested many tanks but failure rate is extremely high.


yes sir our desert is one of the hottest part and it is good for testing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> How superior is that? Even better than T99A2?


Of cos not but it's not too far off from 99A2. VT-4 is 52tons with 1300hp and 99A2 is 54tons with 1500hp. RTA is very impressed with VT-4 and they are ordering a second batch. Iraq army are negotiating for a big batch of VT-4 tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bananarepublic

Lets hope VT-4 passes the trials this time
.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> I have seen too many of these fake lies keep circulate around. When I challenge them for official proof from PA, they keep quiet or try evade my point...
> 
> I have visit the Chinese forum, none got the nonsense heard from PDF about VT-4 trial fail. It just like those smearing keep trying to derail the CPEC.
> 
> 
> LOL.. So now you are comparing 30 years stuff with 2016-2018?


Did you see any official claim from PA of Z10 failed the test in Pakistan? Lol? This is called friendship for face saving. PA will make every penny they spend bangs for the bucks. Who provide the best product and financial package/swap package will win the contract in the end. Business is cruel and realstic! Z10 failed the test means it shorts T129 in some parameters, doesn't means it's inferior. You need confidence in your country, just like me. I don't worry for Z10, cause I know it wil make its back some other day even stronger. 
In VT4 and Oplot M competition, who will offer more TOT( especially engine package) will win the contract.

If you get any bummer, just lay it on me. Just grow up.

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## Beast

bananarepublic said:


> Lets hope VT-4 passes the trials this time
> .


All the while VT-4 has not failed any trial. Do not be fooled by fake lies of VT-4 failing any test for Pakistan Tender.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Business is business. Friendship is friendship.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## HAIDER

I ask rtrd PA engineer serve HRF/TRF, why foreign tanks failed so easily in Bahawalpur terrain , he replied , European, Chinese or Russian tank engine cooling system is not made for hot region like Pakistan. To change the cooling system require huge sum of money. In other words totally redo the tank chassis .

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## bananarepublic

Beast said:


> All the while VT-4 has not failed any trial. Do not be fooled by fake lies of VT-4 failing any test for Pakistan Tender.


Slow down there fanboy . if hadn't failed the previous tests then why is another one happening.
Bhawalpur is a region where the best of the best tanks fail .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

Jinn Baba said:


> Again, why the F are military personnel releasing such pics on social media!!!?  is there no discipline left in the military?



Many western countries doing that very openly and an official with much more high tech weapons!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> Of cos not but it's not too far off from 99A2. VT-4 is 52tons with 1300hp and 99A2 is 54tons with 1500hp. RTA is very impressed with VT-4 and they are ordering a second batch. Iraq army are negotiating for a big batch of VT-4 tank.


I tell you what. If I'm PA, I will straightly go for T99A2 if it's available. It will be a huge regret if we don't bring out the best for competition. PA deserves for the best. The stupid sales strategy should be adjusted.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HAIDER

wanglaokan said:


> How superior is that? Even better than T99A2?


T99 falls under very heavy class, not suitable for Pak India border terrain. Area turn marshy during rainy season. Light tank is the best for that region. Pakistan army never selected any heavy tank in the past, until it comes under donation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> Hi Wanglaokan, You are extremely low confident Chinese. Talking about Z-10 failed the trial again another smear. From what I gathered. Z-10 is not allowed to share technology with Pakistan while PA wanted some TOT for the deal. Ideally, T129 is more willing to co share some technology. That puts them in forefront. They are many make up lies about China military technology in foreign news. I am sad that PDF also pick up many of these junks.


If Turkey can share some technology, why can't we? It's out goverment doing things with hesitation, not me.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> That is another nonsense. VT-4 is good enough to take on any modern tank from other countries. I can bet Leopard A2 or Korean K-2 cant even beat VT-4.
> 
> 
> Another nonsense from you. Did you see PLAAF export J-20? What makes you think Z-10 needs its technology to be share?


I have a feeling that PA will go for VT4 if we give some good offers. So don't worry.

Many reasons why Z10 failed the competition with T129:
1: more TOT from turkey
2: swap package 
3: Z10's turbo shaft is not powerful enough especially in high altitude ( a fatal reason why it failed)
4: T129 can easily integrate with armmo in PA's arsenal

How hard it takes to face the reality?

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Inception-06

Beast said:


> LOL... I am stilling waiting on your official proof of VT-4 failed the engine or even so called make up multiple test from Pakistan initial trial. How many lies you want to continue? Yes yes, M1A2 is the world best tank. Anything from China is junk.. Typical cheapshot from traitors like you.




My friend nobody of our real Pakistani Members in PDF dares to write or say anything bad against China, I think you misunderstood Dazzler, you are a respected Member which I follow, but that's the same case for Dazzler, let's all behave like Brothers and gentlemen! Pakistan China First right?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dazzler

Ulla said:


> My friend nobody of our real Pakistani Members in PDF dares to write or say anything bad against China, I think you misunderstood Dazzler, you are a respected Member which I follow, but that's the same case for Dazzler, let's all behave like Brothers and gentlemen! Pakistan China First right?



Let him be what he is. He has no clue how rigorous the process of weapon induction can be. i dont have time nor i see the need to convince naysayers. i know what i am told and have seen the thing up close.

Let him shout all he likes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Ulla said:


> My friend nobody of our real Pakistani Members in PDF dares to write or say anything bad against China, I think you misunderstood Dazzler, you are a respected Member which I follow, but that's the same case for Dazzler, let's all behave like Brothers and gentlemen! Pakistan China First right?


In my opinion, only the best Friend will tell you the truth. China and Pakistan is equal, why Pakistani members can't say anything bad about China if it's true? Freedom of speech.

We are not a super power yet, so stay humble is very necessary.



Dazzler said:


> Let him be what he is. He has no clue how rigorous the process of weapon induction can be. i dont have time nor i see the need to convince naysayers. i know what i am told and have seen the thing up close.
> 
> Let him shout all he likes.


I think you got lots of low-down you can't tell us, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> In my opinion, only the best Friend will tell you the truth. China and Pakistan is equal, why Pakistani members can't say anything bad about China if it's true? Freedom of speech.
> 
> We are not a super power yet, so stay humble is very necessary.
> 
> 
> I think you got lots of low-down you can't tell us, right?



it is all about fulfilling needs. We asked them to rectify the shortcomings and we will put it to the trials. The system is overall decent, and offers good fire control but the gun is not accurate enough, hence the new gun. The engine is still not up to the mark which was a major concern. Lets see how the improved model fares 

Same with the case with Ukrainians. it is a universal practice, you dont see them complaining here.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> I have a feeling that PA will go for VT4 if we give some good offers. So don't worry.
> 
> Many reasons why Z10 failed the competition with T129:
> 1: more TOT from turkey
> 2: swap package
> 3: Z10's turbo shaft is not powerful enough especially in high altitude ( a fatal reason why it failed)
> 4: T129 can easily integrate with armmo in PA's arsenal
> 
> How hard it takes to face the reality?


Its not about fail to face reality but simply too many nonsense and fake info floating around. Z-10 never has any engine problem. This rumour of Z-10 underpowered first started by CMF when they claim a redesigned of exhaust is due to US embargo of turboshaft to China... Therefore they redesigned the exhaust area to give more power to the underpowered engine. LOL... This reason is another no brainer. Why would PLA design their latest gunship with dependent on an engine that has no change to be sold to China since with US embargo enforced?

The truth is the redesign of exhaust got to do with muting the high level of noise of the engine so that Z-10 can be more stealthy when carrying out low level penetration and has more element of surprised. Nothing to do with BS underpowered nonsense. Check out the video of Z-10 low level fly pass during pakistan parade. You will know how quiet Z-10 is. This is critical especially in night low level attack where enemy will be too late to know your presence if the noise they produced is very low.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> it is all about fulfilling needs. We asked them to rectify the shortcomings and we will put it to the trials. The system is overall decent, and offers good fire control but the gun is not accurate enough, hence the new gun. The engine is still not up to the mark which was a major concern. Lets see how the improved model fares
> 
> Same with the case with Ukrainians. it is a universal practice, you dont see them complaining here.


I think Ukrainians are not visiting PDF and they are busy dealing with Russians.
Muzzle reference is also installed on the version sold to Royal Thai army.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gryphon

I hope we don't fall into the Ukrainian trap again - affordable tanks and too expensive after sales support.
Just put the T-80UD through a major upgrade program. Currently, 1 T-80UD has been upgraded with latest ERA Duplet.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> Its not about fail to face reality but simply too many nonsense and fake info floating around. Z-10 never has any engine problem. This rumour of Z-10 underpowered first started by CMF when they claim a redesigned of exhaust is due to US embargo of turboshaft to China... Therefore they redesigned the exhaust area to give more power to the underpowered engine. LOL... This reason is another no brainer. Why would PLA design their latest gunship with dependent on an engine that has no change to be sold to China since with US embargo enforced?
> 
> The truth is the redesign of exhaust got to do with muting the high level of noise of the engine so that Z-10 can be more stealthy when carrying out low level penetration and has more element of surprised. Nothing to do with BS underpowered nonsense. Check out the video of Z-10 low level fly pass during pakistan parade. You will know how quiet Z-10 is. This is critical especially in night low level attack where enemy will be too late to know your presence if the noise they produced is very low.


USA punished the HP who sell the PT6c-67c turbo shaft engine to China. We don't have choice.
We are isolated by those western counterparts.



Gryphon said:


> I hope we don't fall into the Ukrainian trap again - affordable tanks and too expensive after sales support.
> Just stick with the Ukrainian engines for VT-4, put the T-80UD through an upgrade program. Currently, 1 T-80UD has been upgraded with latest ERA Duplet.


All PA interested is whether they can get TOT from Ukraine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Dazzler said:


> Both will be tested again and one of the two will be selected. We do not have 1400 mbts to replace, rather close to 800. The Alzarrars are not going anywhere for the next 10 years at least. The 85IIAPs have also been upgraded so no need to panic.
> 
> For now, majority of PA mbt fleet comprises of third gen mbts:
> 
> Around 450 AKs
> 50+ AK-1s
> 320 UDs (upgraded)
> 300 85IIAPs (upgraded)
> 550+ Alzarrars (upgraded 59s and 69s)
> 
> 
> Around 1700 uparmored, day and night capable 125mm HMC gun equipped, composite and RHA armored tanks. All can fire modified Naiza series DU rounds.
> 
> That is a pretty decent number of third gen mbts


Even if 800 Tanks have to be replaced I really doubt that all 800 will be one tank, in my opinion they would be two tanks one may be 500 and other one 300 or equally divided.



Beast said:


> That is a fake lie from social media. No confirmation from PA. Another american Pakistanis who spread lies about Chinese. You think American is the best friend for Pakistan? Your propaganda will be see thru. You pakistanis American still have the delusion about American/Pakistan alliance and spend no effort in bad mouth anything about Sino-Pakistan r/s. I have seen enough of such petty act.
> 
> I have my own source from Chinese forum with regards to tender for Vt-4 tank for Pakistan.
> They are the engineer directly involved for the project.


PA never confirms or denies these things. The Tank is being tested again because it failed first time and OPLOT engine also had issues so that would also be tested again


----------



## araz

Beast said:


> @Dazzler, you have no guts to back your words? Rather than being a coward to give negative point to me to prove nothing. I challenge you to give a official link statement from PA saying VT-4 tank engine failed the initial trial test? Dont give me some fake link from FB or social media that is absolutely a blunt lies.
> 
> 
> 
> What wrong did i did? Rather you being the cowards that fail to give an evident of VT-4 failed the engine test. Instead making things up about non existent evident of insider knowing the trial test failed. This kind of low life trick I seen too many. You learn that from Indians, right?


You asked what wrong you did? Please review your last couple of posts and tell me whether they are a good discussion or just angry posts from a child.
There must have been something wrong with BOTH engines as both broke down. PA sent both back for upgrades and retesting as is standard approach. For example the Abrahms M1 tank failed trials in Bhawalpur in 1988. These things happen as engines are designed with your terrain in mind and they are tested in harsher terrain and break down. One just does not start ranting nationalistic mumbo jumbo but accepts the fact that these tanks have been given a second chance with improvements to satisfy PA which signifies they are mostly good tanks with minor problems which need adjusting or rectifying.
A



wanglaokan said:


> Calm down, Oplot M failed some of the test as well. It's a business between Pakistan and China, not you and Dazzler.


Great post. We have nothing to argue about here.
A

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

araz said:


> You asked what wrong you did? Please review your last coue of posts and tell me whether they are a good deccussion or just angry posts from a child.
> There must ha e been something wrong with BOTH engines as both broke down. PA sent both back for upgrades and retesting as is standard approach. For example the Abrahms M1 tank failed trials in Bhawalpur in 1988. These things happen as engines are designed with your terrain in mind and they are tested in harsher terrain and break down. One just does not start ranting nationalistic mumbo jumbo but accepts the factthat these tanks have been given a second chance with improvements to satisfy PA which signifies they are mostly good tanks with minor problems which need adjusting or rectifying.
> A
> 
> 
> Great post. We have nothing to argue about here.
> A


somehow I enjoy the tough standard PA put on the trial.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## IceCold

@Dazzler I thought Pakistan produced some good quality tanks. Last time it was the lack of funds due to which many things were not incorporated in the Al-Khalids. So my question is if we have funds to look for a foreign tank, why not inject those funds in our local industry i.e Al-Khalids and take them to what was initially envisaged?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## araz

wanglaokan said:


> Did you see any official claim from PA of Z10 failed the test in Pakistan? Lol? This is called friendship for face saving. PA will make every penny they spend bangs for the bucks. Who provide the best product and financial package/swap package will win the contract in the end. Business is cruel and realstic! Z10 failed the test means it shorts T129 in some parameters, doesn't means it's inferior. You need confidence in your country, just like me. I don't worry for Z10, cause I know it wil make its back some other day even stronger.
> In VT4 and Oplot M competition, who will offer more TOT( especially engine package) will win the contract.
> 
> If you get any bummer, just lay it on me. Just grow up.


Another good post. I think you have hit it on the head. Trial followed by changes followed by retrial. No one says anything other than the equipment needs a few alterations to comply with client needs. This is business between friends and brothers. You use our expertise to analyse your product and point out deficiencies. Make the changes and come back for retrial. When you reach our standards( and before you get riled up again we have vast experience of seeing maintaining and trialing western products as well) we have a product to buy and you have a world class product to sell.
Look at the JFT Project. In the development process we suggested changes multiple times. Prototype 1 and 4 were radically different. The Chinese complied with the spirit of growth together and we have a really good product to sell now. This is good business and a win win situation. Nothing more nothing less.
Regards.
A

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## FuturePAF

The VT-4 needs to be evaluated as a long term solution, testing it to the same standards you would the Ukrainian Oplot or the Turkish Altay. In Fact the Turks could help point out where the VT-4 could improve and sell subsystems where needed to bring out the full potential of this design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

FuturePAF said:


> The VT-4 needs to be evaluated as a long term solution, testing it to the same standards you would the Ukrainian Oplot or the Turkish Altay. In Fact the Turks could help point out where the VT-4 could improve and sell subsystems where needed to bring out the full potential of this design.


Altay is now looking for a proper engine package. The first batch was supposed to install German MTU engines, but the deal cancelled after Turkey-German relationship deteriorate. They might ask for help from UK or Ukraine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

FuturePAF said:


> The VT-4 needs to be evaluated as a long term solution, testing it to the same standards you would the Ukrainian Oplot or the Turkish Altay. In Fact the Turks could help point out where the VT-4 could improve and sell subsystems where needed to bring out the full potential of this design.


LOL.. Typical backward mentality where they think China is backward and needs Turkish advice. VT-4 is much higher standard than Altay and Oplot M. No joke. please do more research on VT-4 before making silly comment.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beethoven

Beast said:


> LOL.. Typical backward mentality where they think China is backward and needs Turkish advice. VT-4 is much higher standard than Altay and Oplot M. No joke. please do more research on VT-4 before making silly comment.


please try to understand nobody is degrading china or its products that it is completely obsolete....just some minor modifications to adjust the tank according to the requirements laid out by the pakistan army...so you see nothing to get worked up about

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

araz said:


> You asked what wrong you did? Please review your last couple of posts and tell me whether they are a good discussion or just angry posts from a child.
> There must have been something wrong with BOTH engines as both broke down. PA sent both back for upgrades and retesting as is standard approach. For example the Abrahms M1 tank failed trials in Bhawalpur in 1988. These things happen as engines are designed with your terrain in mind and they are tested in harsher terrain and break down. One just does not start ranting nationalistic mumbo jumbo but accepts the fact that these tanks have been given a second chance with improvements to satisfy PA which signifies they are mostly good tanks with minor problems which need adjusting or rectifying.
> A
> 
> 
> Great post. We have nothing to argue about here.
> A


There is no evidence of engine break down from VT-4 trial conducted by PA. This is confirmed by Chinese representative involved in VT-4 with Pakistan. There are simply too many fake news spreading around with regards to Chinese military hardware especially non Chinese website.

Prove me wrong and show hard concrete of VT-4 engine failed during the initial trial. Pls no heardsay or fake sources. Or even FB source, they are nothing but smearing.



Beethoven said:


> please try to understand nobody is degrading china or its products that it is completely obsolete....just some minor modifications to adjust the tank according to the requirements laid out by the pakistan army...so you see nothing to get worked up about


That is not what most claimed. They claim the engine of VT-4 failed during the trial while they cant back their words with evidence. I have my source from Chinese wesbite and the trial is so far going great with no report of any engine or system breaks down. They are simply too many misinfo and fake news about Chinese military hardware circulating. I am just speaking the truth for VT-4. Its more like you all just cant believe VT-4 is a great tank. I am not asking too much for just a concrete evidence, right?

Its more of those slayer just beating around the bush to avoid providing evidence while cant back any of their lies?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BERKEKHAN2

Muhammad Omar said:


> I thought Oplot P was selected and we have placed an order of 100 Oplot P


Source please


----------



## araz

Beast said:


> There is no evidence of engine break down from VT-4 trial conducted by PA. This is confirmed by Chinese representative involved in VT-4 with Pakistan. There are simply too many fake news spreading around with regards to Chinese military hardware especially non Chinese website.
> 
> Prove me wrong and show hard concrete of VT-4 engine failed during the initial trial. Pls no heardsay or fake sources. Or even FB source, they are nothing but smearing.
> 
> 
> That is not what most claimed. They claim the engine of VT-4 failed during the trial while they cant back their words with evidence. I have my source from Chinese wesbite and the trial is so far going great with no report of any engine or system breaks down. They are simply too many misinfo and fake news about Chinese military hardware circulating. I am just speaking the truth for VT-4.


OK.
Just annswsr one thing. Why are the tanls back for retrial?
A

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

Beast said:


> LOL.. Typical backward mentality where they think China is backward and needs Turkish advice. VT-4 is much higher standard than Altay and Oplot M. No joke. please do more research on VT-4 before making silly comment.



The Turks and the Ukrainians are currently at war, their tanks have been engaged against modern ATGMs. The have learns lessons at the cost of the lives of their soldiers. The Turks also are operating in terrain similar to us, they have experience from their Israeli upgraded tanks; which survived an ATGM hit.

http://john1911.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Turkish-M-60T-Damage-864x362.jpg

I am speaking pragmatically. In fact I said the VT-4 needs to be judged at the same level as the Turkish and Ukrainian Tanks. The Turks may have a better understanding as to hot to use or place or redesign their soft and hard kill systems. Armor technologies and what composition really helps against these projectiles. 

My comment was not meant as any disrespect to the hard working Chinese engineers that have made the VT-4, but learn and improving based on current battlefield engagements make a better tank. Knowledge that can benefit both Pakistan and China.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

FuturePAF said:


> The Turks and the Ukrainians are currently at war, their tanks have been engaged against modern ATGMs. The have learns lessons at the cost of the lives of their soldiers. The Turks also are operating in terrain similar to us, they have experience from their Israeli upgraded tanks; which survived an ATGM hit.
> 
> http://john1911.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Turkish-M-60T-Damage-864x362.jpg
> 
> I am speaking pragmatically. In fact I said the VT-4 needs to be judged at the same level as the Turkish and Ukrainian Tanks. The Turks may have a better understanding as to hot to use or place or redesign their soft and hard kill systems. Armor technologies and what composition really helps against these projectiles.
> 
> My comment was not meant as any disrespect to the hard working Chinese engineers that have made the VT-4, but learn and improving based on current battlefield engagements make a better tank. Knowledge that can benefit both Pakistan and China.



VT-4 handling





vs

leopard A4





vs 

M1A2 handling

See how different in terms of handling just between both tank. Russian T-90 tank still do not have automatic gears. This is just on handling. We still can touch on network and battle awareness plus fire control which VT-4 will be another level. VT-4 is designed to engage low level flying gunship.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## FuturePAF

The Issue for me is not the engine. The Chinese engines are reliable. It potential shortfalls in Armour technologies and defensive systems. Here is a blog outlining lessons learned from the current war in Syria. Proof are the outlines of Armour technologies by various countries and we have video and pictures showing how these tanks stood up to getting hit. these are the lessons we need to incorporate into to any design, before our solders pay for these lessons to be learned first hand with their lives.

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/

an example of something i just saw from reading these blogs in the optics need to be shield as soon as a projectile launch is detected towards the tank. maybe a quick closing steel panel. if a projectile doesn't penetrate it might have the ability to destroy the sensitive optics. protecting the optics can keep a tank battle worthy.

tank not penetrated; optics destroyed
http://i.imgur.com/yW15fRT.png
http://john1911.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Turkish-M-60T-Damage-864x362.jpg

the abrams has it
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams/photos/Australian_M1A1_Abrams_tank.jpg

VT-4 has a panel that can come down over the optics, I see thaat, but from lessons learned on the battlefield that design can be improved slightly and we get a much more surviviable tank based on real world conditions

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

FuturePAF said:


> The Issue for me is not the engine. The Chinese engines are reliable. It potential shortfalls in Armour technologies and defensive systems. Here is a blog outlining lessons learned from the current war in Syria. Proof are the outlines of Armour technologies by various countries and we have video and pictures showing how these tanks stood up to getting hit. these are the lessons we need to incorporate into to any design, before our solders pay for these lessons to be learned first hand with their lives.
> 
> https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/
> 
> an example of something i just saw from reading these blogs in the optics need to be shield as soon as a projectile launch is detected towards the tank. maybe a quick closing steel panel. if a projectile doesn't penetrate it might have the ability to destroy the sensitive optics. protecting the optics can keep a tank battle worthy.



As opposed to what you claim, armour technology and defensive systems are both the strong point of VT-4. You will be surprised China these 2 areas are have even surpassed western. Its shall be a surprised to you, right?

The best is VT-4 is not even the best that Chinese has. Type99A2 has the hardest armour for a tank but its not for sale.






Look at the number of the ignorant comment on the youtube about VT-4. It just like PDF where most are ignorant and still think China is some backward countries that cant make better tank than others. Its not suprised most are so easily duped into believing VT-4 engine failed in the Trial.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

Beast said:


> As opposed to what you claim, armour technology and defensive systems are both the strong point of VT-4. You will be surprised China these 2 areas are have even surpassed western. Its shall be a surprised to you, right?
> 
> The best is VT-4 is not even the best that Chinese has. Type99A2 has the hardest armour for a tank but its not for sale.



Frankly, I don't know. It needs to be evaluated as per the conditions it will face in the real world. real world conditions are being seen in countries like Syria and Ukraine. we are being offered the VT-4, so we need to know how that armor will do, not the armor of the Type 99A2.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fu78J4DC9Io/WBdYhdvjfDI/AAAAAAAAAR8/DjjJAlzDUysED5VOzTVII1gY_FQ1_wIlwCLcB/s1600/Panzerung+Type+85+96+Al+Khalid.png

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ggGzksjVIak/WBdYhUG1GpI/AAAAAAAAASA/TYM7xu9vRww5l0w8nSaQ_luP0tHZCvHKwCEw/s1600/Panzerung+Type+85+96+Al+Khalid+1.png

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W4xwMZFm...QIierE2Md93WNzhAVwaHmVyQCLcB/s1600/PzbJN2.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yt3akiGx...5f_5Z2ESafAYQCLcB/s1600/Type85IIAP_turret.jpg

--------
please respond to the short coming listed in the following article. this is the core of my argument, we are being offered the VT-4, not the Type 99A2. we NEED to know it will work. our national survival could be at stake. we can't afford to ignore the issues raised the the link below.

Source: https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/11/chinese-tank-composite-armor.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Maxpane

Zarvan said:


>


wooow


----------



## HannibalBarca

Why some direspectful members are given Free audience and total impunity for their words on this thread?
Again and Again...
Every Thinking that doesn't suit theirs... are answered with utter Disrespect for the other side?
And that's in EVERY THREAD they engage in... to anyone...
it's becoming CANCEROUS to even exchange on subject when they are around...
Please do smthing for the next time...or now.

Best Regards,
@The Eagle

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

IceCold said:


> @Dazzler I thought Pakistan produced some good quality tanks. Last time it was the lack of funds due to which many things were not incorporated in the Al-Khalids. So my question is if we have funds to look for a foreign tank, why not inject those funds in our local industry i.e Al-Khalids and take them to what was initially envisaged?



AK is a great asset in our battlefield and incorporates cutting edge technology. The worrying part is low production rate and insufficient budget. Buying from others similar systems means obsolete fleet can be replaced quickly.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Signalian

GL-5 ACtive protection system

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

Signalian said:


> GL-5 ACtive protection system





That APC launched two large projectiles and neither came close to hitting the target.


----------



## Signalian

Ulla said:


> My friend nobody of our real Pakistani Members in PDF dares to write or say anything bad against China, I think you misunderstood Dazzler, you are a respected Member which I follow, but that's the same case for Dazzler, let's all behave like Brothers and gentlemen! Pakistan China First right?


The replacements for T-59/69 and then T-85 could be coming in the form of VT-4. That would be 4-5 different types of MBT's again in service. AK, AK-II, AZ, T-80 and VT-4. AK and AK-1 have many similarities and if Oplot is chosen, it will have similarities with T-80. 
IA T-72 and T-90 have some similarities and will be the most fielded after Arjun/Arjun I.



Gryphon said:


> I hope we don't fall into the Ukrainian trap again - affordable tanks and too expensive after sales support.
> Just put the T-80UD through a major upgrade program. Currently, 1 T-80UD has been upgraded with latest ERA Duplet.


ERA should be a stop gap. An active protection system, though costly, should be pursued, preferably a home grown system. Trophy APS is said to be proven in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fieldmarshal

Only one" foreign" tank will be bought by PA.
The major requirement of PA will be filled by Al-Khalid 1/2.
N for this purpose HIT is completely being retooled n upgraded. It will in a few montly will have the capability to built 50 mbt in a year.
For the first time in the history of HIT in 2017 it manufactured 25 mbt.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## saracen

Zarvan said:


>


Wao! VT-4 interior is jam packed with electronic systems. PA would need PAF quality operators and maintenance guys to use such amazing pieces of Chinese engineering. I am proud to see how quickly our Chinese brothers have advanced in all defence areas.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## X.I.X

*These war machines are there for a reason and the reason you all know better....*

*PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

PAK ARMY PAINDABAD*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beethoven

VT-4 or Oplot....may the best tank win...


----------



## 帅的一匹

ptldM3 said:


> That APC launched two large projectiles and neither came close to hitting the target.


It was not supposed to hit the target, but detonate the target by explosion.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cabatli_53

Similar to T-129 Atak trials, Altay tanks should be sent to Pakistan to test all functions in Pakistani harsh conditions. Nothing can be proven with looking paper specifications. The last video introduces something new about Altay on field.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Jinn Baba said:


> Again, why the F are military personnel releasing such pics on social media!!!?  is there no discipline left in the military?


valid observation. specially any postings by military personnel on facebook or other social media help the hostile agencies to build profiles or gather indirect information. this must be strictly enforced. 
about this particular picture same principle, any pictures should be officially sanctioned until the transfer is complete.



Imran Khan said:


> NOTHING is so secrets these days sir .


it doesn't warrant public sharing. why making the job of hostile forces easy is necessary because nothing is a secret? the satellite top down pictures cant be an alternative to these closeups.

sharing pictures and stories on the social media gives much more than what is apparent. if the vehicles in the background were closer then the pictures can be enhanced to get the formation signs and I can write an essay on what additional information one can get from that. what is in the picture, nature of the force and what is NOT there and why.
area of deployment, name of the formation. its current status, why it is testing it? if its location is confirmed in this place then its not in its normal area of operation and can be ruled out in a different sector in a near (time wise) conflict.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## TsAr

Dazzler said:


> There is no official proof. Take it or leave it. And M1A1 also failed in the same desert region some 30 years ago and was rejected.


Dazzler or anyone else could kindly explain that why did the US Abram failed in Bahawalpur desert, whereas saudia and kuwait owns and operates them and these countries are also extremely hot....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GriffinsRule

Anyone can shed light on whether the Karachi Steel Mills is operating at least in a partial capacity or not?
With projects like ship, submarine and tank manufacturing, different types of high quality steel is required but if we are not producing the raw material inhouse, none of these projects will be impactful in the long run for Pakistans development.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

TsAr said:


> Dazzler or anyone else could kindly explain that why did the US Abram failed in Bahawalpur desert, whereas saudia and kuwait owns and operates them and these countries are also extremely hot....



I think the conditions in Indo-Pak border areas are different than the ones there. Foreign OEMs have trouble in thar as well, specific times can cause different results alone.


----------



## Signalian

TsAr said:


> Dazzler or anyone else could kindly explain that why did the US Abram failed in Bahawalpur desert, whereas saudia and kuwait owns and operates them and these countries are also extremely hot....



Listen at 36:00, one of the reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

TsAr said:


> Dazzler or anyone else could kindly explain that why did the US Abram failed in Bahawalpur desert, whereas saudia and kuwait owns and operates them and these countries are also extremely hot....


Kuwait is grateful for US saving them from Iraq Invasion. So even the tank is defect, they are obliged to buy certain from US. Saudi closed r/s with US during those times make them close one eye on another thing bought from US.

Something a lot of military deal involves politics and nothing to do with merit. I saw a lot of make up youtube video by American self glorifying their M1A2 abrams tank with absolute no merit. How can a overweight 72tons tank which consume gasoline like no tomorrow is the world best tank? Most of the additional weight is to make space for the loader and nothing to do with thicker armour. US tank are overhype, weight and underpowered. It is a logistic nightmare to handle. It can never be the best tank. 

Look at how mediocre it perform against Yemen by Saudi.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

Zarvan said:


>


Why I can't see these pictures bro?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## razgriz19

Beast said:


> Kuwait is grateful for US saving them from Iraq Invasion. So even the tank is defect, they are obliged to buy certain from US. Saudi closed r/s with US during those times make them close one eye on another thing bought from US.
> 
> Something a lot of military deal involves politics and nothing to do with merit. I saw a lot of make up youtube video by American self glorifying their M1A2 abrams tank with absolute no merit. How can a overweight 72tons tank which consume gasoline like no tomorrow is the world best tank? Most of the additional weight is to make space for the loader and nothing to do with thicker armour. US tank are overhype, weight and underpowered. It is a logistic nightmare to handle. It can never be the best tank.
> 
> Look at how mediocre it perform against Yemen by Saudi.


US Army Abrams differ from the ones exported to countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## razgriz19

Its time we invest in active protection for tanks and APCs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## royalharris

Beast said:


> Kuwait is grateful for US saving them from Iraq Invasion. So even the tank is defect, they are obliged to buy certain from US. Saudi closed r/s with US during those times make them close one eye on another thing bought from US.
> 
> Something a lot of military deal involves politics and nothing to do with merit. I saw a lot of make up youtube video by American self glorifying their M1A2 abrams tank with absolute no merit. How can a overweight 72tons tank which consume gasoline like no tomorrow is the world best tank? Most of the additional weight is to make space for the loader and nothing to do with thicker armour. US tank are overhype, weight and underpowered. It is a logistic nightmare to handle. It can never be the best tank.
> 
> Look at how mediocre it perform against Yemen by Saudi.



The sale of military equipment was originally a continuation of international politics

At present, the Western influence dominates the current international community, and controls the media. The western countries have a higher volume of arms sales. The Western military equipment is too exaggerated, which is a normal phenomenon.

But the Chinese people themselves, first of all, have to be confident, and at the same time, they should objectively judge the shortcomings of the existence.
For the last 100 years, China has been in a backward state for most of the time, and self-confidence is the most missing part of the people.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

razgriz19 said:


> US Army Abrams differ from the ones exported to countries.



Same I can say about the T-72 used by Iraq against US. No.. Hater will claimed the T-72 used by Iraq is high tech and best and yet easily beaten by US Abram tank... See the Ironic where one rules apply to one but not others.

Dont be delusion that the abram tank received by Saudi is as good as just a T-54A. They are degraded but not by alot. If you are so hype by American product, go ahead and live in your fantasy.



royalharris said:


> The sale of military equipment was originally a continuation of international politics
> 
> At present, the Western influence dominates the current international community, and controls the media. The western countries have a higher volume of arms sales. The Western military equipment is too exaggerated, which is a normal phenomenon.
> 
> But the Chinese people themselves, first of all, have to be confident, and at the same time, they should objectively judge the shortcomings of the existence.


Precisely, alot of wrong perception and smearing are against the Chinese from politics to products. It no surprise, people are easily duped into believing serving an agenda.

The only thing the current western society is good at is spreading misinform.

Let me give you an example, during SL civil war. A SL AF F-7 armed with Chinese PL-5E missile failed to knock out the Tamil Tiger Cessena. Nothing to do with China made product but bad perception from SL pilot. Becos they think Chinese missile is definitely inferior than western French made Magic missile and needs more lock on time and therefore they delay firing the missile even it has already lock on. SL AF chief is angry and ask the technical expert from China to explain. When the expert find out these things. He give a good laugh and ask the SL fighter pilot to pull the trigger immediately next time the Chinese missile lock onto target. The SL fighter pilot decide to do what the Chinese missile expert told him and the rest is history.

Same is happening here in PDF where plenty of fake make up story bragging about first time experience claiming how bad China weapon is trying to dupe others into believing the smearing. Then they will make up fake story bragging how good western weapon and superior their product is, saying it as good as gold. 

I am sick of so many of these fake story.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Hey if VT4 fits the bill then why not???


Beast said:


> Same I can say about the T-72 used by Iraq against US. No.. Hater will claimed the T-72 used by Iraq is high tech and best and yet easily beaten by US Abram tank... See the Ironic where one rules apply to one but not others.
> 
> Dont be delusion that the abram tank received by Saudi is as good as just a T-54A. They are degraded but not by alot. If you are so hype by American product, go ahead and live in your fantasy.
> 
> 
> Precisely, alot of wrong perception and smearing are against the Chinese from politics to products. It no surprise, people are easily duped into believing serving an agenda.
> 
> The only thing the current western society is good at is spreading misinform.
> 
> Let me give you an example, during SL civil war. A SL AF F-7 armed with Chinese PL-5E missile failed to knock out the Tamil Tiger Cessena. Nothing to do with China made product but bad perception from SL pilot. Becos they think Chinese missile is definitely inferior than western French made Magic missile and needs more lock on time and therefore they delay firing the missile even it has already lock on. SL AF chief is angry and ask the technical expert from China to explain. When the expert find out these things. He give a good laugh and ask the SL fighter pilot to pull the trigger immediately next time the Chinese missile lock onto target. The SL fighter pilot decide to do what the Chinese missile expert told him and the rest is history.
> 
> Same is happening here in PDF where plenty of fake make up story bragging about first time experience claiming how bad China weapon is trying to dupe others into believing the smearing. Then they will make up fake story bragging how good western weapon and superior their product is, saying it as good as gold.
> 
> I am sick of so many of these fake story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Hey if VT4 fits the bill then why not???


It is currently in the trial.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gryphon

Signalian said:


> The replacements for T-59/69 and then T-85 could be coming in the form of VT-4. That would be 4-5 different types of MBT's again in service. AK, AK-II, AZ, T-80 and VT-4. AK and AK-1 have many similarities and if Oplot is chosen, it will have similarities with T-80.



T-59, T-69, T-85 and AK/AK-1 share many commonalities, as mentioned below. And probably, VT-4 and AK series/MBT 2000 have similarities as well.








Signalian said:


> ERA should be a stop gap. An active protection system, though costly, should be pursued, preferably a home grown system. Trophy APS is said to be proven in combat.



A hard kill APS, not the 'soft' ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

GriffinsRule said:


> Anyone can shed light on whether the Karachi Steel Mills is operating at least in a partial capacity or not?


I think its closed ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Inception-06

razgriz19 said:


> Its time we invest in active protection for tanks and APCs




Our APC haven't even smoke grenades, many MBT at the Afghan Border lack ERA and smoke grenades! First, we have to fill this gap !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Gryphon said:


> T-59, T-69, T-85 and AK/AK-1 share many commonalities, as mentioned below. And probably, VT-4 and AK series/MBT 2000 have similarities as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hard kill APS, not the 'soft' ones.



Type59 and Type69 dont share anything with MBT-2000 or AK-1. Just looking at the chasis , you know they are different things.

VT-4 is a new generation of tank compare to MBT-2000. The powerpack, lay out and combat system is a generation ahead of MBT-2000

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> Type59 and Type69 dont share anything with MBT-2000 or AK-1. Just looking at the chasis , you know they are different things.
> 
> VT-4 is a new generation of tank compare to MBT-2000. The powerpack, lay out and combat system is a generation ahead of MBT-2000


万事随缘


----------



## Beast

VT-4 powerpack is one piece just like western tank which means it can be swapped out and replace in less than an hour unlike old MBT-2000 where powerpack is spreadout. Making replacement of engine lengthy and can be completed only in half a day. (Do take note Ukraine Oplot M tank powerpack cannot be swapped out in less than an hour. Once the engine is out , it will need to be towed back and need at least a day to get the engine working again)

Handling a VT-4 is a simple as driving a car. Handling is important in combat as you need to evade shot and position quickly to counter attack.

VT-4 has 3+1 system. Attack, Defense, Mobility + Information Technology. Full network to whole combat system. Fast sharing information and share the same whole picture with other units.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

Gryphon said:


> T-59, T-69, T-85 and AK/AK-1 share many commonalities, as mentioned below. And probably, VT-4 and AK series/MBT 2000 have similarities as well.
> A hard kill APS, not the 'soft' ones.


You do know i'm talking from operational point of view. For old tanks its the different gun and then the engine, transmission, tracks etc. Then there are different specs in different types, like no mention of IBMS apart from AK series.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HannibalBarca

wanglaokan said:


> Why I can't see these pictures bro?


That's maybe of the China Wall... it's twitter image...
You know free speech blocker and such... 

If you are out of China..;then tht's another problem...


----------



## Gryphon

Signalian said:


> You do know i'm talking from operational point of view. For old tanks its the different gun and then the engine, transmission, tracks etc. Then there are different specs in different types, like no mention of IBMS apart from AK series.



There are hundreds of components used in a tank, besides the engine and transmission. The book excerpt I posted just mentions that. I didn't mean to say they have the same engine or gun.
Still, there are commonalities between the AZ and AK series tanks like the 125mm gun which HIT manufactures.

GIDS offers an IBMS, and I see no reason why it can't be installed on new tanks acquired from China/Ukraine. Regards.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## princefaisal

Beast said:


> Its not about fail to face reality but simply too many nonsense and fake info floating around. Z-10 never has any engine problem. This rumour of Z-10 underpowered first started by CMF when they claim a redesigned of exhaust is due to US embargo of turboshaft to China... Therefore they redesigned the exhaust area to give more power to the underpowered engine. LOL... This reason is another no brainer. Why would PLA design their latest gunship with dependent on an engine that has no change to be sold to China since with US embargo enforced?
> 
> The truth is the redesign of exhaust got to do with muting the high level of noise of the engine so that Z-10 can be more stealthy when carrying out low level penetration and has more element of surprised. Nothing to do with BS underpowered nonsense. Check out the video of Z-10 low level fly pass during pakistan parade. You will know how quiet Z-10 is. This is critical especially in night low level attack where enemy will be too late to know your presence if the noise they produced is very low.


Z-10 stealth design seems better than T129.


----------



## MadDog

wanglaokan said:


> Calm down, Oplot M failed some of the test as well. It's a business between Pakistan and China, not you and Dazzler.



Exactly, In 1980s even M1 Abrams failed trials in Bahawalpur Desert Region due to extremly high temperatures. Simmilarly, Pakistan also demanded improvements for Oplot M after trials. Now improved VT4 is back for trials. Even Indian T-90s face technical difficulties in that desert region. It has extremly high temperatures. @Beast

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PDFChamp

IHS Janes:

Land Platforms
*Images suggest Pakistan Army may be testing Norinco VT4 MBT*
*Samuel Cranny-Evans* - Jane's Defence Weekly
08 January 2018
Images have emerged on Chinese social media suggesting that the Pakistan Army (PA) may be testing the China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) VT4 main battle tank (MBT). Published on 6 January the photographs show PA personnel inspecting a VT4 platform at an undisclosed location.

The VT4 is a third-generation MBT offered for export by Norinco. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the PA, although it retains the 125 mm main gun, carousel auto-loader, and crew configuration of the older vehicle.






The PA may be testing AVIC's VT4 MBT (seen here). (Via cjdby.net)

Among the key differentiating features are the thermal-imaging capabilities and panoramic sights of the VT4, which enhance the vehicle’s ability to operate at night or in poorly lit environments.

To read the full article, Client Login


----------



## 帅的一匹

PDFChamp said:


> IHS Janes:
> 
> Land Platforms
> *Images suggest Pakistan Army may be testing Norinco VT4 MBT*
> *Samuel Cranny-Evans* - Jane's Defence Weekly
> 08 January 2018
> Images have emerged on Chinese social media suggesting that the Pakistan Army (PA) may be testing the China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) VT4 main battle tank (MBT). Published on 6 January the photographs show PA personnel inspecting a VT4 platform at an undisclosed location.
> 
> The VT4 is a third-generation MBT offered for export by Norinco. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the PA, although it retains the 125 mm main gun, carousel auto-loader, and crew configuration of the older vehicle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PA may be testing AVIC's VT4 MBT (seen here). (Via cjdby.net)
> 
> Among the key differentiating features are the thermal-imaging capabilities and panoramic sights of the VT4, which enhance the vehicle’s ability to operate at night or in poorly lit environments.
> 
> To read the full article, Client Login


It's design based on T99A2.


----------



## Awan68

TsAr said:


> Dazzler or anyone else could kindly explain that why did the US Abram failed in Bahawalpur desert, whereas saudia and kuwait owns and operates them and these countries are also extremely hot....


PA is a professional army with high end war doctrines and attention to little details connected with quality strategy and manoveours. The Saudis u mentioned are a rag tag .militia with fancy toys, they dont know the first thing about taking a machine to its full potential.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

The most important is VT4 has Battlefield situational awareness system. a key to find out your enemy before they lock on you.

The development of China and former Soviet Union countries' tanks are leading to different path, and Defenitely China is a big fan of American tank and more interested in information battlefield.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## YeBeWarned

wanglaokan said:


> The most important is VT4 has Battlefield situational awareness system. a key to find out your enemy before they lock on you.



If PA decides to ditch Ukraine for Chinese MBT ( Al-Haider ) project, i will say go fot T-99A if available .. Is China manufacturing any 1500 HP engine for MBT ? if yes which one ? and is it available for export ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Starlord said:


> If PA decides to ditch Ukraine for Chinese MBT ( Al-Haider ) project, i will say go fot T-99A if available .. Is China manufacturing any 1500 HP engine for MBT ? if yes which one ? and is it available for export ?


Domestic CH1000 integrated engine compartment, can provide both 1300HP and 1500HP. For Pakistan, yes!





Man, Pakistan don't have to ditch Oplot M for VT4. You can make it both. Or using VT4 tech to improve AK tanks.

Thailand royal army had both Oplot M and VT4.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yukihime

Just wondering about the current purchase cost for Al-khalid/MBT2000 in PA...
I read on some sayings it's actually around $4.0M, but need further confirmation, so anyone?

Also seems there are reports that main stream of PA is made of various modded T59s waiting to be replaced with appropriate options , while MBT2000s are mostly used by elite forces.
Considering a total number of 1200 tanks, would the old vs new ratio be close to 5:1 ?


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

wanglaokan said:


> Domestic CH1000 integrated engine compartment, can provide both 1300HP and 1500HP. For Pakistan, yes!
> 
> View attachment 447089
> 
> Man, Pakistan don't have to ditch Oplot M for VT4. You can make it both. Or using VT4 tech to improve AK tanks.
> 
> Thailand royal army had both Oplot M and VT4.
> 
> View attachment 447096



Thanks. and bro we don't need two different tanks , we already Operate T-80, T-85II , AK, AK I and Al-Zarrar .. we need another Tank for Al Haider Project , while the AK II is taking shape .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## luciferdd

Starlord said:


> Thanks. and bro we don't need two different tanks , we already Operate T-80, T-85II , AK, AK I and Al-Zarrar .. we need another Tank for Al Haider Project , while the AK II is taking shape .


I'm afraid that you know littles about VT4,in fact its unit price is nearly 6 million USDs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awan68

Starlord said:


> Thanks. and bro we don't need two different tanks , we already Operate T-80, T-85II , AK, AK I and Al-Zarrar .. we need another Tank for Al Haider Project , while the AK II is taking shape .


Two tanks from two diff countries can be a swift way to upgrade our inventory, with production lines running in two diff countries i.e ukarine n china, we can replace our tank inventory in half the time it would take if we just opt for one option. Tanks are not ultra expensive to mantain like aircraft hence we can support vareity in this dept. Lets say an order of 200 vt 4's and 200 oplot p's will replace 400 obselete tanks quickly, with options of extending the order by 100 more each in the future, the Ak 2 production line can run simultaenously i.e 50 tanks per year. In this way we can add 650 4th gen tanks to our inventory in just 5 years. While this is going on we can build on the oplot order platform to get engine tot from ukarine n simultaneously keep upgrading our production lines until we can manufacture 150 tanks per year in house. Than after half a decade, with domestically built engine n a robust production line, we wont ever have to look for tanks outside Pakistan ever again, without compromising existential threat preperations.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## YeBeWarned

Awan68 said:


> Two tanks from two diff countries can be a swift way to upgrade our inventory, with production lines running in two diff countries i.e ukarine n china, we can replace our tank inventory in half the time it would take if we just opt for one option. Tanks are not ultra expensive to mantain like aircraft hence we can support vareity in this dept. Lets say an order of 200 vt 4's and 200 oplot p's will replace 400 obselete tanks quickly, with options of extending the order by 100 more each in the future, the Ak 2 production line can run simultaenously i.e 50 tanks per year. In this way we can add 650 4th gen tanks to our inventory in just 5 years. While this is going on we can build on the oplot order platform to get engine tot from ukarine n simultaneously keep upgrading our production lines until we can manufacture 150 tanks per year in house. Than after half a decade, with domestically built engine n a robust production line, we wont ever have to look for tanks outside Pakistan ever again, without compromising existential threat preperations.



It will be a logistical nightmare, Al-Zarrar's were upgraded not long ago and they have quite good life left in them , Pakistan should have go for either Oplot P or T-99A's with a 1500 HP engine .. we need to replace a lot of old tanks but two different similar tanks ( Same Generation ) will be a waste of Money , you know that AK1 is almost as capable as VT-4 and any other tank .. AK-2 is going to be next Generation tank 



luciferdd said:


> I'm afraid that you know littles about VT4,in fact its unit price is nearly 6 million USDs.



I accept that i know very little about VT-4 but i do know that reasonable thing is to either pick Oplot P or VT-4 , not both ..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Awan68

Starlord said:


> It will be a logistical nightmare, Al-Zarrar's were upgraded not long ago and they have quite good life left in them , Pakistan should have go for either Oplot P or T-99A's with a 1500 HP engine .. we need to replace a lot of old tanks but two different similar tanks ( Same Generation ) will be a waste of Money , you know that AK1 is almost as capable as VT-4 and any other tank .. AK-2 is going to be next Generation tank
> 
> 
> 
> I accept that i know very little about VT-4 but i do know that reasonable thing is to either pick Oplot P or VT-4 , not both ..


If we can cope up with logistics than choosing two tanks is the only way to upgrade our inventory quickly, by ur way it will take 10-15 yrs before we could field 2k 4 gen tanks by which time 4 gen may become obselete. To catch up with the modern world in defence tech we would've to face and cope up with logistical nightmares. No easy way around it. Jazba e Emaani is all well n good but i want to see a day when we field better equipment than our foe's in battle for a change. Logistics are a major, major factor in the domain of aircraft simply due to the fact that they are too damn expensive to build and mantain but in less capital intensive fields like MBT's we should be able to face logistics. Dont just think on expense alone, look at the bright side of the knowledge capital and experience our local industry would gain by mantaining 2 foriegn tanks and 1 local one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Awan68 said:


> If we can cope up with logistics than choosing two tanks is the only way to upgrade our inventory quickly, by ur way it will take 10-15 yrs before we could field 2k 4 gen tanks by which time 4 gen may become obselete. To catch up with the modern world in defence tech we would've to face and cope up with logistical nightmares. No easy way around it. Jazba e Emaani is all well n good but i want to see a day when we field better equipment than our foe's in battle for a change. Logistics are a major, major factor in the domain of aircraft simply due to the fact that they are too damn expensive to build and mantain but in less capital intensive fields like MBT's we should be able to face logistics. Dont just think on expense alone, look at the bright side of the knowledge capital and experience our local industry would gain by mantaining 2 foriegn tanks and 1 local one.



Dude, who will pay ? that is just one problem .. why you want 3 same generation tanks ? buying VT-4 or Oplot P but in larger numbers with as much as ToT we can get from either will be best , replace these ~400 tanks with AK-1 and one from the above ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

Yukihime said:


> Just wondering about the current purchase cost for Al-khalid/MBT2000 in PA...
> I read on some sayings it's actually around $4.0M, but need further confirmation, so anyone?
> 
> Also seems there are reports that main stream of PA is made of various modded T59s waiting to be replaced with appropriate options , while MBT2000s are mostly used by elite forces.
> Considering a total number of 1200 tanks, would the old vs new ratio be close to 5:1 ?



If the money can be found; older tanks like the T-59 should be turned into IFVs: similar to the Israeli Achzarit: with a 30 mm cannon and anti-tank missiles; mobility, firepower, and protection for troops; a good replacement from the m113 and mostly all "in house". 
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weap...nnel_carriers/achzarit/rcws-30_achzarit_1.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Awan68

Starlord said:


> Dude, who will pay ? that is just one problem .. why you want 3 same generation tanks ? buying VT-4 or Oplot P but in larger numbers with as much as ToT we can get from either will be best , replace these ~400 tanks with AK-1 and one from the above ..


One reason, production lines with just one country will take a lot longer than two running simaltenously in China and Ukraine.


----------



## GriffinsRule

If we were making 50 tank a year, we wouldn't have the issue of a shortage of new tanks we are facing today. 
I feel like the Army threat or risk assessment is such that it is not in a rush for a replacement of lighter tanks hence the go slow approach in the production of Al-Khalid as well as any new replacements.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Signalian said:


> Listen at 36:00, one of the reasons.


His assessment is wrong.

M1 Abrams series MBT are renowned for their accuracy and much more advanced than the Chinese MBT he referred to. A professional should know what he is talking about.

Whatever happened in Bahawalpur - is mostly stories. Even if there was a problem, additional trials did not happen which suggest that PAK - US relations weren't up to the mark at the time.


----------



## Signalian

LeGenD said:


> His assessment is wrong.
> 
> M1 Abrams series MBT are renowned for their accuracy and much more advanced than the Chinese MBT he referred to. A professional should know what he is talking about.
> 
> Whatever happened in Bahawalpur - is mostly stories. Even if there was a problem, additional trials did not happen which suggest that PAK - US relations weren't up to the mark at the time.


You are entitled to your opinion.

I would trust an Army officer's word over a nobody like you, any day.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

Signalian said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> I would trust an Army officer's word over a nobody like you, any day.


I am not a nobody, _kid_.

During the Persian Gulf War (1991), M1A1 Abrams MBT not only performed well in the Arabian desert environments where sand is thin and soft like talcum powder but destroyed Russian (T-72 and T-62) and Chinese (Type 69, Type 59 and Type 55) MBT with ease, even from distances up to 2000 m. Demonstrations in the battlefield take precedence over stories.

M1A1 Abrams is a class apart from Chinese Type 59 MBT in every respect; better than even Russian T-90. One must do his homework irrespective of his profession; a military professional in particular. Pakistani army officers do not have access to M1 series MBT anyways.



Beast said:


> Kuwait is grateful for US saving them from Iraq Invasion. So even the tank is defect, they are obliged to buy certain from US. Saudi closed r/s with US during those times make them close one eye on another thing bought from US.
> 
> Something a lot of military deal involves politics and nothing to do with merit. I saw a lot of make up youtube video by American self glorifying their M1A2 abrams tank with absolute no merit. How can a overweight 72tons tank which consume gasoline like no tomorrow is the world best tank? Most of the additional weight is to make space for the loader and nothing to do with thicker armour. US tank are overhype, weight and underpowered. It is a logistic nightmare to handle. It can never be the best tank.
> 
> Look at how mediocre it perform against Yemen by Saudi.


Right.

M1A2 Abrams MBT has no merit but Chinese VT-4 which is largely untested in combat situations has merit.

I have gone through your posts in this thread; you are being overtly hostile, rude and reactive. I shall be the _first_ to call you out on this. 

Relax and highlight your point-of-view with calm and levelheadedness.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

LeGenD said:


> I am not a nobody, _kid_.
> 
> During the Persian Gulf War (1991), M1A1 Abrams MBT not only performed well in the Arabian desert environments where sand is thin and soft like talcum powder but destroyed Russian (T-72 and T-62) and Chinese (Type 69, Type 59 and Type 55) MBT with ease, even from distances up to 2000 m. Demonstrations in the battlefield take precedence over stories.
> 
> M1A1 Abrams is a class apart from Chinese Type 59 MBT in every respect; better than even Russian T-90. One must do his homework irrespective of his profession; a military professional in particular. Pakistani army officers do not have access to M1 series MBT anyways.


*Definitely, you are a nobody. 
*
The program goes through ISPR's eyes and content is approved, before its screened on national TV, so yes the I trust the Military's word rather a _nobody,_ online poster like yourself. Give the homework lesson to US Army which has much to accomplish in Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

Signalian said:


> *Definitely, you are a nobody.
> *
> The program goes through ISPR's eyes and content is approved, before its screened on national TV, so yes the I trust the Military's word rather a _nobody,_ online poster like yourself. Give the homework lesson to US Army which has much to accomplish in Afghanistan.


ISPR screens it to ensure that nothing sensitive is disclosed to the public. There is nothing sensitive about a trial of an MBT that occurred 30 years ago, IMO.

People like you are the reason this nation is in heightened state of mess and delusions.

I tell you that M1A1 Abrams MBT has performed well in the environments of Middle East and Afghanistan also. It has utterly dominated various Russian and Chinese MBTs in the battlefield, and its accuracy has been praised by critics and proponents alike.

Same officers tell us that Pakistan Army is best which is a patriotic slogan, not reality. We cannot bury our head in the sand.

Accounts of Persian Gulf War (1991) are in the public domain and irrefutable.

You keep thinking that Chinese Type-59 MBT is better than M1A1 Abrams MBT and "Earth is flat."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

China also has very very hot desert area to test MBT, from inner Mogolia to Xinjiang.



LeGenD said:


> ISPR screens it to ensure that nothing sensitive is disclosed to the public. There is nothing sensitive about a trial of an MBT that occurred 30 years ago, IMO.
> 
> People like you are the reason this nation is in heightened state of mess and delusions.
> 
> I tell you that M1A1 Abrams MBT has performed well in the environments of Middle East and Afghanistan also. It has utterly dominated various Russian and Chinese MBTs in the battlefield, and its accuracy has been praised by critics and proponents alike.
> 
> Same officers tell us that Pakistan Army is best which is a patriotic slogan, not reality. We cannot bury our head in the sand.
> 
> Accounts of Persian Gulf War (1991) are in the public domain and irrefutable.
> 
> You keep thinking that Chinese Type-59 MBT is better than M1A1 Abrams MBT and "Earth is flat."


American tanks are working in information battlefield, very strong battlefield situational awareness capability. Even Other country has M1A1 or M1A2, they can't make a full-fledge use of it cause the surrounding here is missing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## KAI KAI Baloch

LeGenD said:


> ISPR screens it to ensure that nothing sensitive is disclosed to the public. There is nothing sensitive about a trial of an MBT that occurred 30 years ago, IMO.
> 
> People like you are the reason this nation is in heightened state of mess and delusions.
> 
> I tell you that M1A1 Abrams MBT has performed well in the environments of Middle East and Afghanistan also. It has utterly dominated various Russian and Chinese MBTs in the battlefield, and its accuracy has been praised by critics and proponents alike.
> 
> Same officers tell us that Pakistan Army is best which is a patriotic slogan, not reality. We cannot bury our head in the sand.
> 
> Accounts of Persian Gulf War (1991) are in the public domain and irrefutable.
> 
> You keep thinking that Chinese Type-59 MBT is better than M1A1 Abrams MBT and "Earth is flat."




I had a discussion with someone who was there during the trials and what he told me was that Abrams were M1 configuration and it had 105mm Gun not the 120mm of M1 A1, hence the firing results were not upto the mark. Secondly the engine at that time was a problem , the gas turbine of the era was unable to go the distance in the soft desert. Thirdly, it was a very heavy tank and our infrastructure of the time was unable to handle such a heavy tank.......
From history it has always been proven US always provides us stuff which is a level behind.... For example when we were inducting f16 block 15 world already saw C/D models coming out........

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Army research

Regarding the M1 Abram which Pakistan trialed, not M1A1, the main reason for rejection ( which an old engineer Corp officer {who ensure mobility of tanks } told me ) was that the infrastructure , our bridges our bridge laying vehicles our pontoon bridges our roads all were not built to accommodate heavy weight tanks like the Abram.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cuirassier

We're looking for a foreign tank for an obvious reason. 
HITs production rate for the AK is abysmal, and we need new 3rd gen tanks ASAP to replace our T59 and T69 regiments. 
I personally see the Oplot as the better contender here, but let's see what our military minds make out of the VT-4.


----------



## niaz

TF141 said:


> We're looking for a foreign tank for an obvious reason.
> HITs production rate for the AK is abysmal, and we need new 3rd gen tanks ASAP to replace our T59 and T69 regiments.
> I personally see the Oplot as the better contender here, but let's see what our military minds make out of the VT-4.





Primary reason for the low production rate of Alkhalid MBT is the scarcity of funds. That tank costs about $5-million each with many parts such as Engine & transmission etc purchased with the US Dollars.

Don't think Oplot or any other tank will be less expensive and therefore the funds constraints would still be there.
IMHO reason for the going for a new tank instead of persisting with the AlKhalid being that Alkhalid is based on MBT2000 concept and Pak Army now desires a more advanced and battle worthy machine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gryphon

*Images suggest Pakistan Army may be testing Norinco VT4 MBT*

*Samuel Cranny-Evans -* Jane's Defence Weekly
08 January 2018






_The PA may be testing AVIC's VT4 MBT (seen here). Source: Via cjdby.net_

Images have emerged on Chinese social media suggesting that the Pakistan Army (PA) may be testing the China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) VT4 main battle tank (MBT). Published on 6 January the photographs show PA personnel inspecting a VT4 platform at an undisclosed location.

The VT4 is a third-generation MBT offered for export by Norinco. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the PA, although it retains the 125 mm main gun, carousel auto-loader, and crew configuration of the older vehicle.

Among the key differentiating features are the thermal-imaging capabilities and panoramic sights of the VT4, which enhance the vehicle’s ability to operate at night or in poorly lit environments. The VT4 is also capable of incorporating a remote weapon station.

Pakistan is known to be in close co-operation with China for the development and acquisition of MBTs, although it is also likely to continue to use other sources, notably Ukraine, for powerpacks and ancillary systems.

Pakistan currently deploys a fleet of Al-Khalid and Type 85-II MBTs, as well as a large quantity of T-80UDs MBTs, the latter which were supplied by Ukraine. The South Asian country is in the process of increasing the size of its armoured vehicle fleet to match that of its regional rival, India, which recently announced plans to convert a large part of its T-72 MBTs fleet to the T-90S standard.

Moreover, an Indian order for 700 T-90S MBTs is expected to be placed in April 2018, which will eventually take the Indian Army’s total number of T-90S platforms to more than 1,500 vehicles, thus placing Pakistan at a distinct numerical disadvantage in terms of modern MBTs.

*Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options at　**ihs.com/contact*


To read the full article, Client Login
(307 of 411 words)

Images suggest Pakistan Army may be testing Norinco VT4 MBT | Jane's Defence Weekly

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

KAI KAI Baloch said:


> I had a discussion with someone who was there during the trials and what he told me was that Abrams were M1 configuration and it had 105mm Gun not the 120mm of M1 A1, hence the firing results were not upto the mark. Secondly the engine at that time was a problem , the gas turbine of the era was unable to go the distance in the soft desert. Thirdly, it was a very heavy tank and our infrastructure of the time was unable to handle such a heavy tank.......
> From history it has always been proven US always provides us stuff which is a level behind.... For example when we were inducting f16 block 15 world already saw C/D models coming out........


Thanks for your valuable insight. Now _that_ makes sense.

I learned from a source that a Pakistani military delegation visited US in 1987 to evaluate M1A1 Abrams MBT and its performance _stunned_ our delegation. This is why Pakistani military expressed its interest in inducting this MBT and a unit was dispatched to Pakistan for trials in Bahawalpur* but Zia-ul-Haq (and his team) perished in an unfortunate event soon after and the ensuing political crises led to cancellation of the deal.

*Yes, it is rare for the US to provide us the _real thing_. Your disclosure suggest that Americans dispatched a noticeably inferior (watered-down) unit for trials in Pakistan. However, outcome of this trial has created a *false impression* in Pakistan that M1A1 Abrams MBT is trash and this belief is utterly misplaced and "dangerous." People are lacking in knowledge about the specifications of the unit that was tested in Pakistan and the vastly superior American designs.

Iraq learned its lesson the hard way in 1991 but it was not in the position to do anything about it. In-fact, performance of US army in this war stunned the entire world including USSR and China. Consequently, Russia embraced the notion of hybrid warfare and China initiated a major modernization drive of its armed forces.

Arabian deserts have sand that is thin and soft like talcum powder (I have seen them in person). This kind of sand easily creeps into sensitive parts of any vehicle and can ruin it. Therefore, it is not wise to drive through Arabian deserts without appropriate measures. In order to utilize M1A1 in this kind of environment, engine of every unit was outfitted with a high quality air filter to prevent "sand ingestion," and problem addressed. At present, both M1A1 and M1A2 variants are outfitted with high quality (self-cleaning) air filters for operations in desert environments across the world.

As far as the accuracy factor is concerned, one needs to examine onboard systems of an M1A1 and Type-59 MBT; difference is like between day and night.

A glimpse of Type-59 MBT from inside:






Glimpses of M1A1 Abrams from inside:










Specifications of M1A1 Abrams in 1985:-

120 mm main gun (M256 Smooth Bore cannon)
Nuclear, biological, and chemical overpressure system
Advanced Chobham armor
Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
Digital ballistic computer
Laser range finder (LRF)
Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)
Onboard malfunction detection system
Compartmented fuel/ammunition
Single channel ground/air radio system (SINGCARS)
You can learn a great deal about M1A1 from this book: https://ospreypublishing.com/m1-abrams-vs-t-72-ural

Thermal imaging capability of M1A1 in 2013:






More importantly, M1 Abrams is a continuously evolving platform.

The latest prototype is known as *M1A2 SEP V3*. Although much of the information about this variant is classified at the moment, I learned a few tidbits and they suggest a cutting-edge machine. Structure is similar to the older M1A1 but virtually everything onboard is revolutionary. This variant might also receive a new generation of ammunition to defeat emerging threats.










Every mounted gun of M1A2 SEP V3 can be controlled from inside when not manned.

German Leopard-II MBT is also becoming cutting-edge.






Another thing is that no matter how advanced a weapon system is, adequate training is a must. Crew must learn how to take advantage of the capabilities of a weapon system.

For example, the (famous) *Battle of 73 Easting* took place during sandstorm conditions:

_By contrast, U.S. troops fought extremely well. At 73 Easting, for example, the 2nd ACR maintained a tight, efficient combat formation throughout an extended approach march, and did so in the midst of a sandstorm, in hostile territory, over unfamiliar terrain, and without significant losses to mechanical breakdown or logistical failure en route. Its crews' gunnery was exceptional, outperforming peacetime proving ground standards for both the M1 and the Bradley. The first three kills by Eagle troop were recorded in three shots by a single M1 over an interval of less than ten seconds. As a whole, 182 of 215, or 85 percent, of the shots fired by 2nd ACR crews struck their targets at ranges of up to 2000 meters, under combat conditions.(76) Similar results were obtained by U.S. forces throughout the KTO._

Source: Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict - The RMA Debate



wanglaokan said:


> American tanks are working in information battlefield, very strong battlefield situational awareness capability. Even Other country has M1A1 or M1A2, they can't make a full-fledge use of it cause the surrounding here is missing.


Yes, this is also a factor. Good point.

I assure you that I have nothing against MBT designs of Russia, Ukraine and China. They are good in their own right and suit our needs.

M1A1 Abrams MBT absolutely outgunned Russian (T-72 and T-62) and Chinese (Type-69, Type-59 and Type-55) MBT in the Persian Gulf War (1991) but this does not imply that Russian and Chinese MBT were/are bad; rather M1A1 was relatively superior in capabilities and safety measures to its contemporaries.

My point is that it is important for people to do their homework and look at the bigger picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GriffinsRule

Like in any profession, there are some people better at their jobs then others. While we have some excellent cadre in the officer corp, not all PA officers are of high caliber. I have met a lot of serving officers, some of them don't even know about other equipment fielded by our own military. Others are far behind in the technical or education realms. So when looking at a source it is always better to be critical of the information being received. This reminds me of a chapter from a book by Brian Cloughley (I think) talking about Zarb-e-momin exercises where he along with some other foreign observers went to see and talk to some of the officers participating. He mentions that at one point an artillery officer said with much pride that they only need to say Allah-o-Akbar in order to hit the enemies with accurate fire, much to the embarrassment of some other senior officers there (im paraphrasing here from memory). But the point is, not everyone is an expert or even very good at their job.
Another point to consider would be that people do spread a lot of misinformation and it can be deliberate for causing confusion or just to be bombastic. Some "facts" are just given for public consumption as well so must be taken with a grain of salt. It can also play into the realm of, everything we have is great and we are the best at using it while whatever the enemy has is crap and they don't know how to use it anyways (we see a lot of this in these forums as well).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WhyCry

OPLOT will be a real contender to the upgraded T90 bhishm from IA (will outmatch most likely).

Conventionally, pakistan leaves a lot to be desired but this would be the decider since they do manage a large army especially Tank regiment compared to their size. PA leaves no stone unturned for themselves in most cases so I think they can purchase OPLOT.

Downside will be that it definitely won't come with ToT which should be acceptable since pakistan has no experience or intentions to make a new one.


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Isn't it time we stop lying because enemy is literally at the gates.


GriffinsRule said:


> Like in any profession, there are some people better at their jobs then others. While we have some excellent cadre in the officer corp, not all PA officers are of high caliber. I have met a lot of serving officers, some of them don't even know about other equipment fielded by our own military. Others are far behind in the technical or education realms. So when looking at a source it is always better to be critical of the information being received. This reminds me of a chapter from a book by Brian Cloughley (I think) talking about Zarb-e-momin exercises where he along with some other foreign observers went to see and talk to some of the officers participating. He mentions that at one point an artillery officer said with much pride that they only need to say Allah-o-Akbar in order to hit the enemies with accurate fire, much to the embarrassment of some other senior officers there (im paraphrasing here from memory). But the point is, not everyone is an expert or even very good at their job.
> Another point to consider would be that people do spread a lot of misinformation and it can be deliberate for causing confusion or just to be bombastic. Some "facts" are just given for public consumption as well so must be taken with a grain of salt. It can also play into the realm of, everything we have is great and we are the best at using it while whatever the enemy has is crap and they don't know how to use it anyways (we see a lot of this in these forums as well).


----------



## KAI KAI Baloch

@LeGenD 
Undoubtedly M1A1 and following series of Abrams are a beauty and i have no objection to admit that its not....... and yes a t59 cannot match an m1A1 abram.... and i believe that during late 80's our target was to have a plant for M1A1 in pakistan but M1 with 105mm (was never our requirment) as t72 was already outgunning with its high caliber gun...... But again as US would have provided the tank without uranium armour (Chobham) as they are doing with iraq and many other countries......
I totally agree with you as there is no comparison in crew safety features and their comfort.... M1A1 is a generation apart..........


----------



## Signalian

@KAI KAI Baloch 

I have had a discussion with this character, Legend, two year back. He digs into 1980's M1 trials at any given opportunity.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/m1-t...istan-separating-facts-from-the-myths.409993/

Goodluck.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

@Signalian

That thread contains ample evidence of sheer naivety and lack of understanding of these matters in Pakistan. Instead of learning, some of you prefer to bury your hand in the sand.

As @KAI KAI Baloch pointed out, the unit that was dispatched for trials in Pakistan was not on par with original M1A1 specifications and Pakistan did not had infrastructure to incorporate it. I am cool with this.

However, it is really foolish to formulate an opinion about the capability of American tanks on the basis of what happened in Pakistan. Much has changed since, and the entire world bear witness to performance of M1A1 in the battlefield and its evolution over the course of years.

An officer asserting that Type-59 is better than M1A1 in an interview, reflects poorly on his awareness and exposure. M1A1 demonstrated complete superiority over Type-59 and other contemporaries in the battlefield in 1991, and this is irrefutable. The wealth of information I provide in my posts is for the purpose of addressing misconceptions and making people aware of actual realities.

If an officer tells you that Earth is flat, will you believe it? Officers are human beings and they tend to be specialized in their roles and use of arms. They don't have a PhD degree or something. Keep this fact in mind.

Learn from the post of @GriffinsRule

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

LeGenD said:


> @Signalian
> 
> That thread contains ample evidence of sheer naivety and lack of understanding of these matters in Pakistan. Instead of learning, some of you prefer to bury your hand in the sand.
> 
> As @KAI KAI Baloch pointed out, the unit that was dispatched for trials in Pakistan was not on par with original M1A1 specifications and Pakistan did not had infrastructure to incorporate it. I am cool with this.
> 
> However, it is really foolish to formulate an opinion about the capability of American tanks on the basis of what happened in Pakistan. Much has changed since, and the entire world bear witness to performance of M1A1 in the battlefield and its evolution over the course of years.
> 
> An officer asserting that Type-59 is better than M1A1 in an interview, reflects poorly on his awareness and exposure. M1A1 demonstrated complete superiority over Type-59 and other contemporaries in the battlefield in 1991, and this is irrefutable. The wealth of information I provide in my posts is for the purpose of addressing misconceptions and making people aware of actual realities.
> 
> If an officer tells you that Earth is flat, will you believe it? Officers are human beings and they tend to be specialized in their roles and use of arms. They don't have a PhD degree or something. Keep this fact in mind.
> 
> Learn from the post of @GriffinsRule



I have read the sheer nonsense in your pointless posts already, similar to the way you tried your utmost to comprehend the trails with no sense of direction 2 years back.
Your obsession with this M1 topic is evident as you are trying your best to derail this VT-4 thread into a new discussion. Also, your lack of understanding of Pakistan Army is reflected by the fact that you are trying to prove a Serving Military officer wrong who gave a statement on National TV.

That military officer is not the only saying that M-1 dismal firing report. The following narratives tell about M1 Abrams missing targets.

In the book, a case of exploding mangoes, the writer gives the whole narrative:





A book by James farwell, The Pakistan cauldron, chapter 8.






@LeGenD

I can dig more out, if i keep searching but i am already satisfied with the word of a military officer. Don't bother me anymore on this topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Gryphon said:


> _AVIC's VT4 MBT_



Say what now, the VT-4 was developed by AVIC? I wonder how it will fare against the *Lockheed* M1 Abrams.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Signalian said:


> I have read the sheer nonsense in your pointless posts already, similar to the way you tried your utmost to comprehend the trails with no sense of direction 2 years back.


This is a "discussion forum." We discuss different matters and attempt to address misconceptions here.



Signalian said:


> Your obsession with this M1 topic is evident as you are trying your best to derail this VT-4 thread into a new discussion. Also, your lack of understanding of Pakistan Army is reflected by the fact that you are trying to prove a Serving Military officer wrong who gave a statement on National TV.
> 
> That military officer is not the only saying that M-1 dismal firing report. The following narratives tell about M1 Abrams missing targets.


I am not trying to derail this topic. I didn't bring M1 related discussion into this thread - some of you were already discussing this matter and I intervened accordingly.

I have a question for you: does that "serving military officer" have any experience with M1A1 Abrams Tanks? Does he?

Do you understand the concept of technologies and physics that come into play in the functioning of weapon systems? Or is it all about deen amaan?

Type-59 is a obsolete design and it failed to defeat a single M1A1 in the Persian Gulf War (1991). Perhaps that "serving military officer" needs to test an M1A1 himself and study military history before he provides his esteemed input. His input is valuable in regards to Tanks of Pakistan army at most but he is not in the position to tell much about Western designs due to lack of exposure. 

Now, one of our members pointed out the realities of the trials in Pakistan. I accepted his account because it makes sense and is not comical.

You keep burying your head in the sand. As I said: "Earth is flat."



Signalian said:


> In the book, a case of exploding mangoes, the writer gives the whole narrative:
> View attachment 447498


This is a work of fiction - a comic novel. 

Take it with a grain of salt.



Signalian said:


> A book by James farwell, The Pakistan cauldron, chapter 8.
> 
> View attachment 447499
> 
> 
> @LeGenD
> 
> I can dig more out, if i keep searching but i am already satisfied with the word of a military officer. Don't bother me anymore on this topic.


I can show you books in which story is different. Again, what is your bloody point?

Ignorance is a dead end.


----------



## Signalian

LeGenD said:


> Now, one of our members pointed out the realities of the trials in Pakistan. I accepted his account because it makes *sense* and is not comical.


Thank you mate, set aside facts/truth/reality but move on "sense", which could be true or false. I have been wasting my time all along. Adios.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

WhyCry said:


> OPLOT will be a real contender to the upgraded T90 bhishm from IA (will outmatch most likely).
> 
> Conventionally, pakistan leaves a lot to be desired but this would be the decider since they do manage a large army especially Tank regiment compared to their size. PA leaves no stone unturned for themselves in most cases so I think they can purchase OPLOT.
> 
> Downside will be that it definitely won't come with ToT which should be acceptable since pakistan has no experience or intentions to make a new one.


T90 can be handled by even the old baseline AK.

Compare the specs and available data.



LeGenD said:


> This is a "discussion forum." We discuss different matters and attempt to address misconceptions here.
> 
> 
> I am not trying to derail this topic. I didn't bring M1 related discussion into this thread - some of you were already discussing this matter and I intervened accordingly.
> 
> I have a question for you: does that "serving military officer" have any experience with M1A1 Abrams Tanks? Does he?
> 
> Do you understand the concept of technologies and physics that come into play in the functioning of weapon systems? Or is it all about deen amaan?
> 
> Type-59 is a obsolete design and it failed to defeat a single M1A1 in the Persian Gulf War (1991). Perhaps that "serving military officer" needs to test an M1A1 himself and study military history before he provides his esteemed input. His input is valuable in regards to Tanks of Pakistan army at most but he is not in the position to tell much about Western designs due to lack of exposure.
> 
> Now, one of our members pointed out the realities of the trials in Pakistan. I accepted his account because it makes sense and is not comical.
> 
> You keep burying your head in the sand. As I said: "Earth is flat."
> 
> 
> This is a work of fiction - a comic novel.
> 
> Take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> 
> I can show you books in which story is different. Again, what is your bloody point?
> 
> Ignorance is a dead end.


The iraqis Military wasnt a professional forve,neither well trained... equipped with Asad e Babil aka monkey models.

The iraqi guards however was a different story and did manage to kill US armor.

However i do agree that time of 59 is gone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> T90 can be handled by even the old baseline AK.
> 
> Compare the specs and available data.
> 
> 
> The iraqis Military wasnt a professional forve,neither well trained... equipped with Asad e Babil aka monkey models.
> 
> The iraqi guards however was a different story and did manage to kill US armor.
> 
> However i do agree that time of 59 is gone.


Bro,

Airstrikes and resultant degradation of communication channels and casualties demoralized certain quarters of Iraqi army which is understandable because they never experienced anything like this against Iran.

However, Iraqi Republican Guards held their ground and did their best. They had best equipment but US army still outclassed them.

I would not say that Iraqi tanks were bad; they were simply not on par with M1A1 and crew skills could not change the situation. M1A1 were scoring hits in day, night and even stormy conditions - courtesy of its onboard technologies and well-trained crew.

Iraqi accounts suggest that 'some' scored hits on M1A1 but shells bounced off - credit goes to quality of M1A1 armor which was revolutionary at the time.

There is nothing magical in Russian and Chinese MBT. Their design is a trade-off between protection and firepower on average. And Pakistan has budget- related considerations.

However, situation is different for Saudi Arabia. They evaluated M1A2, Al-Khalid and several more in their environments and chose the best option.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

LeGenD said:


> Bro,
> 
> Airstrikes and resultant degradation of communication channels and casualties demoralized certain quarters of Iraqi army which is understandable because they never experienced anything like this against Iran.



Off course..

But that does not negate the fact that Iraqi troops were unprofessional and using Iraqi assembled monkey models.

Neither does that negate the fact that Iraqi troops were so pathetic that some even built jails for themselves and moved into em before the Americans even sent boots on ground... or they fact that they were more busy looting Kuwaitis than anything ...

Iran you say...? Do you know the background of the Iraqi invasion ? 

At the time, Iran was under going the Revolution ... 5000 Iranian pilots were behind bars, senior military leadership either exiled,dead or behind bars... giving Iraq the perfect chance to defeat the Iranians .. with western support!

And irony is that they got bogged down in khuzestan .. Iranian Arab province ...





> However, Iraqi Republican Guards held their ground and did their best. They had best equipment but US army still outclassed them.


Guards were a small group .. hardly a few brigades at max... they simply couldn’t outclass a super power.



> I would not say that Iraqi tanks were bad; they were simply not on par with M1A1 and crew skills could not change the situation. M1A1 were scoring hits in day, night and even stormy conditions - courtesy of its onboard technologies and well-trained crew.
> 
> Iraqi accounts suggest that 'some' scored hits on M1A1 but shells bounced off - credit goes to quality of M1A1 armor which was revolutionary at the time.



Sure .. you are comparing monkey model (with pathetic Iraqi crew) tank type from post world war era to a tank produced decades later by a super power ...




> There is nothing magical in Russian and Chinese MBT. Their design is a trade-off between protection and firepower.


While the western tank offers better protection but lesser firepower and speed/off-road etc capability.


Than again ... the Israelis screwed the Syrians and others with inferior tanks...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Path-Finder

This is a thread about VT-4 under trials in Pakistan! Why in the F is M1 abrams being discussed? Mods?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

@LeGenD it could just be that US never disclosed any Abrams loses because history is always writeen by the victor(just an opinion of mine)

But I've seen houthis destroy many Saudi Abrams and IFVs and AFVs. Even some Abrams in Syria.

Besides Israelis claimed Merkava to be indestructible and got a massive beating in 2006 Lebanon adventure.

But u r right about modernizations and US version being better.


LeGenD said:


> Bro,
> 
> Airstrikes and resultant degradation of communication channels and casualties demoralized certain quarters of Iraqi army which is understandable because they never experienced anything like this against Iran.
> 
> However, Iraqi Republican Guards held their ground and did their best. They had best equipment but US army still outclassed them.
> 
> I would not say that Iraqi tanks were bad; they were simply not on par with M1A1 and crew skills could not change the situation. M1A1 were scoring hits in day, night and even stormy conditions - courtesy of its onboard technologies and well-trained crew.
> 
> Iraqi accounts suggest that 'some' scored hits on M1A1 but shells bounced off - credit goes to quality of M1A1 armor which was revolutionary at the time.
> 
> There is nothing magical in Russian and Chinese MBT. Their design is a trade-off between protection and firepower on average. And Pakistan has budget- related considerations.
> 
> However, situation is different for Saudi Arabia. They evaluated M1A2, Al-Khalid and several more in their environments and chose the best option.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LeGenD

@DESERT FIGHTER 

We can discuss this matter in another thread. I will create it and invite you there.

However, bear in mind that Soviet T-72 demonstrated similar shortcomings in Chechnya. Easy to critic Iraqi productions when these Tanks were nowhere as good as M1A1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Gryphon said:


> Moreover, an Indian order for 700 T-90S MBTs is expected to be placed in April 2018, which will eventually take the Indian Army’s total number of T-90S platforms to more than 1,500 vehicles, thus placing Pakistan at a distinct numerical disadvantage in terms of modern MBTs.


Although PA will remain at numerical disadvantage but AZ is also a modern MBT with all the upgrades done on it and with 500+ AZ in numbers, complemented by 700 (AK+T-80), the equation is not far out. T-85 III is also underestimated.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> However i do agree that time of 59 is gone.


That's why FC has been made Armored-capable now

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## niaz

At the time of the Zia’s death, I had quite a few friends and relations serving in the Pak Army. I was sitting next to Lt Col in the Ordinance during a wedding. I asked his opinion about Zia’s crash and testing of M1 tank. He did not think that these two events were related and commented that apparently Abrams’ tank could not cope with the Cholistan desert sand.

It was an off the cuff remark and there is no way of telling if it was correct. However I came across the similar sand problem during Desert storm again.

Quote

Desert is impediment to U.S. tanks, aircraft

*Posted: * Thursday, December 19, 2002

By By Rachel Davis
Morris News Service

SAVANNAH, Ga. -- The U.S. military with its tanks and aircraft has the capability to dominate in any full-scale military action. But one fundamental problem consistently throws a kink in desert operations.

Toppling winds and suffocating heat also are a proven threat to American troops and their equipment. And such inclement weather could be a hang-up for any repeat showdown in the sand.

Unquote

http://cjonline.com/stories/121902/usw_desert.shtml#.Wlc9Jqhl-Uk

It is therefore probable that M1 tank units provided by the US for testing did not perform as well as T-59 in the Pakistani desert environment in 1988.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Leclan

VT4 is about 4-5million dollars each in international arm market. it is first "luxury product" of chinese land arm.it has same level transmission system as 99A(official name of the latest big one) ，engine is same bloodine as 99A too. U can aquire APS system if u are affordable. It has the latest fire control system like 99A.
here is the thing. VT4 is not a T72 like tank. T72 is designed cheap for massive equipment and for raid. on the other hand, tanks like vt4, Leo2, M1 they are expensive,they are for effective defense. Meanwhile, VT4 has an advantage of its weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Leclan

china has master the neccesary techniques of manufacturing a 1500hp disel engine,which means a reliable maintenance expect. it maybe not as that good as Leo2's power pack,but chinese institutes are upgrading it all the time， as 99A is using the nearly same thing. this is like Toyota Camery from 1 gen to 8th gen.

i can barely see the future on oplot, just personal view. look, we have millions of engineering graduates every year. that is a solid guarantee compared a country who is still in war itself on its own land.just facts. whats more , china has more complicated terrain than Ukraine, we need 99A work on Tibet Plateau, in -20℃ nortern cold icy province, in sothern wet provinces, in Xinjiang's high temprature desert. Just like china has the most Voice on highspeed train building. If china cannot figure out a tank with most adaptability ，i dont know how many countries can do that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ghazi768

niaz said:


> At the time of the Zia’s death, I had quite a few friends and relations serving in the Pak Army. I was sitting next to Lt Col in the Ordinance during a wedding. I asked his opinion about Zia’s crash and testing of M1 tank. He did not think that these two events were related and commented that apparently Abrams’ tank could not cope with the Cholistan desert sand.
> 
> It was an off the cuff remark and there is no way of telling if it was correct. However I came across the similar sand problem during Desert storm again.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Desert is impediment to U.S. tanks, aircraft
> 
> *Posted: * Thursday, December 19, 2002
> 
> By By Rachel Davis
> Morris News Service
> 
> SAVANNAH, Ga. -- The U.S. military with its tanks and aircraft has the capability to dominate in any full-scale military action. But one fundamental problem consistently throws a kink in desert operations.
> 
> Toppling winds and suffocating heat also are a proven threat to American troops and their equipment. And such inclement weather could be a hang-up for any repeat showdown in the sand.
> 
> Unquote
> 
> http://cjonline.com/stories/121902/usw_desert.shtml#.Wlc9Jqhl-Uk
> 
> It is therefore probable that M1 tank units provided by the US for testing did not perform as well as T-59 in the Pakistani desert environment in 1988.



Yes, that is what I also heard from a friend in armour in those days that Cholistan's sands are one of the softest and this creates problems for almost all vehicles but M1 was found to be too heavy to operate there.


----------



## WhyCry

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> T90 can be handled by even the old baseline AK.
> 
> Compare the specs and available data.


I mentioned upgraded T90's. They surpass AK in all aspects unless I didn't account for false bravado.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

WhyCry said:


> I mentioned upgraded T90's. They surpass AK in all aspects unless I didn't account for false bravado.


I don’t believe in jingoism.

You are free to post specs... 

Baseline AK was discontinued in 2008... with an upgraded variant. AK I.

P.S; AK II will soon roll out.. running a 1500hp power plant with other major upgrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Viking 63

So which bloody tank PA will be using in Cholistan Desert if everything is Failing??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Viking 63 said:


> So which bloody tank PA will be using in Cholistan Desert if everything is Failing??


Import the cutting-edge M1A2 SEP V3. Its engine is robust and equipped with a (self-cleaning) filter system to counter sand ingestion.

Just kidding. 



niaz said:


> At the time of the Zia’s death, I had quite a few friends and relations serving in the Pak Army. I was sitting next to Lt Col in the Ordinance during a wedding. I asked his opinion about Zia’s crash and testing of M1 tank. He did not think that these two events were related and commented that apparently Abrams’ tank could not cope with the Cholistan desert sand.
> 
> It was an off the cuff remark and there is no way of telling if it was correct. However I came across the similar sand problem during Desert storm again.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Desert is impediment to U.S. tanks, aircraft
> 
> *Posted: * Thursday, December 19, 2002
> 
> By By Rachel Davis
> Morris News Service
> 
> SAVANNAH, Ga. -- The U.S. military with its tanks and aircraft has the capability to dominate in any full-scale military action. But one fundamental problem consistently throws a kink in desert operations.
> 
> Toppling winds and suffocating heat also are a proven threat to American troops and their equipment. And such inclement weather could be a hang-up for any repeat showdown in the sand.
> 
> Unquote
> 
> http://cjonline.com/stories/121902/usw_desert.shtml#.Wlc9Jqhl-Uk
> 
> It is therefore probable that M1 tank units provided by the US for testing did not perform as well as T-59 in the Pakistani desert environment in 1988.


Thanks for your insight.

They had addressed the matter of sand ingestion by 1991: http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.c...F112255-Military-Ground-Vehicle-Equipment.pdf


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

LeGenD said:


> @DESERT FIGHTER
> 
> We can discuss this matter in another thread. I will create it and invite you there.
> 
> However, bear in mind that Soviet T-72 demonstrated similar shortcomings in Chechnya. Easy to critic Iraqi productions when these Tanks were nowhere as good as M1A1.



The soviets suffered T-80 losses in Grozny not T-72.

That too due to several issues , parts, untrained crews for a brand new tank ... a gas guzzling turbine engine.

All these forced the soviets to go for the cheaper t-90 upgrade of t-72.. instead of the most advanced but expensive,gas guzzling T-80.



Signalian said:


> Although PA will remain at numerical disadvantage but AZ is also a modern MBT with all the upgrades done on it and with 500+ AZ in numbers, complemented by 700 (AK+T-80), the equation is not far out. T-85 III is also underestimated.
> 
> 
> That's why FC has been made Armored-capable now



My father commanded FC ... we sent troops to Armour School,Nowshehra for training..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fieldmarshal

Even though the VT 4 passed the recent trial with flying colours n the Chinese r very eager for PA to induct it in nos.
But as things stand right now PA in not very keen to induct VT 4.


----------



## Leclan

i think not. china is not that eager. we can sell from VT1 to VT4, cheap one to the expensive one. PA just buy the affordable, effective ones. as Taihland already buy VT4 rather than oplot,it is proven a competable product

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## royalharris

We really don't care which one PA will induct, just buy the one Suitable for you when you need it


----------



## Fieldmarshal

Leclan said:


> i think not. china is not that eager. we can sell from VT1 to VT4, cheap one to the expensive one. PA just buy the affordable, effective ones. as Taihland already buy VT4 rather than oplot,it is proven a competable product



In the scheme of things , wt u think does not really matter.
Wt I am telling u is wts the actual ground reality n wts traspiring on the ground !


----------



## FuturePAF

Fieldmarshal said:


> In the scheme of things , wt u think does not really matter.
> Wt I am telling u is wts the actual ground reality n wts traspiring on the ground !



For what reason is the PA not keen on buying the VT-4 at this time; is it the cost? any limitation in capabilities? or something else?


----------



## HRK

FuturePAF said:


> For what reason is the PA not keen on buying the VT-4 at this time; is it the cost? any limitation in capabilities? or something else?


first of all we must not think that PA is not interested in VT-4 retrial itself speak about the seriousness of Pakistan with this tank but before to have favourable decision for VT-4 Pakistan Army must deiced about the future of AK-I & AK-II.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LeGenD

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> The soviets suffered T-80 losses in Grozny not T-72.


Both T-80 and T-72 actually.

_Sergei Lebov and Yuri Medved would only be allowed a short visit to the combat zone prior to their return flight to Moscow and the bumpy drive back to the Russian Armor Development Center at Kubinka. The report they were to present had very quickly become one of the highest priorities in the Russian Army. Their mission was to inspect as many of the damaged and destroyed Russian armored vehicles in Chechnya as was physically possible. In addition to the large number of destroyed light armored vehicles, the two inspectors were able to examine 23 various T-72 main battle tanks (MBTs) and 10 T-80BV premium tanks (PTs). While not all the damage done to these tanks by the rebels was severe, some of it was indeed catastrophic. In one case, two Russian T-72A MBTs destroyed during the battle around the presidential palace in Groznyy looked like some strange monument to the fighting with their disembodied turrets arranged neatly on the street next to their destroyed hulls. Lebov and Medved had the task of piecing together the cause of these decapitations. This type of work was not new to the inspectors. They had seen similar destruction on the battlefields of Desert Storm and in the former Yugoslavia. It was clear to both men that what ordnance scientists called a “munitions event” was the cause of the turret-hull separations. The ignition of the Russian tank’s onboard ammunition following penetration of the armor, would frequently cause an explosion powerful enough to blow the doomed tank’s turret off the hull and high into the air._

Source:


----------



## Cookie Monster

wanglaokan said:


> Domestic CH1000 integrated engine compartment, can provide both 1300HP and 1500HP. For Pakistan, yes!
> 
> View attachment 447089
> 
> Man, Pakistan don't have to ditch Oplot M for VT4. You can make it both. Or using VT4 tech to improve AK tanks.
> 
> Thailand royal army had both Oplot M and VT4.
> 
> View attachment 447096


That would be an unnecessary cost and complication. PA would do just fine with Al-Khalid and VT4(or OPLOT-M depending on which one gets selected) as the high/low mix. Having two tanks(along with all the support/maintenance facilities etc) is much simpler than having three. If OPLOT-M is selected instead of VT4, perhaps the VT4 tech can still find its way into upgraded Al-Khalid tanks. Last I heard they r working on Al-Khalid II.



Starlord said:


> If PA decides to ditch Ukraine for Chinese MBT ( Al-Haider ) project, i will say go fot T-99A if available .. Is China manufacturing any 1500 HP engine for MBT ? if yes which one ? and is it available for export ?


I agree. If Pak goes for a Chinese tank to fulfill the role of "Al-Haider", PA should go for T99 and not VT4. Since PLA would be inducting T99 in huge numbers, it might turn out to be an economically sound option. Not to mention that it would increase interoperability between China/Pak army.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

@Signalian you are wasting your time with this Legendary guy .. i tried to debate with him and eventually i had to put him in the Ignore list  everything to him is a D measuring Contest between his mighty America and rest of the world .. for him an American or its technology/system can't failed. . leave him alone this guy needs help

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Signalian said:


> Thank you mate, set aside facts/truth/reality but move on "sense", which could be true or false. I have been wasting my time all along. Adios.


I am not sure what your problem is but I have access to genuine reports and accounts to assess the performance of M1A1 Abrams MBT - not hearsay and stories. And this would be my final response to you in regards to this matter.

_Advances in thermal imaging technology gave the Abrams crew the ability to find targets in all conditions, be it at night or through smoke and haze. Seeing the enemy is vital, but it is only the first step: the Abrams must also be able to destroy the target. Some aspects of hitting a target have been addressed in the Gun Accuracy section. 

Another crucial contributor to meeting this challenge is the gun stabilization system. To improve accuracy of firing while the tank is moving, the Abrams, like most versions of the M60 Patton tank, is equipped with a gun turret drive stabilization system that isolates the gun platform from the effects of vehicle pitch, roll, and yaw. The system makes automatic adjustments to keep the gun trained on the target. This equipment is essential to the tank’s ability to fire accurately on the move. The M60A1 had such a system, which was designed and built by Cadillac Gage [178]. Subsequent redesign by Chrysler for the Abrams corrected for deficiencies in the M60A1 system [179]. Over rough terrain the M6OA1 had a stabilized hit probability of approximately 75 percent at 1,500 meters, at 15mph. Under the same conditions, the M1A1 has a hit probability of 95 percent at 2,200 meters at 25mph [180]. What really sets the Abrams’ lethality apart from the M60 is the digital fire-control system. The advances discussed above—improved munitions, higher muzzle velocities, gun stabilization—combine with the fire-control system to make the Abrams a singularly formidable threat. 

The Abrams’ digital fire-control system can be thought of as combining two primary elements: the sensors that collect any information that might affect the flight of the round and the digital ballistic computer that integrates the information and generates an accurate firing solution. The sensors include the laser rangefinder, cant sensor, muzzle reference system, wind sensor, and atmospheric temperature and pressure sensors. Of these, the laser rangefinder and muzzle reference system in particular deserve further discussion. The laser rangefinder replaced the dual mirror-based coincidence rangefinder found on the M60A1 [181]. The M60’s rangefinder needed constant adjustment and was susceptible to temperature and moisture. It took a well-trained crew 7–10 seconds to put a round on target. The Abrams’ rangefinder, on the other hand, reduces the round-on-target time to 2–3 seconds from target acquisition and has a range three times greater than that of the M60A1 [182]._

Declassified report: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476340.pdf

Disclosures of the declassified report are [100%] consistent with the accounts of admirable performance of M1A1 Abrams in the Persian Gulf War (1991): http://washingtonguard.colliertech.org/news/archive/fo-abram.shtml

M1A1 Abrams is a proven design and regarded among the best in the world. Same cannot be said for Type-55, Type-59, Type-69, T-62, T-72 and even T-80.

In-fact, Pakistan offered its domestically revered Al-Khalid MBT to Saudi Arabia and a unit was dispatched to the client country for trials in 2016. I am not sure what happened but the export variant of M1A2 Abrams came on top.

And in-case you didn't knew, Al-Khalid MBT feature (WESTERN) FCS and GCS for its main gun.

It is highly probable that US did not dispatch a genuine M1A1 for trials in Pakistan (could be inferior M1 variant). Of greater significance is the observation that Zia-ul-Haq and his team were assassinated soon after the trials. It is possible that the culprits - responsible for assassinating Zia-ul-Haq and his team - might also have sabotaged the trials in question. Who the bloody hell knows? If they can kill Zia-ul-Haq, they can sabotage some trials as well. Truth can be stranger then fiction at times.

If you wise enough - you will understand. If not - then "Earth is Flat."



Starlord said:


> @Signalian you are wasting your time with this Legendary guy .. i tried to debate with him and eventually i had to put him in the Ignore list  everything to him is a D measuring Contest between his mighty America and rest of the world .. for him an American or its technology/system can't failed. . leave him alone this guy needs help


Some people will never learn.

A member here trying to tell me that only Soviet T-80 failed in Chechnya but I provided evidence of my assertion that both Soviet T-80 and T-72 failed in Chechnya and blow-outs of Soviet T-72 were similar to that of Iraqi T-72.

People like you are the source of problem in Pakistan actually - ill-mannered, easy-to-delude with conspiracy theories and rigid to the core; keep burying your heads in the sand. Your kind just like those Arab pagans who did not pay heed to teachings of Allah Almighty and his messenger.

Like I said - ignorance is a dead end.


----------



## Signalian

Starlord said:


> @Signalian you are wasting your time with this Legendary guy .. i tried to debate with him and eventually i had to put him in the Ignore list  everything to him is a D measuring Contest between his mighty America and rest of the world .. for him an American or its technology/system can't failed. . leave him alone this guy needs help


Yeah, you are right, i had a discussion with him 2 years ago on same topic, this time i got offended when he dissed a Lt Col of Pakistan Army, while he himself is nothing, a nobody, someone who would never even appear on TV in his lifetime, an online member whom the world doesn't even know while he is accusing a military officer for being uninformed and lacking education, whereas that military officer has years of experience and has been brought on the TV program to spread knowledge. After i tried to put some sense into him, he started to talk more against Military Officers. Its better to discuss things with someone someone who has knowledge, unlike him.

The funniest part is when he said he goes for "what makes sense to him", i laughed my head off at his level of intellect and then i put him on ignore list.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Signalian said:


> Yeah, you are right, i had a discussion with him 2 years ago on same topic, this time i got offended when he dissed a Lt Col of Pakistan Army, while he himself is nothing, a nobody, someone who would never even appear on TV in his lifetime, an online member whom the world doesn't even know while he is accusing a military officer for being uninformed and lacking education, whereas that military officer has years of experience and has been brought on the TV program to spread knowledge. After i tried to put some sense into him, he started to talk more against Military Officers. Its better to discuss things with someone someone who has knowledge, unlike him.
> 
> The funniest part is when he said he goes for "what makes sense to him", i laughed my head off at his level of intellect and then i put him on ignore list.


FACT # 1: Pakistani Army does not use M1A1 Abrams MBT
FACT # 2: Pakistani military officials do not have much (exposure to) and experience with M1A1 Abrams MBT due to the obvious
FACT # 3: The military officer in question cited a Pakistani report to draw a comparison between the results of Type-59 MBT and M1A1 Abrams MBT - very ambiguous and questionable
FACT # 4: Nobody is infallible in his judgement 24/7

The TV show in question is definitely informative but might also be scripted. _That_ Wajahat guy once tried to put his words in the mouth of an interviewee that Operation Neptune Spear was a facilitated raid. *This is the reality of our celebrities.*

I have nothing against a Pakistani military official, and normally respect their input. In-fact, I tend to highlight their remarks for matters I am not privy to. However, I have sufficient wisdom and confidence to question somebody who hasn't done his homework in regards to a topic that I happen to be familiar with.

It is impossible for Type-59 MBT to match (or exceed) the performance of M1A1 Abrams MBT because there is massive difference in the technological capabilities of the two, assuming that both MBT are functioning properly and manned by a trained crew. Pakistani report is ambiguous and a few members here pointed out what was wrong at the time of trials.

US Army use M1A1 Abrams MBT and Americans are in a much better position to comment on its performance and how it fared against Type-59 and several other MBT in the battlefield. The maximum I can do is to share relevant information from one of their declassified reports and accounts of Persian Gulf War (1991) to support my argument - why M1A1 Abrams MBT is better than Type-59 MBT and many others.

Do some of you understand the concept of education? Or is this an alien notion to some?

As for being a nobody and never appearing on TV - keeping assuring yourself, if this assumption helps you sleep better at night. Appearing on TV is not a benchmark of competence for anybody - it is about publicity and having the right connections.

One of the American military officials (i.e. Mike Page) was questioned about Al-Khalid MBT on quora and his response is below:

_"The simple truth is that we don’t know how the Al-Khalid tank would fare in combat against the M1A2 Abrams.

From reading a description of the Al-Khalid it could be quite a dangerous adversary against any modern tank. There are three key points though that cause me to doubt the viability of the Al-Khalid:_

_It is built from components from a number of different Western countries. The fire control is western designed (not sure who manufactures it); the gun is of French design but built in Pakistan, ammunition is made in Pakistan, the engine is from Ukraine, the transmission from France. These are delicate matters because a foreign power can cut off supply of critical components on a moment’s notice. I have my doubts that the arrangement works as well as advertised._
_It uses a three-man tank crew with an auto-loader for the main gun. This is a Soviet era design concept that has never proven to be effective in extended wartime scenarios. A tank is a difficult beast to maintain and operate. A three man crew cannot withstand the rigor of combat as well as a 4 man crew. A numerically larger crew is preferable to fewer - always._
_The tank has no known history of combat. Without a combat record - one can only speculate that the tank will perform as advertised or expected. It may be 100% spot on - or, it may be shown to have glaring shortcomings that were not foreseen in development and peacetime operations. How are we to know?_
_Finally, the performance of the tank cannot exceed the performance of its crew. The selection, organization, training, leadership, and motivation of the tank crew is the number one determinant of which tank survives and which tank is defeated."_

https://www.quora.com/How-would-the-Pakistani-Al-khalid-MBT-stand-against-Western-MBTs-like-Abrams

Very professional and neutral, if you ask me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

There is a slight tendency in Pakistani people of calling themselves No.1 without anything to back it up. I'll agree with you there. And I think we should stop lying to ourselves so we can finally be able to open doors of progress for ourselves. Because our nation has a lot of potential. Especially to outdo regional competition and medium economies.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
6


----------



## LeGenD

Ahmet Pasha said:


> There is a slight tendency in Pakistani people of calling themselves No.1 without anything to back it up. I'll agree with you there. And I think we should stop lying to ourselves so we can finally be able to open doors of progress for ourselves. Because our nation has a lot of potential. Especially to outdo regional competition and medium economies.


_Mindset_ is a problem, bro.

For example, some people will vote for Nawaz Sharif no matter what - corruption-related scandals will not change their mind.

No individual is correct about everything on 24/7 basis irrespective of his profession; we learn and re-evaluate throughout our lives. Education is of utmost importance.

Behavior of some members is similar to those of Arab pagans who refused to change their ways irrespective of efforts of Holy Prophet (PBUH). These kind of people are too proud or blind to have a meaningful discussion with because their _mindset_ is at fault.

A Pakistani officer said something so it must be true - no _ifs_ and _buts_. Troops are conditioned to accept orders without question, people are not. More importantly, backbone of any society is its people. An army comes from people and innovation also comes from people. Not the other way round.

If somebody is wrong about a topic - he is wrong, period.

If a 30 year old Pakistani account of a product is negative - so it bad. Doesn't matter if the entire world is telling otherwise and overwhelming evidence is in public domain. We are supposed to bury our hand in the sand.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Andrei_bt

Oplot and VT-4 trials in Pakistan, 2015

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Andrei_bt said:


> Oplot and VT-4 trials in Pakistan, 2015


So whats the update ? New trials?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## python-000

wanglaokan said:


> I have a feeling that PA will go for VT4 if we give some good offers. So don't worry.
> 
> Many reasons why Z10 failed the competition with T129:
> 1: more TOT from turkey
> 2: swap package
> 3: Z10's turbo shaft is not powerful enough especially in high altitude ( a fatal reason why it failed)
> 4: T129 can easily integrate with armmo in PA's arsenal
> 
> How hard it takes to face the reality?


Hmmm, you are right bro but T-129 is not stealthy like Z-10 Pakistan must get 4 or 5 sqd of these to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Starlord said:


> If PA decides to ditch Ukraine for Chinese MBT ( Al-Haider ) project, i will say go fot T-99A if available .. Is China manufacturing any 1500 HP engine for MBT ? if yes which one ? and is it available for export ?



I also believe VT-4 should be rejected and one thing should be conveyed to Chinese, offer top of the line products if you want us to be your closest strategic partner or your Israel and face west as foes.

Export oriented weapons should be rejected as similar are offered to other countries too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Nothing will be handed to you on silver platter. 


Basel said:


> I also believe VT-4 should be rejected and one thing should be conveyed to Chinese, offer top of the line products if you want us to be your closest strategic partner or your Israel and face west as foes.
> 
> Export oriented weapons should be rejected as similar are offered to other countries too.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Basel said:


> I also believe VT-4 should be rejected and one thing should be conveyed to Chinese, offer top of the line products if you want us to be your closest strategic partner or your Israel and face west as foes.
> 
> Export oriented weapons should be rejected as similar are offered to other countries too.



One thing Ukriane has master is the art of designing tanks! Without them Al-khalid would not exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Myth_buster_1 said:


> One thing Ukriane has master is the art of designing tanks! Without them Al-khalid would not exist.



Oplot is in Type-99 class and with Western and Atlay tank equipment could be upgraded to very potent machine which VT-4 may never be, but it depends what PA wants and how much fund they have.

PA should have asked Russians to send T-90 latest version for testing, we should not put all eggs in one basket, too much Chinese equipment is not good for PA although they are reliable partner but who knows they may start acting like US in future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> So whats the update ? New trials?



No Oplot p here as of today.



Andrei_bt said:


> Oplot and VT-4 trials in Pakistan, 2015



Your videos have already been shared here.


----------



## YeBeWarned

Basel said:


> I also believe VT-4 should be rejected and one thing should be conveyed to Chinese, offer top of the line products if you want us to be your closest strategic partner or your Israel and face west as foes.
> 
> Export oriented weapons should be rejected as similar are offered to other countries too.



seems like VT-4 comes with a good package bro, but PA is more inclined for Oplot P's cause for various reason .. we are operating , T-80/UD and Al-Khalid/1 which is again derived from Ukraine Designs , and than there is 1500HP engine from Ukraine .. if we can get a deal for 200-300 Oplot P along with secure 1500 HP engine deal for AK-2 ..i will say go for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Danish saleem

we are evaluating? we still not capable enough to have our own tank!
i am just surprised that both Al khalid and JF 17 planed in 90's, and what happen after that?


----------



## Andrei_bt

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> So whats the update ? New trials?



Yes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## royalharris

Basel said:


> Oplot is in Type-99 class and with Western and Atlay tank equipment could be upgraded to very potent machine which VT-4 may never be, but it depends what PA wants and how much fund they have.
> 
> PA should have asked Russians to send T-90 latest version for testing, we should not put all eggs in one basket, too much Chinese equipment is not good for PA although they are reliable partner but who knows they may start acting like US in future.


Oh
West always best，my lovely friend

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vortex

Danish saleem said:


> we are evaluating? we still not capable enough to have our own tank!
> i am just surprised that both Al khalid and JF 17 planed in 90's, and what happen after that?



We are simply not able to think out of box, which is requirement for inovative solutions.. we are always trying to copy and "indigenously" built what have already been built elsewhere..
It's due to our "education", to the respect due to the ego of the old minded "elders", to our slave/master syndrome. And I forgot many others things.

And if i may push to the extrem, look at our bodies movements, they seems limited due to our mind limitation...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aliaselin

royalharris said:


> We really don't care which one PA will induct, just buy the one Suitable for you when you need it


爬及事谭就是签烧蚀多，哎麦不埋。而且签我们签的带宽都那么多了，少放电带宽是好诗


----------



## royalharris

aliaselin said:


> 爬及事谭就是签烧蚀多，哎麦不埋。而且签我们签的带宽都那么多了，少放电带宽是好诗


事得, 蚁后朵铐屡以下还晚郭嘉时常
吧唧私谈美签，懂不懂要球憎松，无锡带宽勇者，还总低回种过缠拼，拍欧美郭嘉麻皮


----------



## HRK

plz use English....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Leclan

china has 1500hp engine, 99A with it. but vt4 with 1300 one. 

china now are more focused on 30ton light tanks and new tanks ，which adapts more terrain, easy to deploy, or more powerful. heavy tank has its limits.



royalharris said:


> 事得, 蚁后朵铐屡以下还晚郭嘉时常
> 吧唧私谈美签，懂不懂要球憎松，无锡带宽勇者，还总低回种过缠拼，拍欧美郭嘉麻皮


yep.and china military equips now becoming with more techs and more for china's special needs. vt4 should be more suitable foe pa than 99a. or we can say china can not provide a tank better than vt4 for pa needs for now ，considering all of the costs


----------



## Danish saleem

Vortex said:


> We are simply not able to think out of box, which is requirement for inovative solutions.. we are always trying to copy and "indigenously" built what have already been built elsewhere..
> It's due to our "education", to the respect due to the ego of the old minded "elders", to our slave/master syndrome. And I forgot many others things.
> 
> And if i may push to the extrem, look at our bodies movements, they seems limited due to our mind limitation...



exactly!
we will keep producing Al khalid I, II, III, IV, V ,VI.
and JF 17 Block I, II,III,IV,V

we produced K-8 in 90, and nothing Else.


----------



## Cookie Monster

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Nothing will be handed to you on silver platter.


True but Pakistan wouldn't exactly be asking for Chinese top of the line stuff(Type 99 in this case) on silver platter while Chinese gain nothing in return. For Chinese the benefit will be threefold...

1) Obviously the profit China will make by selling Pak their stuff

2) Interoperability between Pak/China equipment which will be needed more and more as the west tries to prop up India against China(along with SK, Japan, Phillipines, Vietnam and whoever else has beef with China). In the big scheme of things China would need allies it can depend on or else it will face a serious threat in the future from this group of countries.

3) Pakistan having more and more Chinese equipment and moving away from Western stuff would ensure Pakistan would stay in China's camp. In short it would wield an indirect but powerful influence over Pak.

With minimal risk of their sensitive tech being exposed to other countries, I think China should sell their top of the line stuff to Pak. In my opinion China stands to gain way more(from a geostrategic perspective) in addition to profits than Pak would. Pak would just be getting some high end defense equipment, which can also be acquired from other countries for the right price.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## CHACHA"G"

My feeling is ,,,,,,,, PAK may go for both VT4 and Opt....... OPt will bring engine tech (we don't have any other option , if Ukraine wants us to buy them for engine tech) and OPt will also bring T-80UDs upgrade , just saying if we buy 200 OPts and upgrade T-80UDs that will make 500 OPts and if we are planning to keep AK and trying to build AK-II that deal(OPts) will also help there.
And VT4 will come to replace older tanks (others) and AK-II will going to replace AZ......
In short , my guess is 500+ OPts(200+ new and 300 T-80uds upgraded) , 700+ AKs (all types),, 500+ VT4(AH) total 1700+ ..............
Rest who knows.......... Time will tell...........



IceCold said:


> @Dazzler I thought Pakistan produced some good quality tanks. Last time it was the lack of funds due to which many things were not incorporated in the Al-Khalids. So my question is if we have funds to look for a foreign tank, why not inject those funds in our local industry i.e Al-Khalids and take them to what was initially envisaged?


If I don't get any -ve ratings ,,,,,, Dear brother that means , our AK(not AK-I fully but atleat 50%) is 20+ years old tank , some thing we started in 90s............. 
AK-II in devp need more resources and tech , and this deal (single or both) will bring many techs which are desperately required for AK-II , and also bring new gen tank............

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

For AK II I'd like to see a tank that incorporates Ukrainian, Chinese and Turkish technology.


----------



## Leclan

chin's good no on handling east asia events for now. and china never seek a full opposite policy against US and its alies. chin still cooperate with US on almost most of the world affairs,though sometimes we does have different viewpoints. at least rational people of the two countries are clear enough to realize that.
about alies, chin has quite an experience about allies. some are good, some are not. after this we now have our own values and princple about making allies.we want a win-win coperation,not a one side vs another side. i think both china and pakistan leaders are awared of that. now if we are true allies,we should respect each others efforts and cautiously take good care of the relationship and feelings about each other. "china needs allies to what what,or it will what what" makes us feel blackmailed
.


----------



## Dazzler

Gryphon said:


> I hope we don't fall into the Ukrainian trap again - affordable tanks and too expensive after sales support.
> Just put the T-80UD through a major upgrade program. Currently, 1 T-80UD has been upgraded with latest ERA Duplet.



I will not point a finger at them though. Spare parts is what where every weapon seller makes real money be it Chinese, Ukrainians, Americans or Europeans. The weapon system merely the key they use to access the opportunity to make $. As long as the weapon system works as advertised, no harm done. 

There are at least two benefits of buying Ukrainian mbts. Their engine/ transmission and armour are simply top notch.



wanglaokan said:


> Altay is now looking for a proper engine package. The first batch was supposed to install German MTU engines, but the deal cancelled after Turkey-German relationship deteriorate. They might ask for help from UK or Ukraine.



UK's Perkins series engine are not reliable. Turks should not go for them. Their 70 metric ton behemoth Challenger 2 uses a CV 12 Condor 1200HP engine that gives it a horrendously small P/W ratio of just over 19. The reason for using 1200Hp engine is too obvious, they cannot make it go further due to reliability/ quality issues.



LeGenD said:


> His assessment is wrong.
> 
> M1 Abrams series MBT are renowned for their accuracy and much more advanced than the Chinese MBT he referred to. A professional should know what he is talking about.
> 
> Whatever happened in Bahawalpur - is mostly stories. Even if there was a problem, additional trials did not happen which suggest that PAK - US relations weren't up to the mark at the time.



No they are not, they are real life accounts that happened. Pakistan was keen to induct M1A1 but the performance and cost (GDLS asked for 5$ million a piece) never justified that. It was decided to go for an indigenous solution with China instead during Aslam Beg's era.



wanglaokan said:


> China also has very very hot desert area to test MBT, from inner Mogolia to Xinjiang.
> 
> 
> American tanks are working in information battlefield, very strong battlefield situational awareness capability. Even Other country has M1A1 or M1A2, they can't make a full-fledge use of it cause the surrounding here is missing.



Of course it does, The Gobi region is also quite hot with temperatures soaring up to 53 degree Celsius. The problem is that every desert has its peculiar dynamics. For instance, the temperature at Thar/ Cholistan touches 60 degree or more and it has very fine sand particles. Due to these, the filter system of the engine gets stuffed with them much quicker. As a result, the engine begins to heat up fast and eventually fails. Also, electronics and FCS tend to fry in such tremendous heat. 

Tanks that suffered this fate include M1A1, Type-85II early version, Type-85III (Storm 2 that competed with T-80ud), MBT 2000/ Type-90II prototype 2 (the third one passed), T-80Ud Obyekt 478B (not the improved BE variant).



LeGenD said:


> Thanks for your valuable insight. Now _that_ makes sense.
> 
> I learned from a source that a Pakistani military delegation visited US in 1987 to evaluate M1A1 Abrams MBT and its performance _stunned_ our delegation. This is why Pakistani military expressed its interest in inducting this MBT and a unit was dispatched to Pakistan for trials in Bahawalpur* but Zia-ul-Haq (and his team) perished in an unfortunate event soon after and the ensuing political crises led to cancellation of the deal.
> 
> *Yes, it is rare for the US to provide us the _real thing_. Your disclosure suggest that Americans dispatched a noticeably inferior (watered-down) unit for trials in Pakistan. However, outcome of this trial has created a *false impression* in Pakistan that M1A1 Abrams MBT is trash and this belief is utterly misplaced and "dangerous." People are lacking in knowledge about the specifications of the unit that was tested in Pakistan and the vastly superior American designs.
> 
> Iraq learned its lesson the hard way in 1991 but it was not in the position to do anything about it. In-fact, performance of US army in this war stunned the entire world including USSR and China. Consequently, Russia embraced the notion of hybrid warfare and China initiated a major modernization drive of its armed forces.
> 
> Arabian deserts have sand that is thin and soft like talcum powder (I have seen them in person). This kind of sand easily creeps into sensitive parts of any vehicle and can ruin it. Therefore, it is not wise to drive through Arabian deserts without appropriate measures. In order to utilize M1A1 in this kind of environment, engine of every unit was outfitted with a high quality air filter to prevent "sand ingestion," and problem addressed. At present, both M1A1 and M1A2 variants are outfitted with high quality (self-cleaning) air filters for operations in desert environments across the world.
> 
> As far as the accuracy factor is concerned, one needs to examine onboard systems of an M1A1 and Type-59 MBT; difference is like between day and night.
> 
> A glimpse of Type-59 MBT from inside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glimpses of M1A1 Abrams from inside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifications of M1A1 Abrams in 1985:-
> 
> 120 mm main gun (M256 Smooth Bore cannon)
> Nuclear, biological, and chemical overpressure system
> Advanced Chobham armor
> Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
> Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
> Digital ballistic computer
> Laser range finder (LRF)
> Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)
> Onboard malfunction detection system
> Compartmented fuel/ammunition
> Single channel ground/air radio system (SINGCARS)
> You can learn a great deal about M1A1 from this book: https://ospreypublishing.com/m1-abrams-vs-t-72-ural
> 
> Thermal imaging capability of M1A1 in 2013:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly, M1 Abrams is a continuously evolving platform.
> 
> The latest prototype is known as *M1A2 SEP V3*. Although much of the information about this variant is classified at the moment, I learned a few tidbits and they suggest a cutting-edge machine. Structure is similar to the older M1A1 but virtually everything onboard is revolutionary. This variant might also receive a new generation of ammunition to defeat emerging threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every mounted gun of M1A2 SEP V3 can be controlled from inside when not manned.
> 
> German Leopard-II MBT is also becoming cutting-edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing is that no matter how advanced a weapon system is, adequate training is a must. Crew must learn how to take advantage of the capabilities of a weapon system.
> 
> For example, the (famous) *Battle of 73 Easting* took place during sandstorm conditions:
> 
> _By contrast, U.S. troops fought extremely well. At 73 Easting, for example, the 2nd ACR maintained a tight, efficient combat formation throughout an extended approach march, and did so in the midst of a sandstorm, in hostile territory, over unfamiliar terrain, and without significant losses to mechanical breakdown or logistical failure en route. Its crews' gunnery was exceptional, outperforming peacetime proving ground standards for both the M1 and the Bradley. The first three kills by Eagle troop were recorded in three shots by a single M1 over an interval of less than ten seconds. As a whole, 182 of 215, or 85 percent, of the shots fired by 2nd ACR crews struck their targets at ranges of up to 2000 meters, under combat conditions.(76) Similar results were obtained by U.S. forces throughout the KTO._
> 
> Source: Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict - The RMA Debate
> 
> 
> Yes, this is also a factor. Good point.
> 
> 
> M1A1 Abrams MBT absolutely outgunned Russian (T-72 and T-62) and Chinese (Type-69, Type-59 and Type-55) MBT in the Persian Gulf War (1991) but this does not imply that Russian and Chinese MBT were/are bad; rather M1A1 was relatively superior in capabilities and safety measures to its contemporaries.
> 
> My point is that it is important for people to do their homework and look at the bigger picture.



Again, a very bias and naive statement. You forgot the air cover and netcentric systems that were pretty much nonexistent on the other side. Apaches and A10s were hot in the area and the Iraqis stood no chance.



Dazzler said:


> I will not point a finger at them though. Spare parts is what where every weapon seller makes real money be it Chinese, Ukrainians, Americans or Europeans. The weapon system merely the key they use to access the opportunity to make $. As long as the weapon system works as advertised, no harm done.
> 
> There are at least two benefits of buying Ukrainian mbts. Their engine/ transmission and armour are simply top notch.
> 
> 
> 
> UK's Perkins series engine are not reliable. Turks should not go for them. Their 70 metric ton behemoth Challenger 2 uses a CV 12 Condor 1200HP engine that gives it a horrendously small P/W ratio of just over 19. The reason for using 1200Hp engine is too obvious, they cannot make it go further due to reliability/ quality issues.
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not, they are real life accounts that happened. Pakistan was keen to induct M1A1 but the performance and cost (GDLS asked for 5$ million a piece) never justified that. It was decided to go for an indigenous solution with China instead during Aslam Beg's era.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does, The Gobi region is also quite hot with temperatures soaring up to 53 degree Celsius. The problem is that every desert has its peculiar dynamics. For instance, the temperature at Thar/ Cholistan touches 60 degree or more and it has very fine sand particles. Due to these, the filter system of the engine gets stuffed with them much quicker. As a result, the engine begins to heat up fast and eventually fails. Also, electronics and FCS tend to fry in such tremendous heat.
> 
> Tanks that suffered this fate include M1A1, Type-85II early version, Type-85III (Storm 2 that competed with T-80ud), MBT 2000/ Type-90II prototype 2 (the third one passed), T-80Ud Obyekt 478B (not the improved BE variant).
> 
> 
> 
> Again, a very bias and naive statement. You forgot the air cover and netcentric systems that were pretty much nonexistent on the other side. Apaches and A10s were hot in the area and the Iraqis stood no chance.



The fact is that Russian MBTs are showing excellent resistence against American/ European ATGMs in Syria. Did you go through this by some chance? 

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion....s-double-due-successful-performance-in-syria/


In short, do not believe everything you see on those History and NATGEO documentaries. Much of those are bias fabrications.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LeGenD

Dazzler said:


> No they are not, they are real life accounts that happened. Pakistan was keen to induct M1A1 but the performance and cost (GDLS asked for 5$ million a piece) never justified that. It was decided to go for an indigenous solution with China instead during Aslam Beg's era.


One of the members here pointed out _that that_ unit was not actually M1*A1* but an inferior variant.

Anyways, it is possible that M1A1 Abrams was not prepared for operations in Bahawalpur type environment back then [in the 1980s]. Additionally, we didn't give US a chance to customize its product per our needs. For example, we could have requested a solution for the issue of "sand ingestion" from this company: http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.c...F112255-Military-Ground-Vehicle-Equipment.pdf

_"The M1 Abrams requirement pioneered the first PJAC Air Cleaner back in 1991. On a 1,560 mile dust course at Yuma Proving Grounds, a non-pulse jet equipped M1A1 had to stop and service filters ten times. The M1A1 equipped with the PJAC never had to stop to service the filters. Now the PJAC is offered on many ground vehicles and is used by governments all over the world."
_
Source: http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/071714.pdf

What happened in Bahawalpur in the 1980s, is completely invalid today. If we are to judge an M1 MBT variant today, we need to concentrate on its evolution over the course of years and what it can do today. We need to stop living in the past.

As for pitting Type-59 against an M1A1 Abrams in the battlefield; Iraq did this in 1991 and results are in front of everybody. Just another reason to not take Bahawalpur-based account [very] seriously.

---

Based on revelations in this very forum, I get the impression that we are giving developers of Oplot-M and VT-4 ample chance to customize their products per our needs. Both _failed_ in their [initial] trials in Bahawalpur, right?

---

Can you tell me why we testing Oplot-M and VT-4 when we have Al-Khalid?



Dazzler said:


> Again, a very bias and naive statement. You forgot the air cover and netcentric systems that were pretty much nonexistent on the other side. Apaches and A10s were hot in the area and the Iraqis stood no chance.


You seem to look at these matters in _black-and-white_ ways, my friend. A battlefield scenario of the scale and intensity of the Persian Gulf War (1991) is likely to establish conditions for engagements [each varying from the other] in which superiority of weaponry and training of soldiers will be subject to stresses unlike in any trials.

*Battle of 73 Easting* occurred in "stormy conditions," and without involvement of Apaches and A10s.






Details in following sources:-

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com...ng-and-the-road-to-the-synthetic-battlefield/
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/10-lessons-the-battle-73-easting-15332
https://www.quora.com/During-the-ma...r-not-by-the-main-gun-of-opposing-Iraqi-tanks

A notable account:-

_"I say that because there was at least one well-publicized instance of an M1A1 tank from the 24th Mechanized Division taking direct fire from sub-1000m range by T-72 tanks, three of them. The first shot bounced off the frontal turret armor with the M1A1 crew destroying that tank. The second shot, from a different tank, also bounced off the frontal turret armor, and the M1A1's crew destroyed that tank. The third shot, from a third tank at about 400 m penetrated the aluminum side sponson box of the turret but not the turret armor itself. This tank then hid behind a sand berm, which the M1A1 crew shot through and destroyed the third tank."_

Want to test Al-Khalid or Type-59 like that? Good luck.

Al-Khalid is a fairly decent MBT and might endure a modern-era round or two but Type-59 will be toast in a single shot.


----------



## Dazzler

LeGenD said:


> One of the members here pointed out _that that_ unit was not actually M1*A1* but an inferior variant.
> 
> Anyways, it is possible that M1A1 Abrams was not prepared for operations in Bahawalpur type environment back then [in the 1980s]. Additionally, we didn't give US a chance to customize its product per our needs. For example, we could have requested a solution for the issue of "sand ingestion" from this company: http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.c...F112255-Military-Ground-Vehicle-Equipment.pdf
> 
> _"The M1 Abrams requirement pioneered the first PJAC Air Cleaner back in 1991. On a 1,560 mile dust course at Yuma Proving Grounds, a non-pulse jet equipped M1A1 had to stop and service filters ten times. The M1A1 equipped with the PJAC never had to stop to service the filters. Now the PJAC is offered on many ground vehicles and is used by governments all over the world."
> _
> Source: http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/071714.pdf
> 
> What happened in Bahawalpur in the 1980s, is completely invalid today. If we are to judge an M1 MBT variant today, we need to concentrate on its evolution over the course of years and what it can do today. We need to stop living in the past.
> 
> As for pitting Type-59 against an M1A1 Abrams in the battlefield; Iraq did this in 1991 and results are in front of everybody. Just another reason to not take Bahawalpur-based account [very] seriously.
> 
> ---
> 
> Based on revelations in this very forum, I get the impression that we are giving developers of Oplot-M and VT-4 ample chance to customize their products per our needs. Both _failed_ in their [initial] trials in Bahawalpur, right?
> 
> ---
> 
> Can you tell me why we testing Oplot-M and VT-4 when we have Al-Khalid?
> 
> 
> seem to look at these matters in _black-and-white_ ways, my friend. A battlefield scenario of the scale and intensity of the Persian Gulf War (1991) is likely to establish conditions for engagements [each varying from the other] in which superiority of weaponry and training of soldiers will be subject to stresses unlike in any trials.
> 
> *Battle of 73 Easting* occurred in "stormy conditions," and without involvement of Apaches and A10s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Details in following sources:-
> 
> https://www.defensemedianetwork.com...ng-and-the-road-to-the-synthetic-battlefield/
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/10-lessons-the-battle-73-easting-15332
> https://www.quora.com/During-the-ma...r-not-by-the-main-gun-of-opposing-Iraqi-tanks
> 
> A notable account:-
> 
> _"I say that because there was at least one well-publicized instance of an M1A1 tank from the 24th Mechanized Division taking direct fire from sub-1000m range by T-72 tanks, three of them. The first shot bounced off the frontal turret armor with the M1A1 crew destroying that tank. The second shot, from a different tank, also bounced off the frontal turret armor, and the M1A1's crew destroyed that tank. The third shot, from a third tank at about 400 m penetrated the aluminum side sponson box of the turret but not the turret armor itself. This tank then hid behind a sand berm, which the M1A1 crew shot through and destroyed the third tank."_
> 
> Want to test Al-Khalid or Type-59 like that? Good luck.
> 
> Al-Khalid is a fairly decent MBT and might endure a modern-era round or two but Type-59 will be toast in a single shot.



The sole reason to opt for an mbt from outside is to replace the obsolete fleet quickly. HIT is struggling to churn it in big numbers. At best they can make 50 a year. Responding to the rest of your post is a waste of my time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Dazzler said:


> The sole reason to opt for an mbt from outside is to replace the obsolete fleet quickly. HIT is struggling to churn it in big numbers. At best they can make 50 a year.


Budget related issues then?

VT-4 vs. Oplot-M vs. Al-Khalid; which is better and why. Please enlighten me.



Dazzler said:


> Responding to the rest of your post is a waste of my time.


Why? Am I typing fairy tales here?

Problem with you [and a few other members here] is that when your points are shot down, you resort to cheap cop outs like these.

Either be prepared to address an argument (or concede). Do not give me lame excuses.

Let us settle this debate like "gentlemen," in another thread where you tell me what is right and what is wrong. I will pay full attention to your views there.

Deal?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

LeGenD said:


> Budget related issues then?
> 
> VT-4 vs. Oplot-M vs. Al-Khalid; which is better and why. Please enlighten me.
> 
> 
> Why? Am I typing fairy tales here?
> 
> Problem with you [and a few other members here] is that when your points are shot down, you resort to cheap cop outs like these.
> 
> Either be prepared to address an argument (or concede). Do not give me lame excuses.
> 
> Let us settle this debate like "gentlemen," in another thread where you tell me what is right and what is wrong. I will pay full attention to your views there.
> 
> Deal?




Which of my points have you killed so far? Lets see:


M1A1 failed in Pakistan is a fact so keep refuting it all you like. It missed targets on the move is also a fact. its powerpack heated to undesired levels is also a fact. You may not find it documented, but there is a BBC documentary exposing the M1A1 fiasco to some degree so take it or leave, its up to you. However, if you want someone to hand you documentation on what actually happened in Tamewala/ Cholistan and Bahawalpur trials, forget it.

You conveniently overlooked several important points in trying to prove the might of your favorite mbt.

The fact is that M1A1, like any other weapon system in the world, is as vulnerable in the battlefield without adequate air cover as any. Yes there have been improvements and it showed much better performance in the first gulf war and stuff. it could even fire the M829A1 silver bullet that literally shredded the Asad babil's frontal armor. In However, during the war, the tank regiments had convenient supply and maintenance chains to support it throughout the war. The air cover was there, and Apaches and Thunderbolts rarely left them isolated in the desert.

The technology in these mbts was also played a conclusive role. What on earth a downgraded Asad Babil could have done against a top of the line mbt? Even one on one confrontation, the result would be obvious. It was not even a competition.


I live a real world and have worked on some prestigious projects so i may know, have seen and operated things up close that some of you fanboys can only dream of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAIDER

*mages suggest Pakistan Army may be testing Norinco VT4 MBT*
*Samuel Cranny-Evans* - Jane's Defence Weekly






Images have emerged on Chinese social media suggesting that the Pakistan Army (PA) may be testing the China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) VT4 main battle tank (MBT). Published on 6 January the photographs show PA personnel inspecting a VT4 platform at an undisclosed location.

The VT4 is a third-generation MBT offered for export by Norinco. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the PA, although it retains the 125 mm main gun, carousel auto-loader, and crew configuration of the older vehicle.

Among the key differentiating features are the thermal-imaging capabilities and panoramic sights of the VT4, which enhance the vehicle’s ability to operate at night or in poorly lit environments. The VT4 is also capable of incorporating a remote weapon station.

Pakistan is known to be in close co-operation with China for the development and acquisition of MBTs, although it is also likely to continue to use other sources, notably Ukraine, for powerpacks and ancillary systems.

Pakistan currently deploys a fleet of Al-Khalid and Type 85-II MBTs, as well as a large quantity of T-80UDs MBTs, the latter which were supplied by Ukraine. The South Asian country is in the process of increasing the size of its armoured vehicle fleet to match that of its regional rival, India, which recently announced plans to convert a large part of its T-72 MBTs fleet to the T-90S standard.

Moreover, an Indian order for 700 T-90S MBTs is expected to be placed in April 2018, which will eventually take the Indian Army’s total number of T-90S platforms to more than 1,500 vehicles, thus placing Pakistan at a distinct numerical disadvantage in terms of modern MBTs.

*janes.com*


----------



## Bratva

Thai VT-4 AutoLoader

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## muhammadali233

Bratva said:


> Thai VT-4 AutoLoader


that is a t-72 i guess.


----------



## Dazzler

muhammadali233 said:


> that is a t-72 i guess.



T-72, T-90, Al khalid, Type-99 all versions, VT-4, Type-85/ 96 all versions, use the same AZ type autoloader.








The T-64, T-80, T-84 and Oplot all utilise MZ type autloader.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> T-72, T-90, Al khalid, Type-99 all versions, VT-4, Type-85/ 96 all versions, use the same AZ type autoloader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T-64, T-80, T-84 and Oplot all utilise MZ type autloader.


What's the pro and cons of auto loader?


----------



## muhammadali233

Dazzler said:


> T-72, T-90, Al khalid, Type-99 all versions, VT-4, Type-85/ 96 all versions, use the same AZ type autoloader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T-64, T-80, T-84 and Oplot all utilise MZ type autloader.


MZ looks better,the propellent and projectile are loaded at the same time.


wanglaokan said:


> What's the pro and cons of auto loader?


Con added complexity.
Pro 3 person crew


----------



## Yukihime

T-80 loader


Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


M1A2 Abrams human all mighty loader

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

muhammadali233 said:


> MZ looks better,the propellent and projectile are loaded at the same time.
> 
> Con added complexity.
> Pro 3 person crew


And auto-loader will have higher rate of fire.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> What's the pro and cons of auto loader?



The biggest is that it saves you one crew member, which in turn helps avoid putting additional armor on the vehicle to protect that member. Early versions of both autloader types had several problems. They were prone to jamming and were complex to operate. Later versions were much safer and easy to operate, not to mention they had fewer moving parts unlike their early cousins. 

Both China and Pakistan have modified the AZ autoloader as per their needs. In fact, Chinese made 30 improvements to the original design. The only downside of using these is that you end up developing two piece ammo, which reduces the length of APFSDS rod and hence reduces overall armor penetration power. 

However, the recent updates involved developing slightly larger tray which allowed APFSDS reaching 740mm which helped increased their armor penetration values.



muhammadali233 said:


> MZ looks better,the propellent and projectile are loaded at the same time.
> 
> Con added complexity.
> Pro 3 person crew



MZ is also slightly faster but more complicated. it is essentially a robotic arm feeding the ammo to the gun. The AZ had a better safety and operational record of the two.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yukihime

wanglaokan said:


> What's the pro and cons of auto loader?



T-80/oplot loader uses two piece ammo too, so they share the same problem as T-72 loader, rather than the single piece NATO tank ammunition.





Difference between T-72/T-90 and T-64/T-80 loaders is:
T-72/T-90 loaders have all ammunition lying landscape, payload and gun powder are pushed separately into the main gun:






T-64/T-80 loaders have the gun powder part of the round vertically standing around the turret. Payload and gun powder are 'assembled' together in the loader before got pushed into the gun.





T-72/T-90 auto-loader uses mechanic system for lifting the ammo up to where the main gun is, while the T-64/T-80 uses hydraulic propelled system which contributed a drastically higher rate of malfunction at early period, such like bringing along the gunner's clothes into the main gun...
Moreover, because the rear part of the round is 'standing' in the turret, T64/T-80 loaders are also accused for higher possibility of coefficient when hit by enemy fire.

When introducing auto-loader into indigenous tanks in 1980s, PLAF faced the challenging task of enhancing the loader's reliability.
Thanks to the advantage on electromechanics and system integration fields, one of the most significant change made by chinese technicians was a whole set of electric propelled & controlled system which replaced the out-dated mechanics that was used in the T-72 loader.
This was later proved to have improved the loader's reliability to a whole new level, and was put into use in the later type 96 and type 99 (early model).
The new loader gave type 99 a fire rate of 8r/min with reliability that had surpassed any western auto loader.

The following is just estimation:
Since the Al khalid uses the chinese 125mm caliber gun system, the same electric ammo lifting system should have also come with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler




----------



## SQ8

Yukihime said:


> The following is just estimation:
> Since the Al khalid uses the chinese 125mm caliber gun system, the same electric ammo lifting system should have also come with it.


AK loader electronics are local
https://carepvtltd.com/Electronics/cms.php?id=Solid_State_Autoloader

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

Danish saleem said:


> we are evaluating? we still not capable enough to have our own tank!
> i am just surprised that both Al khalid and JF 17 planed in 90's, and what happen after that?


Sanctions fell off
Lol
We never learn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

We are doing feasability study not planning


----------



## Yukihime

Oscar said:


> AK loader electronics are local
> https://carepvtltd.com/Electronics/cms.php?id=Solid_State_Autoloader



Thanks as this, to some extent, proved the estimation that the chinese loader did come with the MBT-2000.
In other word, PA did acquire the whole loader along with other gun accessories for practical use and whatever needed in localisation.










Quite an achievement for the manufacturer to come out with these through cooperation with its various partners.
It makes people think it is PA's opponent who should learn from how to bring out a solid product like this.


----------



## CrusherChamp

ziaulislam said:


> Sanctions fell off
> Lol
> We never learn


HahahH


----------



## waz

I know it's currently undergoing trials, but I hope Pakistan puts in a bulk order for 1,500 tanks (built in China and Pakistan). The VT4 is a superior platform to the T-90A, and the T-90MS comes just a little short. The army would be fielding an excellent tank which has won the admiration of Western pundits, who we all know aren't the greatest fans of Chinese hardware.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ziaulislam

waz said:


> I know it's currently undergoing trials, but I hope Pakistan puts in a bulk order for 1,500 tanks (built in China and Pakistan). The VT4 is a superior platform to the T-90A, and the T-90MS comes just a little short. The army would be fielding an excellent tank which has won the admiration of Western pundits, who we all know aren't the greatest fans of Chinese hardware.


i would rather want pakistan to joint build a modified version otherwise we cant afford that number

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

ziaulislam said:


> i would rather want pakistan to joint build a modified version otherwise we cant afford that number



I mentioned that, Pakistan can offset costs. But the need is crucial now ,especially with India operating over 1,600 T-90's alone.


----------



## Super Falcon

ALTAY OPLOT will be killing combo and AK is in backup we must be having best tank como in region


----------



## Basel

Dazzler said:


> T-72, T-90, Al khalid, Type-99 all versions, VT-4, Type-85/ 96 all versions, use the same AZ type autoloader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T-64, T-80, T-84 and Oplot all utilise MZ type autloader.



Which one is better?


----------



## LeGenD

Dazzler said:


> M1A1 failed in Pakistan is a fact so keep refuting it all you like.


I would like to clear one thing: since I am in the _academics_, I am sensitive to expressions (and context) accordingly.

1. Your _disclosure_ is an account.
2. Evidence is provided to corroborate an account.
3. In the absence of evidence, your account may or may not be _true_* (a fact).

*Since you insist that your account is true, then I have to make sense of provided information; your account might be true because M1 Abrams was *not* 'optimized' for sustained operations in the Cholistan desert (or similar environments) back then, in the 1980s. Such optimizations officially commenced in 1990.

M1 Abrams was first retrofitted with an 'air filter' for sustained operations in the desert environments in 1990 (to prevent _talcum powder like sand_ from creeping into its engine - sand ingestion phenomenon). After the Persian Gulf War (1991), the original 'air filter' was replaced with the vastly superior PJAC system from Donaldson.

_PROBLEM: In Desert Storm, the M1 Abrams could only travel as few as 12 miles (20 km) before the filters needed to be changed. 

SOLUTION: The M1 Abrams requirement pioneered the first PJAC Air Cleaner back in 1991. On a 1,560 mile dust course at Yuma Proving Grounds, a non-pulse jet equipped M1A1 had to stop and service filters ten times. The M1A1 equipped with the PJAC never had to stop to service the filters. Now the PJAC is offered on many ground vehicles and is used by governments all over the world._

Source: http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/071714.pdf

Cheers.



Dazzler said:


> It missed targets on the move is also a fact.


Which gun was mounted on it? Its stabilizer was not working? Crew was Pakistani?

Your disclosure leads me to consider following possibilities (or a combination thereof):-

1. Crew was not up to the task.
2. Main gun might not be 120 mm M256 but inferior 105 mm M68A1.
3. The unit malfunctioned*.

*Machines are not infallible; _parts can develop faults_ and disrupt functionality of the entire system subsequently.

I recall that a few M1 Abrams units malfunctioned in the Arabian desert environments in 1990; _defective parts_ were the most likely culprit in these cases.



Dazzler said:


> its powerpack heated to undesired levels is also a fact. You may not find it documented, but there is a BBC documentary exposing the M1A1 fiasco to some degree so take it or leave, its up to you. However, if you want someone to hand you documentation on what actually happened in Tamewala/ Cholistan and Bahawalpur trials, forget it.


Alright, my friend.

Keep in mind that experience is an unparalleled teacher, and objective of testing is to uncover potential shortcomings. They likely saw an opportunity to test their product in Bahawalpur and learn from such exposure.

M1 Abrams is a versatile platform, and it has undergone lot of improvements since its inception.



Dazzler said:


> You conveniently overlooked several important points in trying to prove the might of your favorite mbt.
> 
> The fact is that M1A1, like any other weapon system in the world, is as vulnerable in the battlefield without adequate air cover as any.


Of-course.

However, M1 Abrams was designed in the manner, as to offer better protection that contemporary Main Battle Tanks at the time.

_"The driving force behind the development of the M1 Abrams was crew survival, and the tank's shape comes from composite armor developed towards this purpose. Special armor is also used in the forward track skirts. Of the fifty-five 105mm rounds, three were kept on the turret floor in spall-resistant covers, eight were stowed in an armored compartment in the hull behind the engine bulkhead, and the rest were stowed in the turret bustle behind armored blast doors. Blowoff panels in the hull ammunition compartment and the turret bustle vented ammunition explosions away from the crew compartment. The TC's hatch incorporated an open protected, or umbrella, position, which allowed visibility while still providing overhead protection." _

Excellent information in this link: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m1abrams.html



Dazzler said:


> Yes there have been improvements and it showed much better performance in the first gulf war and stuff. it could even fire the M829A1 silver bullet that literally shredded the Asad babil's frontal armor. In However, during the war, the tank regiments had convenient supply and maintenance chains to support it throughout the war. The air cover was there, and Apaches and Thunderbolts rarely left them isolated in the desert.






Dazzler said:


> The technology in these mbts was also played a conclusive role. What on earth a downgraded Asad Babil could have done against a top of the line mbt? Even one on one confrontation, the result would be obvious. It was not even a competition.



_
On-board technologies_ was my point of contention as well, throughout the course of this discussion. This is why I argued that a Type-59 derivative cannot match and/or outperform an M1A1 Abrams derivative under any circumstances (assuming the two are in perfect working order).

Even the original M1 Abrams was/is a generational leap from Type-59 derivatives in capabilities by virtue of its vastly superior _onboard technologies_ and design. Full stop.

What happened in Bahawalpur should not be taken at face value, by a professional. We need to focus on the technical aspects of the products in question and how they fared against each other in the battlefield.

M1 Abrams derivatives literally smoked any Main Battle Tank (MBT) that was pitted against them by the Iraqi armed forces in 1991 such as T-54, Type 59, T-62, Type 69 and T-72M1 (Lion of Babylon). I am counting strictly Tank-to-Tank engagements.



Dazzler said:


> I live a real world and have worked on some prestigious projects so i may know, have seen and operated things up close that some of you fanboys can only dream of.


Look! I respect your exposure and professionalism. And I look forward to your valuable input for military-related matters.

However, I have seen that Pakistani military officials tend to develop "superiority complex" on average, and this is a problem. I will not generalize; some are very decent and groomed. However, military officials are also people, and as subjective as civilians on average.

More importantly, never (ever) underestimate the versatility and knowledge of civilians in general. I am not in the military but I am not a layman either. And I am not short on connections - scores of my relatives are in the military and/or veterans. A few in positions that many will never attain during the course of their lives. I won't boast further.

_Education_ shape civilizations, and define their holistic competence. Pakistan Army would be nothing without unconditional support of Pakistani civilians. Keep this fact in mind.

Civilians are the backbone of any country. USA is miles ahead of Pakistan in productivity and power projection due to its vastly superior education system and institutions.

Above all, I appreciate your input. We can get in touch.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> He is right.. the Abrams did fail...! Gen Zia fiasco??? Je was returning after witnessing the tests ... along with the americans.
> 
> And the tests were held in “Khairpur Tamme’wali”...
> 
> However that said... the abrams wasnt fielding the 120mm canon rather a 100+mm gun... atleast from what can be gathered from the video.
> 
> There is a video of it... il find it for you.


OK, bro. Appreciated. 

A machinery can certainly fail in an environment for which it is not optimized at the time of testing.

M1 Abrams was something new back then, and not ready for operations in certain environments at the time. Therefore, Pakistani accounts might be true to large extent.

However, M1 Abrams in its current shape - is a beast of engineering.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

LeGenD said:


> I would like to clear one thing: since I am in the _academics_, I am sensitive to expressions (and context) accordingly.
> 
> 1. Your _disclosure_ is an account.
> 2. Evidence is provided to corroborate an account.
> 3. In the absence of evidence, your account may or may not be _true_* (a fact).
> 
> *Since you insist that your account is true, then I have to make sense of provided information; your account might be true because M1 Abrams was *not* 'optimized' for sustained operations in the Cholistan desert (or similar environments) back then, in the 1980s. Such optimizations officially commenced in 1990.
> 
> M1 Abrams was first retrofitted with an 'air filter' for sustained operations in the desert environments in 1990 (to prevent _talcum powder like sand_ from creeping into its engine - sand ingestion phenomenon). After the Persian Gulf War (1991), the original 'air filter' was replaced with the vastly superior PJAC system from Donaldson.
> 
> _PROBLEM: In Desert Storm, the M1 Abrams could only travel as few as 12 miles (20 km) before the filters needed to be changed.
> 
> SOLUTION: The M1 Abrams requirement pioneered the first PJAC Air Cleaner back in 1991. On a 1,560 mile dust course at Yuma Proving Grounds, a non-pulse jet equipped M1A1 had to stop and service filters ten times. The M1A1 equipped with the PJAC never had to stop to service the filters. Now the PJAC is offered on many ground vehicles and is used by governments all over the world._
> 
> Source: http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/071714.pdf
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> 
> Which gun was mounted on it? Its stabilizer was not working? Crew was Pakistani?
> 
> Your disclosure leads me to consider following possibilities (or a combination thereof):-
> 
> 1. Crew was not up to the task.
> 2. Main gun might not be 120 mm M256 but inferior 105 mm M68A1.
> 3. The unit malfunctioned*.
> 
> *Machines are not infallible; _parts can develop faults_ and disrupt functionality of the entire system subsequently.
> 
> I recall that a few M1 Abrams units malfunctioned in the Arabian desert environments in 1990; _defective parts_ were the most likely culprit in these cases.
> 
> 
> Alright, my friend.
> 
> Keep in mind that experience is an unparalleled teacher, and objective of testing is to uncover potential shortcomings. They likely saw an opportunity to test their product in Bahawalpur and learn from such exposure.
> 
> M1 Abrams is a versatile platform, and it has undergone lot of improvements since its inception.
> 
> 
> Of-course.
> 
> However, M1 Abrams was designed in the manner, as to offer better protection that contemporary Main Battle Tanks at the time.
> 
> _"The driving force behind the development of the M1 Abrams was crew survival, and the tank's shape comes from composite armor developed towards this purpose. Special armor is also used in the forward track skirts. Of the fifty-five 105mm rounds, three were kept on the turret floor in spall-resistant covers, eight were stowed in an armored compartment in the hull behind the engine bulkhead, and the rest were stowed in the turret bustle behind armored blast doors. Blowoff panels in the hull ammunition compartment and the turret bustle vented ammunition explosions away from the crew compartment. The TC's hatch incorporated an open protected, or umbrella, position, which allowed visibility while still providing overhead protection." _
> 
> Excellent information in this link: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m1abrams.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> On-board technologies_ was my point of contention as well, throughout the course of this discussion. This is why I argued that a Type-59 derivative cannot match and/or outperform an M1A1 Abrams derivative under any circumstances (assuming the two are in perfect working order).
> 
> Even the original M1 Abrams was/is a generational leap from Type-59 derivatives in capabilities by virtue of its vastly superior _onboard technologies_ and design. Full stop.
> 
> What happened in Bahawalpur should not be taken at face value, by a professional. We need to focus on the technical aspects of the products in question and how they fared against each other in the battlefield.
> 
> M1 Abrams derivatives literally smoked any Main Battle Tank (MBT) that was pitted against them by the Iraqi armed forces in 1991 such as T-54, Type 59, T-62, Type 69 and T-72M1 (Lion of Babylon). I am counting strictly Tank-to-Tank engagements.
> 
> 
> Look! I respect your exposure and professionalism. And I look forward to your valuable input for military-related matters.
> 
> However, I have seen that Pakistani military officials tend to develop "superiority complex" on average, and this is a problem. I will not generalize; some are very decent and groomed. However, military officials are also people, and as subjective as civilians on average.
> 
> More importantly, never (ever) underestimate the versatility and knowledge of civilians in general. I am not in the military but I am not a layman either. And I am not short on connections - scores of my relatives are in the military and/or veterans. A few in positions that many will never attain during the course of their lives. I won't boast further.
> 
> _Education_ shape civilizations, and define their holistic competence. Pakistan Army would be nothing without unconditional support of Pakistani civilians. Keep this fact in mind.
> 
> Civilians are the backbone of any country. USA is miles ahead of Pakistan in productivity and power projection due to its vastly superior education system and institutions.
> 
> Above all, I appreciate your input. We can get in touch.
> 
> 
> OK, bro. Appreciated.
> 
> A machinery can certainly fail in an environment for which it is not optimized at the time of testing.
> 
> M1 Abrams was something new back then, and not ready for operations in certain environments at the time. Therefore, Pakistani accounts might be true to large extent.
> 
> However, M1 Abrams in its current shape - is a beast of engineering.


Discussed to death here;

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/m1-t...separating-facts-from-the-myths.409993/page-5


----------



## LeGenD

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Discussed to death here;
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/m1-t...separating-facts-from-the-myths.409993/page-5


Forget that thread. I was a bit of a jerk at the time.

MODS can remove it.


----------



## Dazzler

LeGenD said:


> Forget that thread. I was a bit of a jerk at the time.
> 
> MODS can remove it.



What makes you think you sound any different this time around?

There is nothing more to add. M1A1's failure in Pakistan is a historic fact. 

Deny it all you like.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Dazzler said:


> What makes you think you sound any different this time around?
> 
> There is nothing more to add. M1A1's failure in Pakistan is a historic fact.
> 
> Deny it all you like.


Did you read my response? I cannot be more friendly, forthcoming and appreciative then that.

I am (not) denying your account. Otherwise, I would have simply stated "I disagree. Thank you."

Bro, learn to have a discussion first.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

Dazzler said:


> What makes you think you sound any different this time around?
> 
> There is nothing more to add. M1A1's failure in Pakistan is a historic fact.
> 
> Deny it all you like.


That's straw man argument,in any given theatre of OPS in world M1A1 will be enjoying unlimited Air Cover and Scores of Hellfire missiles to cover it's every failure.I don't think any tank crew after knocking down US Army M1A1 would be able to tell the tale citing A-10,AH-64 and AH-1z's hovering above to provide cover or cover the failure.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MiG-35-BD

LeGenD said:


> Did you read my response? I cannot be more friendly, forthcoming and appreciative then that.
> 
> I am (not) denying your account. Otherwise, I would have simply stated "I disagree. Thank you."
> 
> Bro, learn to have a discussion first.



What a well thought out and excellent number of posts you wrote. Its a shame Dazzler does not have the decency to talk in a civilized manner and lashes out with personal innuendos. 

Please do write more on this forum. I know less about tanks than air force stuff but would love to hear your thoughts on 
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rethinking-the-tank-al-khalid-2-the-future.545239/
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/whither-now-the-attack-helicopter-problem-for-pa.545613/

If you would be so kind as to oblige.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

plaimki said:


> What a well thought out and excellent number of posts you wrote. Its a shame Dazzler does not have the decency to talk in a civilized manner and lashes out with personal innuendos.
> 
> Please do write more on this forum. I know less about tanks than air force stuff but would love to hear your thoughts on
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rethinking-the-tank-al-khalid-2-the-future.545239/
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/whither-now-the-attack-helicopter-problem-for-pa.545613/
> 
> If you would be so kind as to oblige.



Don't have time to parrot the same thing over. You were embarrassed in another thread right? Now taking cheap shots to compensate for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

waz said:


> I know it's currently undergoing trials, but I hope Pakistan puts in a bulk order for 1,500 tanks (built in China and Pakistan). The VT4 is a superior platform to the T-90A, and the T-90MS comes just a little short. The army would be fielding an excellent tank which has won the admiration of Western pundits, who we all know aren't the greatest fans of Chinese hardware.


Sorry but VT 4 hardly impressed any one in the Army when it first came to trials. OPLOT was the one which we liked only issue was engine. Both got changes so let see who wins now


----------



## waz

Zarvan said:


> Sorry but VT 4 hardly impressed any one in the Army when it first came to trials. OPLOT was the one which we liked only issue was engine. Both got changes so let see who wins now



Says who, link please?


----------



## Readerdefence

Zarvan said:


> Sorry but VT 4 hardly impressed any one in the Army when it first came to trials. OPLOT was the one which we liked only issue was engine. Both got changes so let see who wins now[/QUOTE
> Hi any info about the changes in both of them
> Thank you


----------



## Beast

waz said:


> Says who, link please?


Misconception and his link is from a fake so called insider from facebook. 

Nothing is from PA. Oplot M is already rejected by RTA. Not only becos the delivery date is delayed. What they received is not up to expectation and a retrial carry out which VT-4 beats all competitors that included Leopard 2.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Beast said:


> Misconception and his link is from a fake so called insider from facebook.
> 
> Nothing is from PA. Oplot M is already rejected by RTA. Not only becos the delivery date is delayed. What they received is not up to expectation and a retrial carry out which VT-4 beats all competitors that included Leopard 2.



Yep there was many issues with it. They even questioned build quality....


----------



## Sine Nomine

@waz But Ukrainian are offering,i think manufacturing of 6TD-2 Engine in Pakistan,and it is very lurcative deal to Pakistan because Ak-2 would also benfit from it.


----------



## razgriz19

LeGenD said:


> One of the members here pointed out _that that_ unit was not actually M1*A1* but an inferior variant.
> 
> Anyways, it is possible that M1A1 Abrams was not prepared for operations in Bahawalpur type environment back then [in the 1980s]. Additionally, we didn't give US a chance to customize its product per our needs. For example, we could have requested a solution for the issue of "sand ingestion" from this company: http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.c...F112255-Military-Ground-Vehicle-Equipment.pdf
> 
> _"The M1 Abrams requirement pioneered the first PJAC Air Cleaner back in 1991. On a 1,560 mile dust course at Yuma Proving Grounds, a non-pulse jet equipped M1A1 had to stop and service filters ten times. The M1A1 equipped with the PJAC never had to stop to service the filters. Now the PJAC is offered on many ground vehicles and is used by governments all over the world."
> _
> Source: http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/071714.pdf
> 
> What happened in Bahawalpur in the 1980s, is completely invalid today. If we are to judge an M1 MBT variant today, we need to concentrate on its evolution over the course of years and what it can do today. We need to stop living in the past.
> 
> As for pitting Type-59 against an M1A1 Abrams in the battlefield; Iraq did this in 1991 and results are in front of everybody. Just another reason to not take Bahawalpur-based account [very] seriously.
> 
> ---
> 
> Based on revelations in this very forum, I get the impression that we are giving developers of Oplot-M and VT-4 ample chance to customize their products per our needs. Both _failed_ in their [initial] trials in Bahawalpur, right?
> 
> ---
> 
> Can you tell me why we testing Oplot-M and VT-4 when we have Al-Khalid?
> 
> 
> You seem to look at these matters in _black-and-white_ ways, my friend. A battlefield scenario of the scale and intensity of the Persian Gulf War (1991) is likely to establish conditions for engagements [each varying from the other] in which superiority of weaponry and training of soldiers will be subject to stresses unlike in any trials.
> 
> *Battle of 73 Easting* occurred in "stormy conditions," and without involvement of Apaches and A10s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Details in following sources:-
> 
> https://www.defensemedianetwork.com...ng-and-the-road-to-the-synthetic-battlefield/
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/10-lessons-the-battle-73-easting-15332
> https://www.quora.com/During-the-ma...r-not-by-the-main-gun-of-opposing-Iraqi-tanks
> 
> A notable account:-
> 
> _"I say that because there was at least one well-publicized instance of an M1A1 tank from the 24th Mechanized Division taking direct fire from sub-1000m range by T-72 tanks, three of them. The first shot bounced off the frontal turret armor with the M1A1 crew destroying that tank. The second shot, from a different tank, also bounced off the frontal turret armor, and the M1A1's crew destroyed that tank. The third shot, from a third tank at about 400 m penetrated the aluminum side sponson box of the turret but not the turret armor itself. This tank then hid behind a sand berm, which the M1A1 crew shot through and destroyed the third tank."_
> 
> Want to test Al-Khalid or Type-59 like that? Good luck.
> 
> Al-Khalid is a fairly decent MBT and might endure a modern-era round or two but Type-59 will be toast in a single shot.


You are forgetting something very important, especially with the last battle scenario you mentioned M1 encountered, US army tanks are DIFFERENT than any other M1 operators. 
Their armour is much, much stronger than those being operated by Mid east or any other country. Hence the reason why Israel, and most NATO countries developed their own tanks as US wouldn't provide them the same armour capability as its own army.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Aamir Hussain

Ukraine has some serious internal issues that has seriously effected its defense projects. Therefore, engaging in a long term program, such as an AFV project, with them would be risky now specially with some thaw in Pak Russia relations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mumm-Ra

Aamir Hussain said:


> Ukraine has some serious internal issues that has seriously effected its defense projects. Therefore, engaging in a long term program, such as an AFV project, with them would be risky now specially with some thaw in Pak Russia relations.



It will take a major diplomatic effort to get Russia to collaborate with us on MBTs or AFVs. There is not much favourable view of the T-90 in Pakistan. That leaves room for only AFV or maybe APCs to be bought from Russia. Hence, we still have the fundamental problem of replacing our MBTs. The Western Tanks are either too heavy, too expensive or out of bounds for us. The Chinese tank is not up to standard as stated above. So that leaves only Ukraine for collaboration in MBTs. Kinda like stuck being between a rock and a hard place

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Xlvee01 said:


> It will take a major diplomatic effort to get Russia to collaborate with us on MBTs or AFVs. There is not much favourable view of the T-90 in Pakistan. That leaves room for only AFV or maybe APCs to be bought from Russia. Hence, we still have the fundamental problem of replacing our MBTs. The Western Tanks are either too heavy, too expensive or out of bounds for us. *The Chinese tank is not up to standard as stated above.* So that leaves only Ukraine for collaboration in MBTs. Kinda like stuck being between a rock and a hard place


That's an irresponsible conclusion.


----------



## KAI KAI Baloch

Xlvee01 said:


> It will take a major diplomatic effort to get Russia to collaborate with us on MBTs or AFVs. There is not much favourable view of the T-90 in Pakistan. That leaves room for only AFV or maybe APCs to be bought from Russia. Hence, we still have the fundamental problem of replacing our MBTs. The Western Tanks are either too heavy, too expensive or out of bounds for us. The Chinese tank is not up to standard as stated above. So that leaves only Ukraine for collaboration in MBTs. Kinda like stuck being between a rock and a hard place



i heard otherwise that T90 MS (with diesel engine) is what the PA wants........... but again i might be wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mumm-Ra

wanglaokan said:


> That's an irresponsible conclusion.



It says right up there..
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/vt-4-mbt-in-pakistan.537585/page-17#post-10300373


----------



## Ethan XXX

Xlvee01 said:


> It says right up there..
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/vt-4-mbt-in-pakistan.537585/page-18#post-10300430


it seems that the post you quoted meaned Oplot not VT4

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

wanglaokan said:


> That's an irresponsible conclusion.


Engine might be one thing that attracts PA towards Oplot since all modern MBT's (AK series/T-80) of PA use Ukrainian engines and in future the possibility can be true for AK-II.


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> Engine might be one thing that attracts PA towards Oplot since all modern MBT's (AK series/T-80) of PA use Ukrainian engines and in future the possibility can be true for AK-II.



Add armor to the list. Ukrainian armor is truly excellent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

Beast said:


> Misconception and his link is from a fake so called insider from facebook.
> 
> Nothing is from PA. Oplot M is already rejected by RTA. Not only becos the delivery date is delayed. What they received is not up to expectation and a retrial carry out which VT-4 beats all competitors that included Leopard 2.


Not dissing your lovable VT-4, relax. 

Chinese MBT engines are used in T-series of PA MBT's. Cant say what PA is thinking about a future engine (Chinese or Ukrainian) for its newer MBT's.


----------



## Mumm-Ra

Ethan XXX said:


> it seems that the post you quoted meaned Oplot not VT4



Thanks for pointing it out. Post has been corrected.



KAI KAI Baloch said:


> i heard otherwise that T90 MS (with diesel engine) is what the PA wants........... but again i might be wrong



I think there was a whole thread on it here. But, in the end, it turned out to be a rumour only.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Add armor to the list. Ukrainian armor is truly excellent.


Oplot's armour is even better than T99A2?

Five filthy Indians on the train staring at Chinese ladies with lascivious eyes. I'm gonna kick their ***. They are quite disturbing. 
I need to teach them how to behave in China. They look just like rapists.

Talk later on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> Oplot's armour is even better than T99A2?
> 
> Five filthy Indians on the train staring at Chinese ladies with lascivious eyes. I'm gonna kick their ***. They are quite disturbing.
> I need to teach them how to behave in China. They look just like rapists.
> 
> Talk later on.



Did I compare both?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Did I compare both?


Do we have detailed information of the armors from both tanks to compare?



Dazzler said:


> Did I compare both?


Do we have detailed information of the armors from both tanks to compare?

I mean, by what, you can conclude Oplot's armour is better than VT4?

@Dazzler I'm not here to promote VT4, cause not a penny will go to my pocket. You must have very solid proof to stand your claim.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> Do we have detailed information of the armors from both tanks to compare?
> 
> 
> Do we have detailed information of the armors from both tanks to compare?
> 
> I mean, by what, you can conclude Oplot's armour is better than VT4?
> 
> @Dazzler I'm not here to promote VT4, cause not a penny will go to my pocket. You must have very solid proof to stand your claim.



Yes i do, the fact that Al khalid's composite armor share similarities with that of the armor used in t-80ud instead of its ancestor type-85III is a testament to that. 

I am not ging to discuss the materials used, we need to keep in mind that thickness or armor does not make the armor great or impenetrable. Materials, their make, density counts too. 

When it comes to ERA kits, the ukrainian nozh/ duplet are clearly ahead of Chinese origina, not latest FY-series that came as standard with Al-khalid. We ourself make two different types of ERA kits, one at NDC and the other at KRL.

Of course, China has made rapid advancements in these fields too no denying that, these comparisons at no point are directed to your type-99A2 as we never used that system. 

But, Chinese FCS/ GCS is still a lot better, at least what we saw in AK prototypes as well as recently in VT-4, no question about it. Ukrainian fcs need some catching up to do. 

Bottomline, the comparison is strictly based on Pakistan's own experience and should be taken as such. 

Regards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

VT 4 spotted in Rawalpindi Photo credit our very own @Tipu7

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Zarvan said:


> VT 4 spotted in Rawalpindi Photocredit or very own @Tipu7


its not my snap bro......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

Zarvan said:


> VT 4 spotted in Rawalpindi Photocredit or very own @Tipu7


better resolution


https://imgur.com/a/QeFhm

credit: @M.Musa

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mani2020

Beast said:


> Do not listen to the Dazzler, he make plenty of nonsense and non fact about Oplot and VT-4 which many come from non concrete proof and based on personal preference only... Just like the Zarvan who so called reliable link and fact come from random facebook post from the so called fake insider who just love to spread fake news.



Cant agree more ... have seen mentioned ones making tall claims but when someone asks them about clarification on that
..all they do is act rude and take path of avoidance ...or at best give explanations that are beyond comprehension ... have been observing that for some time

All it takes for a member is to talk about what he thinks people are willing to hear or what will make him a hero ... All it takes for them is to make up few things and post them

In my personal experience even the people in military doesn't know much details about the on going projects (apart from the ones who are either dedicated to these projects or are at specific ranks) due to the secretive and non disclosure nature of the way our military procurements work .. I wonder then how these arm chair generals claim to know about such things ...

I know a person who is a pilot and believe me on various occasions I have realized that even he doesn't know about 90% of the things claimed here on this forum by these so called insiders. ..


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Is it going back or will be shown in Pakistan Day Parade??


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Do not listen to the Dazzler, he make plenty of nonsense and non fact about Oplot and VT-4 which many come from non concrete proof and based on personal preference only... Just like the Zarvan who so called reliable link and fact come from random facebook post from the so called fake insider who just love to spread fake news.





You are warned, any more nonsense idiotic patriotic songs directed towards me will get you banned.

Post Reported.

Regards


Mani2020 said:


> Cant agree more ... have seen mentioned ones making tall claims but when someone asks them about clarification on that
> ..all they do is act rude and take path of avoidance ...or at best give explanations that are beyond comprehension ... have been observing that for some time
> 
> All it takes for a member is to talk about what he thinks people are willing to hear or what will make him a hero ... All it takes for them is to make up few things and post them
> 
> In my personal experience even the people in military doesn't know much details about the on going projects (apart from the ones who are either dedicated to these projects or are at specific ranks) due to the secretive and non disclosure nature of the way our military procurements work .. I wonder then how these arm chair generals claim to know about such things ...
> 
> I know a person who is a pilot and believe me on various occasions I have realized that even he doesn't know about 90% of the things claimed here on this forum by these so called insiders. ..



Care to those 90% things that you think the pilot should know and didnt? Kids like you are naive to the core. You dont know zilch about military inductions and here you beat the drum as if you know it all.


Tell me, what are the basic criteria of testing an armored fighting vehicle by any customer?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

My concern is that the VT4 is a "downscaled" version from the very good Type-99 (won praise from men western writers). What will Pakistan be getting?


----------



## 帅的一匹

waz said:


> My concern is that the VT4 is a "downscaled" version from the very good Type-99 (won praise from men western writers). What will Pakistan be getting?


Brother,T99A2 is too expensive. PLA can't even afford to induct them in bulks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Mani2020 said:


> Cant agree more ... have seen mentioned ones making tall claims but when someone asks them about clarification on that
> ..all they do is act rude and take path of avoidance ...or at best give explanations that are beyond comprehension ... have been observing that for some time
> 
> All it takes for a member is to talk about what he thinks people are willing to hear or what will make him a hero ... All it takes for them is to make up few things and post them
> 
> In my personal experience even the people in military doesn't know much details about the on going projects (apart from the ones who are either dedicated to these projects or are at specific ranks) due to the secretive and non disclosure nature of the way our military procurements work .. I wonder then how these arm chair generals claim to know about such things ...
> 
> I know a person who is a pilot and believe me on various occasions I have realized that even he doesn't know about 90% of the things claimed here on this forum by these so called insiders. ..


Yes I know How much many Army guys knows. Janab I personally have helped few Army men in getting knowledge about attack helicopters as they knew nothing about helicopters as they were from infantry unit. Janab I myself has given information to Army Jawans to upcoming deal they had no clue about. O Bhai sorry yes they fight with passion but most Army Guys take their duty as job so they are hardly roaming around trying to get information what leadership is thinking and what weapons are coming. I can assure you Dazzler sources are as reliable as it can get. I myself has tried to question claims of people like @Horus and proven wrong over and over again and they being proven right.



waz said:


> My concern is that the VT4 is a "downscaled" version from the very good Type-99 (won praise from men western writers). What will Pakistan be getting?


According to our own Horus even Type 99 was quietly tested in Pakistan and again engine was the issue


----------



## 帅的一匹

Zarvan said:


> Yes I know How much many Army guys knows. Janab I personally have helped few Army men in getting knowledge about attack helicopters as they knew nothing about helicopters as they were from infantry unit. Janab I myself has given information to Army Jawans to upcoming deal they had no clue about. O Bhai sorry yes they fight with passion but most Army Guys take their duty as job so they are hardly roaming around trying to get information what leadership is thinking and what weapons are coming. I can assure you Dazzler sources are as reliable as it can get. I myself has tried to question claims of people like @Horus and proven wrong over and over again and they being proven right.
> 
> 
> According to our own Horus even Type 99 was quietly tested in Pakistan and again engine was the issue


Bro,You just bring it too far. Type 99 is not ready for export, how can it be in Pakistan?


----------



## waz

wanglaokan said:


> Brother,T99A2 is too expensive. PLA can't even afford to induct them in bulks.



How many serve currently on the PLA bro? What's China's plan in order to modernise its massive fleet?



Zarvan said:


> According to our own Horus even Type 99 was quietly tested in Pakistan and again engine was the issue



It's the same issue for both, the difference at least China is on the doorstep and could deliver, and arrange tech transfer.


----------



## 帅的一匹

waz said:


> How many serve currently on the PLA bro? What's China's plan in order to modernise its massive fleet?
> 
> 
> 
> .


Maybe few hundreds until now.



waz said:


> My concern is that the VT4 is a "downscaled" version from the very good Type-99 (won praise from western writers). What will Pakistan be getting?


Look at the armour of the T99A2






Said recently T99A2 has entered into mass production after several years service in PLA army.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zarvan

waz said:


> How many serve currently on the PLA bro? What's China's plan in order to modernise its massive fleet?
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same issue for both, the difference at least China is on the doorstep and could deliver, and arrange tech transfer.


I agree but Ukraine can do same and Ukraine has better experience when it comes to engines and for us that is main issue as for other parts we can get them from Turkey and even Europe but engine is main issue


----------



## waz

Zarvan said:


> I agree but Ukraine can do same and Ukraine has better experience when it comes to engines and for us that is main issue as for other parts we can get them from Turkey and even Europe but engine is main issue



Ukraine can't do anything at this point in time my friend. Let's talks praticality, did you see what happened with the Thai army? Pakistan is now at a serious qualitative and quantitive advantage against India, which needs to be resolved ASAP.


----------



## 帅的一匹

I agree with you saying VT4 is a downsize version of T99A2, but it's not a water-down version.



waz said:


> Ukraine can't do anything at this point in time my friend. Let's talks praticality, did you see what happened with the Thai army? Pakistan is now at a serious qualitative and quantitive advantage against India, which needs to be resolved ASAP.


Brother, T90S of IA is inferior than AK. The only problem is the quantity disadvantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

wanglaokan said:


> Maybe few hundreds until now.
> 
> 
> Look at the armour of the T99A2
> View attachment 458829
> 
> 
> Said recently T99A2 has entered into mass production after several years service in PLA army.



Looks like heavy armor protections all around plus top and weight may be a problem most of std. bridges in pak go up to 60-70 tons with 10-15 tons transporter plus 50 ton tank you have a limit as most Infrastructure put on it

Type 99a almost 59 tons vs 52 tons vt-4

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hu Yao

Zarvan said:


> Yes I know How much many Army guys knows. Janab I personally have helped few Army men in getting knowledge about attack helicopters as they knew nothing about helicopters as they were from infantry unit. Janab I myself has given information to Army Jawans to upcoming deal they had no clue about. O Bhai sorry yes they fight with passion but most Army Guys take their duty as job so they are hardly roaming around trying to get information what leadership is thinking and what weapons are coming. I can assure you Dazzler sources are as reliable as it can get. I myself has tried to question claims of people like @Horus and proven wrong over and over again and they being proven right.
> 
> 
> According to our own Horus even Type 99 was quietly tested in Pakistan and again engine was the issue


Engine issue? I thoght it's the weather issue.

According the *GJB 2392（National military standard 2392)and** GJB1372， *Most chinese armoured viechiles are designed to use under 40 degrees. Simply because we don't have the extreme weather like Pakistan. I thought your tanks don't need to start under -30 degrees too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Hu Yao said:


> Engine issue? I thoght it's the weather issue.
> 
> According the *GJB 2392（National military standard 2392)and GJB1372， *Most chinese armoured viechiles are designed to use under 40 degrees. Simply because we don't have the extreme weather like Pakistan. I thought your tanks don't need to start under -30 degrees too.



Weather directly impacts the engine and thats where the problem begins. Sino mbt engines are not designed to withstand 55 + degree temperature during peak summers in Pakistani deserts and plains.


----------



## Basel

Mani2020 said:


> Cant agree more ... have seen mentioned ones making tall claims but when someone asks them about clarification on that
> ..all they do is act rude and take path of avoidance ...or at best give explanations that are beyond comprehension ... have been observing that for some time
> 
> All it takes for a member is to talk about what he thinks people are willing to hear or what will make him a hero ... All it takes for them is to make up few things and post them
> 
> In my personal experience even the people in military doesn't know much details about the on going projects (apart from the ones who are either dedicated to these projects or are at specific ranks) due to the secretive and non disclosure nature of the way our military procurements work .. I wonder then how these arm chair generals claim to know about such things ...
> 
> I know a person who is a pilot and believe me on various occasions I have realized that even he doesn't know about 90% of the things claimed here on this forum by these so called insiders. ..



If you know much and spill it on public places you will end answering to powerful institution who protect national interest, I think you don't know that.

Have you ever worked in any defense related organization in Pakistan?? Ever heard of MVRD & AVRD (in my time one was abolish)???

Ukraine have better armour that is why T-80s we're selected not the Chinese tanks, but both have their pros and cons in their systems.


----------



## Mani2020

Basel said:


> If you know much and spill it on public places you will end answering to powerful institution who protect national interest, I think you don't know that.
> 
> Have you ever worked in any defense related organization in Pakistan?? Ever heard of MVRD & AVRD (in my time one was abolish)???
> 
> Ukraine have better armour that is why T-80s we're selected not the Chinese tanks, but both have their pros and cons in their systems.



This is what my point is ...how come someone who is not within ranks get to know about such information and can easily spill on public forum ? That was the whole point i was trying to make. .. i dont know how you comprehended it though

The argument was never about Ukrainian or Chinese


----------



## Basel

Mani2020 said:


> This is what my point is ...how come someone who is not within ranks get to know about such information and can easily spill on public forum ? That was the whole point i was trying to make. .. i dont know how you comprehended it though



There is something called PR with in family and friends and these days MoD is not hard on many occasions, you can see on duty people posting pics of equipment, same happen when they share verbally with others but still they can land in hot Waters, in my time I even avoid to talk about day to day stuff with other departments people to avoid landing in hot Waters.


----------



## Mumm-Ra

Basel said:


> There is something called PR with in family and friends and these days MoD is not hard on many occasions, you can see on duty people posting pics of equipment, same happen when they share verbally with others but still they can land in hot Waters, in my time I even avoid to talk about day to day stuff with other departments people to avoid landing in hot Waters.



IMO this is related change in society's perception about one's worth. Now you have to boast about yourself to get more respect. No one really likes the mild mannered decent man anymore. Everyone wants to the macho man and look cool. Hence, these things get leaked in the open.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Xlvee01 said:


> IMO this is related change in society's perception about one's worth. Now you have to boast about yourself to get more respect. No one really likes the mild mannered decent man anymore. Everyone wants to the macho man and look cool. Hence, these things get leaked in the open.



I m not boosting about my self, and the way write show what low caliber Pakistan society is now producing.


----------



## Mumm-Ra

Basel said:


> I m not boosting about my self, and the way write show what low caliber Pakistan society is now producing.



My post was not directed at you. I am talking about the current generation of from years 20-28. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mani2020

Basel said:


> There is something called PR with in family and friends and these days MoD is not hard on many occasions, you can see on duty people posting pics of equipment, same happen when they share verbally with others but still they can land in hot Waters, in my time I even avoid to talk about day to day stuff with other departments people to avoid landing in hot Waters.



So whats the mechanism to judge if someone is telling truth or just spreading rumors going by your logic... Tomorrow i can show up and claim few things , so would you start believing...

Until there are strong grounds to back up one's claims ...we should take it as someone's opinion rather than a fact...

I was the one on this forum who broke the news of Pakistan interest in chinese submarines back in 2011 and issues of going a ahead with U boats ... it was difficult for many to digest it at that time but i had quoted the exact person word by word with his consent instead of becoming a hero myself ...after some time the news proved to be true ...Had that source not allowed me to quote him ..i wouldnt have shared that news...not only because it would have been unethical on my part ....but also because it might misguide many and put my credibility and national interest at stake

On contrary i see few members who are claiming anything and everything without any solid ground ...atleast i am not believing those..if you want to ..your choice !!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hu Yao

Basel said:


> If you know much and spill it on public places you will end answering to powerful institution who protect national interest, I think you don't know that.
> 
> Have you ever worked in any defense related organization in Pakistan?? Ever heard of MVRD & AVRD (in my time one was abolish)???
> 
> Ukraine have better armour that is why T-80s we're selected not the Chinese tanks, but both have their pros and cons in their systems.


Defense industry have a very long supply chain. So someone knows something is not strange. Not every aspect in every weapon is classifed.

Ukraine have better tanks in 1980s, but after 27years of deindustrialization not very much left there. Their army have to use T-64 against separatist in 2014， and lost control of half of the country. Thailand brought T-84 from Ukraine, and they can't finish such small trade like 49 tanks.

I am not arguing with you about Chinese tanks.

Ukraine delivered 10 tanks to Thailand from 2011 to 2015. Until now, Thailand still didn't have their first order of 49 tanks.

I thought that is the maxium production speed of Ukraine. Cos no T-84 tanks shows in Dontesk battlefields.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Hu Yao said:


> Defense industry have a very long supply chain. So someone knows something is not strange. Not every aspect in every weapon is classifed.
> 
> Ukraine have better tanks in 1980s, but after 27years of deindustrialization not very much left there. Their army forced to use T-64 to fight against separatist in 2014， and lost control of half of the country. Thailand brought T-84 Ukraine can't finish such small trade like 60 tanks.
> 
> I am not argue with you about Chinese tanks.
> 
> Ukraine delivered 10 tanks to Thailand from 2011 to 2015. Until now Thailand still didn't got their first order of 49 tanks.
> 
> I thought that is the maxium production speed of Ukraine. Cos no T-84 tanks shows in Dontesk battlefields.


Ukraines bad economic state can also be used to ones advantage.

We have over 320 UDs (upgraded to oplot M).. an oplot deal .. with engine or other key tech license deal can very good for Pak.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Hu Yao said:


> Defense industry have a very long supply chain. So someone knows something is not strange. Not every aspect in every weapon is classifed.
> 
> Ukraine have better tanks in 1980s, but after 27years of deindustrialization not very much left there. Their army have to use T-64 against separatist in 2014， and lost control of half of the country. Thailand brought T-84 from Ukraine, and they can't finish such small trade like 49 tanks.
> 
> I am not arguing with you about Chinese tanks.
> 
> Ukraine delivered 10 tanks to Thailand from 2011 to 2015. Until now, Thailand still didn't have their first order of 49 tanks.
> 
> I thought that is the maxium production speed of Ukraine. Cos no T-84 tanks shows in Dontesk battlefields.


That means 2 tanks produced per year, some of them are refurbished ones. Maybe they can set up an assembly line in Pakistan.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Ukraines bad economic state can also be used to ones advantage.
> 
> We have over 320 UDs (upgraded to oplot M).. an oplot deal .. with engine or other key tech license deal can very good for Pak.


A chance to grab a good deal in Pakistan's favor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hu Yao

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Ukraines bad economic state can also be used to ones advantage.
> 
> We have over 320 UDs (upgraded to oplot M).. an oplot deal .. with engine or other key tech license deal can very good for Pak.


If they transfer key tech to Pakistan and upgrade those T-80s in your local facility, that will be great. But still have to say, KBA-3 tank gun sucks. You need at least 2A46-5 or 2A82 tanke guns.

For some ecomonic reasons, upgrade your Khalid tanks is better than buy VT-4 tanks too. Simply add some FY-5 ERA wil increase the proction ability of your tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Whatever ways make PA strong suits China's interests. Just do it.

I feel good VT4 is under trial in Pakistan.

It makes our friend know where we stand in tank development.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Hu Yao said:


> If they transfer key tech to Pakistan and upgrade those T-80s in your local facility, that will be great. But still have to say, KBA-3 tank gun sucks. You need at least 2A46-5 or 2A82 tanke guns.
> 
> For some ecomonic reasons, upgrade your Khalid tanks is better than buy VT-4 tanks too. Simply add some FY-5 ERA wil increase the proction ability of your tanks.


AK has already been upgraded..

Now, we are developing a heavier tank, powered with a 1500hp engine.. the Al Khalid II.

By key tech, im pointing towards manufacturing of spares and engine atleast.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hu Yao

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> AK has already been upgraded..
> 
> Now, we are developing a heavier tank, powered with a 1500hp engine.. the Al Khalid II.
> 
> By key tech, im pointing towards manufacturing of spares and engine atleast.


I mean you need to upgrade AK further. AK is quite like Chinese ZTZ-96, and look how ZTZ-96 looks like. New ERA, new engine, new FCS, and new transmission.

ERA like FY-5 is effective against india Mango or even PCB APFSDS. For now, no India tank guns can penetrate the front armour of ZTZ-96B. FY-5 is able to break incoming APFSDS into two or three fragments, it turns APFSDS into APDS. I am not suggesting that you need to buy FY-5, Russian Relik ERA will do the same. I mean you need to upgrade those ERA in AK I.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Hu Yao said:


> Defense industry have a very long supply chain. So someone knows something is not strange. Not every aspect in every weapon is classifed.
> 
> Ukraine have better tanks in 1980s, but after 27years of deindustrialization not very much left there. Their army have to use T-64 against separatist in 2014， and lost control of half of the country. Thailand brought T-84 from Ukraine, and they can't finish such small trade like 49 tanks.
> 
> I am not arguing with you about Chinese tanks.
> 
> Ukraine delivered 10 tanks to Thailand from 2011 to 2015. Until now, Thailand still didn't have their first order of 49 tanks.
> 
> I thought that is the maxium production speed of Ukraine. Cos no T-84 tanks shows in Dontesk battlefields.



If there army is using T-64 in battle it doesn't mean they don't have better armour, also Chinese is not offering their top of the line product while Ukrainians are, their engine will be used in AK-2 that is why Pakistan want to built them in house, it also show that either China don't have very good engine or they are not offering one.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Basel said:


> If there army is using T-64 in battle it doesn't mean they don't have better armour, also Chinese is not offering their top of the line product while Ukrainians are, their engine will be used in AK-2 that is why Pakistan want to built them in house, it also show that either China don't have very good engine or they are not offering one.


I think Pakistan wants to be an tank exporter, advanced engine and armor is the most you lack.
It depends whether Ukraine will TOT those things you want, although Ukraine is pants down.


----------



## Hu Yao

Basel said:


> If there army is using T-64 in battle it doesn't mean they don't have better armour, also Chinese is not offering their top of the line product while Ukrainians are, their engine will be used in AK-2 that is why Pakistan want to built them in house, it also show that either China don't have very good engine or they are not offering one.


They have best tanks once upon a time. But for now, Ukraine don't have the top class tanks.

Those 2A46 tank guns have problem on the auto loader, the warhead is too short for morden APFSDS. So Russians improved their tank guns into 2A46M-5 and 2A82, they allowed to use better APFSDS like Svinets-1 or vacuum. Ukraine KAB-3 tank guns are not good enough for you to knock out India T-90s. Remember when your tank project is finished, India is very possibly to have T-90MS tanks. KBA-3 tank gun have difficulty to penetrate T-72B3M(kontakt-5 ERA) tanks。


Again, I am not talking about Chinese tanks. There are lots of good tanks in the market for you to choose, there are some other tanks in the market like Turkish Altay tank and so on. I just don't wanna you waste your money.


----------



## Dazzler

Hu Yao said:


> They have best tanks once upon a time. But for now, Ukraine don't have the top class tanks.
> 
> Those 2A46 tank guns have problem on the auto loader, the warhead is too short for morden APFSDS. So Russians improved their tank guns into 2A46M-5 and 2A82, they allowed to use better APFSDS like Svinets-1 or vacuum. Ukraine KAB-3 tank guns are not good enough for you to knock out India T-90s. Remember when your tank project is finished, India is very possibly to have T-90MS tanks. KBA-3 tank gun have difficulty to penetrate T-72B3M(kontakt-5 ERA) tanks。
> 
> 
> Again, I am not talking about Chinese tanks. There are lots of good tanks in the market for you to choose, there are some other tanks in the market like Turkish Altay tank and so on. I just don't wanna you waste your money.



We take care of the maingun at gun manufacturing factory. It is a quality gun and can engage the enemy up to 3000m away. As for the KBA3, there is no problem with that gun but the autoloader, which only allows up to 700mm long rounds and not more than that. The KBA3 is a quality gun that can only be matched with M4 version of 2A46 series. 

The problem has been addressed in Al khalids as we developed a modified version of the autoloader to accommodate longer rounds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

wanglaokan said:


> I think Pakistan wants to be an tank exporter, advanced engine and armor is the most you lack.
> It depends whether Ukraine will TOT those things you want, although Ukraine is pants down.



You are right Pakistan want to built and export tanks, as previously AK were marketed to some countries too.

Ukraine may not be able to provide fully built tanks in large numbers but still they can provide tech and subsystems for building tanks in Pakistan.

Any future tank purchased will be highly customized one, having subsystems from various countries.


----------



## Hu Yao

Dazzler said:


> We take care of the maingun at gun manufacturing factory. It is a quality gun and can engage the enemy up to 3000m away. As for the KBA3, there is no problem with that gun but the autoloader, which only allows up to 700mm long rounds and not more than that. The KBA3 is a quality gun that can only be matched with M4 version of 2A46 series.
> 
> The problem has been addressed in Al khalids as we developed a modified version of the autoloader to accommodate longer rounds.


3KM range means nothing when you can't penetrate enemy armour. AK can shoot further with missiles. Basically AKII maybe equal to T-84 oplot-M. Same tank gun (both oriented from 2A46), same protection level, nearly same level FCS. China upgrade those 85-II to 96B, why you guys abandon AK? The new engine, new automitic gearbox, new FCS, new ERA are already in the market. AKII is ready to coming out.

When you guys buy a tank with Dollars, why don't choose a better one? I thought the only thechnology that T-84 is on the top class is the ERA, but the most important problem is KBA-3 cannon. Even second hand M1A2 tank is better than it. I don't think your tank crews will be happy when they saw they hit enemy tank with KBA-3, and enemy tank is still coming.


----------



## Dazzler

Hu Yao said:


> 3KM range means nothing when you can't penetrate enemy armour. AK can shoot further with missiles. Basically AKII maybe equal to T-84 oplot-M. Same tank gun (both oriented from 2A46), same protection level, nearly same level FCS. China upgrade those 85-II to 96B, why you guys abandon AK? The new engine, new automitic, new FCS, new ERA are already in the market. AKII is ready to coming out.
> 
> When you guys buy a tank with Dollars, why don't choose a better one? I thought the only thechnology that T-84 is on the top class is the ERA, but the most important problem is KBA-3 cannon. Even second hand M1A2 tank is better than it. I don't think your tank crews will be happy when they saw they hit enemy tank with KBA-3, and enemy tank is still coming.



No one has abandoned AK series, but the purchase is due to the low production rate and need to replace the fleet of obsolete tanks in a hurry. Otherwise the Ak1 is sufficient for the needs of PA.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Hu Yao said:


> I mean you need to upgrade AK further. AK is quite like Chinese ZTZ-96, and look how ZTZ-96 looks like. New ERA, new engine, new FCS, and new transmission.


Its a medium tank bro.
Its main competition is T-90 .. which it beats easily.

For heavy lifting a heavier tank is under development.



> ERA like FY-5 is effective against india Mango or even PCB APFSDS. For now, no India tank guns can penetrate the front armour of ZTZ-96B. FY-5 is able to break incoming APFSDS into two or three fragments, it turns APFSDS into APDS. I am not suggesting that you need to buy FY-5, Russian Relik ERA will do the same. I mean you need to upgrade those ERA in AK I.


AK , AK use AORAK ERA developed by Pak..

AK-I upgrade includes increased protection,new imagery systems,increased ammunition,new FCS and VATRA APS (optional).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hu Yao

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Its a medium tank bro.
> Its main competition is T-90 .. which it beats easily.
> 
> For heavy lifting a heavier tank is under development.
> 
> 
> AK , AK use AORAK ERA developed by Pak..
> 
> AK-I upgrade includes increased protection,new imagery systems,increased ammunition,new FCS and VATRA APS (optional).
> 
> View attachment 459407
> View attachment 459408
> View attachment 459409



There are AK MBT, heavier MBT and lighter MBT. I thought AK is good enough, heavy tanks are not very useful considering your bridge and enviroment. 

Basically AK is a pakistan version of ZTZ-96 and could easily turn into ZTZ-96B or even better tank. FY-5 ERA can break down enemy APDS and HEAT. There are already lot of active proction systems like chinese GL-5 on the market which can proctect your tanks from enemy HEAT and ATGM.

I thought upgrade AK with better Relik or FY-5 ERA, and put something like GL-5 on it will make AK a far better thank than Oplot-M. Ukraine tanks are still in 1990s. After 27 years unstopped deindustrialization Ukraine have to buy truks from Korea and China for their army now. No need to wast your dollars in 1990s tanks.


----------



## Dazzler

Hu Yao said:


> There are AK MBT, heavier MBT and lighter MBT. I thought AK is good enough, heavy tanks are not very useful considering your bridge and enviroment.
> 
> Basically AK is a pakistan version of ZTZ-96 and could easily turn into ZTZ-96B or even better tank. FY-5 ERA can break down enemy APDS and HEAT. There are already lot of active proction systems like chinese GL-5 on the market which can proctect your tanks from enemy HEAT and ATGM.
> 
> I thought upgrade AK with better Relik or FY-5 ERA, and put something like GL-5 on it will make AK a far better thank than Oplot-M. Ukraine tanks are still in 1990s. After 27 years unstopped deindustrialization Ukraine have to buy truks from Korea and China for their army now. No need to wast your dollars in 1990s tanks.



There is nothing special about type96, they are just second generation support tanks for to fill in numbers. Al-Khalid was built on the third Gen platform of Type 90 so comparing both makes no sense.

No matter how upgraded, it's still a second Gen platform similar to our type85 upgraded, perhaps better protected.


----------



## Hu Yao

Dazzler said:


> There is nothing special about type96, they are just second generation support tanks for to fill in numbers. Al-Khalid was built on the third Gen platform of Type 90 so comparing both makes no sense.
> 
> No matter how upgraded, it's still a second Gen platform similar to our type85 upgraded, perhaps better protected.


Type80/85 developed into 88C and 90. those 88C renamed as type 96 while 90 developed into AK. Then type 96 have further development 96A and 96B. The later one equipped with an improved engine, improved high-performance gun with FY-5 ERA, an upgraded fire-control system, new transmission, chassis, ventilation, communications and computer systems, exhaust and suspension.

Yes, nothing special about 96. Type 96/MBT2000/VT1A/VT2 are related development. When I mention type96, I mean by contious upgrade AK will become a great tank. Save your dollars, build more AKII and hire more technician. And when you do that, I thought there will be more countries will come and import your weapon. Not only good for your national safty, but also good for economy. 

I don't think buy foreign weapons to instead similar domestic systems are good choice. When I said that, I am including Chinese tanks. Don't buy VT-4, use those tech upgrade more AK. FY-5/GL-5/FCS/new cannon in VT-4 are good equipments to copy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Hu Yao said:


> Type80/85 developed into 88C and 90. those 88C renamed as type 96 while 90 developed into AK. Then type 96 have further development 96A and 96B. The later one equipped with an improved engine, improved high-performance gun with FY-5 ERA, an upgraded fire-control system, new transmission, chassis, ventilation, communications and computer systems, exhaust and suspension.
> 
> Yes, nothing special about 96. Type 96/MBT2000/VT1A/VT2 are related development. When I mention type96, I mean by contious upgrade AK will become a great tank. Save your dollars, build more AKII and hire more technician. And when you do that, I thought there will be more countries will come and import your weapon. Not only good for your national safty, but also good for economy.
> 
> I don't think buy foreign weapons to instead similar domestic systems are good choice. When I said that, I am including Chinese tanks. Don't buy VT-4, use those tech upgrade more AK. FY-5/GL-5/FCS/new cannon in VT-4 are good equipments to copy.


The reason they go for Ukraine tanks is because of ToT. 6DT-2 engine or relik ERA?

The main potential importer might be some friendly Muslim countries.


----------



## Hu Yao

wanglaokan said:


> The reason they go for Ukraine tanks is because of ToT. 6DT-2 engine or relik ERA?
> 
> The main potential importer might be some friendly Muslim countries.


Ukraine don't have the best ERA now, Relik is Russian ERA. And I doubt how fast they can provide those 6DT-2 to Pakistan when they should import their truks from Korea nowadays.


----------



## Dazzler

Hu Yao said:


> Type80/85 developed into 88C and 90. those 88C renamed as type 96 while 90 developed into AK. Then type 96 have further development 96A and 96B. The later one equipped with an improved engine, improved high-performance gun with FY-5 ERA, an upgraded fire-control system, new transmission, chassis, ventilation, communications and computer systems, exhaust and suspension.
> 
> Yes, nothing special about 96. Type 96/MBT2000/VT1A/VT2 are related development. When I mention type96, I mean by contious upgrade AK will become a great tank. Save your dollars, build more AKII and hire more technician. And when you do that, I thought there will be more countries will come and import your weapon. Not only good for your national safty, but also good for economy.
> 
> I don't think buy foreign weapons to instead similar domestic systems are good choice. When I said that, I am including Chinese tanks. Don't buy VT-4, use those tech upgrade more AK. FY-5/GL-5/FCS/new cannon in VT-4 are good equipments to copy.



You are wrong on several accounts in this post. The type 80 and 90 series are vastly different despite sharing several key components. The most visible being driver seat. 9098/99 has it in the middle while 85/96have them at right.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Still I think the chance of get Ukraine engine TOT is impossible, because no one will risk his business in the future for just a single deal.
If I were Pakistanis, I will take advantage of Ukraine's pants down to get the max Benifits as well.



Hu Yao said:


> Ukraine don't have the best ERA now, Relik is Russian ERA. And I doubt how fast they can provide those 6DT-2 to Pakistan when they should import their truks from Korea nowadays.


利刃反应装甲？


----------



## Dazzler

Hu Yao said:


> Ukraine don't have the best ERA now, Relik is Russian ERA. And I doubt how fast they can provide those 6DT-2 to Pakistan when they should import their truks from Korea nowadays.



Nozh/Duplet has been rated as the best ERA kit against shaped charges by Europeans as well.


----------



## Hu Yao

wanglaokan said:


> Still I think the chance of get Ukraine engine TOT is impossible, because no one will risk his business in the future for just a single deal.
> If I were Pakistanis, I will take advantage of Ukraine's pants down to get the max Benifits as well.
> 
> 
> 利刃反应装甲？
> View attachment 459431
> View attachment 459432


这应该翻译叫做匕首。T-84用了三层ERA,这个很有想法，但是带来的就是大量重量浪费在了ERA上。

ERA性能不够数量来凑，这个思路好不好，不久美国人就会给我们个说法。估计美国佬买的那辆T-84已经在装船的路上了。现在谁买T-84谁倒霉，因为不日克制匕首反应装甲的炮弹就会大量装备。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GriffinsRule

Dazzler said:


> No one has abandoned AK series, but the purchase is due to the low production rate and need to replace the fleet of obsolete tanks in a hurry. Otherwise the Ak1 is sufficient for the needs of PA.



There is a dichotomy in this argument. On one hand, HIT is not running at max capacity in producing AK series of tanks because there is a funding issue to they have been manufacturing in a limited capacity for the past decade. Then we want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy tanks from the outside because we have a shortage and we haven't been producing enough locally. 
Yeah this stink no matter how you look at it. I honestly don't see the urgency of buying VT-4 or Oplot ... use the money to increase production locally first.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Use English please, it's not a Chinese forum. 

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hu Yao

Dazzler said:


> Use English please, it's not a Chinese forum.
> 
> Thanks.


Well, just a Chinese talked with a Chinese. Not very much information for you.

I am just saying Duplet ERA will be quickly phased out, because United States brought a single T-84 to test it's ERA. If Ukraine keep on doing bussiness like this, not very much Countries will buy Ukraine tanks any more.


----------



## Dazzler

Hu Yao said:


> Well, just a Chinese talked with a Chinese. Not very much information for you.
> 
> I am just saying Duplet ERA will be quickly phased out, because United States brought a single T-84 to test it's ERA. If Ukraine keep on doing bussiness like this, not very much Countries will buy Ukraine tanks any more.



We have private chat or message function for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hu Yao

GriffinsRule said:


> There is a dichotomy in this argument. On one hand, HIT is not running at max capacity in producing AK series of tanks because there is a funding issue to they have been manufacturing in a limited capacity for the past decade. Then we want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy tanks from the outside because we have a shortage and we haven't been producing enough locally.
> Yeah this stink no matter how you look at it. I honestly don't see the urgency of buying VT-4 or Oplot ... use the money to increase production locally first.



Yes, and you can wait American to test Oplot for you. Is the Duplet ERA as good as Ukraine claimed? Or just a paper tiger.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Hu Yao said:


> Well, just a Chinese talked with a Chinese. Not very much information for you.
> 
> I am just saying Duplet ERA will be quickly phased out, because United States brought a single T-84 to test it's ERA. If Ukraine keep on doing bussiness like this, not very much Countries will buy Ukraine tanks any more.


But India can't buy any rounds designed by USA, cause T90's auto loader.



GriffinsRule said:


> There is a dichotomy in this argument. On one hand, HIT is not running at max capacity in producing AK series of tanks because there is a funding issue to they have been manufacturing in a limited capacity for the past decade. Then we want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy tanks from the outside because we have a shortage and we haven't been producing enough locally.
> Yeah this stink no matter how you look at it. I honestly don't see the urgency of buying VT-4 or Oplot ... use the money to increase production locally first.


Pakistan is looking for technology transfer from Ukraine, it's no wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Hu Yao said:


> Yes, and you can wait American to test Oplot for you. Is the Duplet ERA as good as Ukraine claimed? Or just a paper tiger.




It is indeed as good, here is why:







No hull penetration.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -------

Dazzler said:


> It is indeed as good, here is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hull penetration.



And it'll be better as Roketsan and SFTE have signed a protocol to develop ERA together 

http://en.c4defence.com/Agenda/two-new-contracts-by-roketsan-and-aselsan/4962/1


----------



## Basel




----------



## LKJ86

Thailand VT-4

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Any news from the trials of VT-4 & Oplot ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Muhammad Omar said:


> Any news from the trials of VT-4 & Oplot ???


Well no news. We are all waiting although former defence minister Khurram Dastagir when visited Russia said we are interested in T-90. I think our interested could be for Al Haider project


----------



## Malik Alashter

khanasifm said:


> Looks like heavy armor protections all around plus top and weight may be a problem most of std. bridges in pak go up to 60-70 tons with 10-15 tons transporter plus 50 ton tank you have a limit as most Infrastructure put on it
> 
> Type 99a almost 59 tons vs 52 tons vt-4


Why don't Pakistani military engineers build bridges next to the civil one to be used on conflict time I remember Iraqis built a bridge in a rural area took them three days to complete


----------



## Armchair

Malik Alashter said:


> Why don't Pakistani military engineers build bridges next to the civil one to be used on conflict time I remember Iraqis built a bridge in a rural area took them three days to complete



Because many bridges would need to be built as there are many rivers, canals, etc in Pakistan, unlike Iraq.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Armchair said:


> Because many bridges would need to be built as there are many rivers, canals, etc in Pakistan, unlike Iraq.


Iraqi climate, geography is very, very similar to Pakistan. Both are essentially river civilizations flowing through sandy semi-arid desert rimmed by mountains. In Iraq they have the Euphrates/Tigris rivers whereas in Pakistan we have Indus river.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

Kaptaan said:


> Iraqi climate, geography is very, very similar to Pakistan. Both are essentially river civilizations flowing through sandy semi-arid desert rimmed by mountains. In Iraq they have the Euphrates/Tigris rivers whereas in Pakistan we have Indus river.



Obviously you're not a military man and don't understand terrain in the military sense.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Armchair said:


> Obviously you're not a military man


True.



Armchair said:


> don't understand terrain in the military sense.


my subjects of interest are history/geography which I did at A-level. And since then have a lifetimes reading to back up. I can assure you there is enormous similiarity between Tigris/Euphrates basin and Indus basin. Both were cradles of civilization and share remarkable similarities in geography/landscape and weather.

Parts of Iraq are *marshy*, parts are *dissected* by irrigation canals fed by dams upstream, parts are open, *rolling* desert. Now what does that remind you of? And terrain seen from a military point is no more then looking at it from mobility/logistic and defence vantages. These are things a good geographer can easily spot out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Alashter

Bottom line Pakistan should never let bridges hamper it from doing what it's better for it. India is getting Arjun which is a heavy tank while Pakistan face it with 40 ton tank that's translate into less armor against stronger and heavy one.
Steal bridges are easy and cheap to make also they make the life of the people easier


----------



## pzfz

Terrain/bridges are just an excuse. VT4 is just an upgraded/mlu'd mbt2000. If DEPO/HIT/PA was competent they would upgrade the Al-Khalid (with Altay subsystems + autoloader) and build more of them. If they still felt the need for another tank - go for a true beast in the Altay or a version of South Korean K2A2 (another lighter tank). In fact no need to introduce another type of tank. PA needs numbers now. Weapons procurement is again found to be wanting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Alashter

pzfz said:


> Terrain/bridges are just an excuse. VT4 is just an upgraded/mlu'd mbt2000. If DEPO/HIT/PA was competent they would upgrade the Al-Khalid (with Altay subsystems + autoloader) and build more of them. If they still felt the need for another tank - go for a true beast in the Altay or a version of South Korean K2A2 (another lighter tank). In fact no need to introduce another type of tank. PA needs numbers now. Weapons procurement is again found to be wanting.


There problem is fund related not tech even the AK can be up armored and add new gadgets to make it in line with the modern and advanced tanks in making
Those who make heavier tanks make it because it can offer more protection and it can stand more punch than those light once
T-72 made for the Soviet doctrine not The other nations even Russians abandoned the old design for a heavier ones


----------



## Dazzler

It sank!


----------



## Beast

pzfz said:


> Terrain/bridges are just an excuse. VT4 is just an upgraded/mlu'd mbt2000. If DEPO/HIT/PA was competent they would upgrade the Al-Khalid (with Altay subsystems + autoloader) and build more of them. If they still felt the need for another tank - go for a true beast in the Altay or a version of South Korean K2A2 (another lighter tank). In fact no need to introduce another type of tank. PA needs numbers now. Weapons procurement is again found to be wanting.


Don't talk nonsense when you know nothing. VT-4 is not just an upgraded of MBT2000. Its a generation ahead and similar to Western field tank in terms of sensor and layout.



Dazzler said:


> It sank!


May I know what do you expect from a MBT?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Don't talk nonsense when you know nothing. VT-4 is not just an upgraded of MBT2000. Its a generation ahead and similar to Western field tank in terms of sensor and layout.
> 
> 
> May I know what do you expect from a MBT?



To cross the trench instead of drowning. Something like this:






Dont mind the title of the video, the tank is clearly a t-80UD not Al khalid.


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> To cross the trench instead of drowning. Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont mind the title of the video, the tank is clearly a t-80UD not Al khalid.


I think you clearly do not understand how a mbt tank work instead just for the sake of
posting your biased view on VT-4. Did you ever see the chain fixed on the back of the VT-4 MBT? They are testing emergency measure in case of tank break down when snorkeling through river. That is why they have the chain fixed at back of the tank to haul back the tank.

You clearly just post for the sake of senseless bashing.. See when this video is uploaded. Aug 2017.. Thailand mass procurement of VT-4 confirmation was in late Dec 2017 and delivered was made in early 2018. If this tank is such a failure as what you try to suggest. RTA must be some idiot to continue buy this tank. Apparently, you know nothing.

Your epic failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> I think you clearly do not understand how a mbt tank work instead just for the sake of
> posting your biased view on VT-4. Did you ever see the chain fixed on the back of the VT-4 MBT? They are testing emergency measure in case of tank break down when snorkeling through river. That is why they have the chain fixed at back of the tank to haul back the tank.
> 
> You clearly just post for the sake of senseless bashing.. See when this video is uploaded. Aug 2017.. Thailand mass procurement of VT-4 confirmation was in late Dec 2017 and delivered was made in early 2018. If this tank is such a failure as what you try to suggest. RTA must be some idiot to continue buy this tank. Apparently, you know nothing.
> 
> Your epic failed.



No, i dont, you should explain it to me. I wasted my years in the industry.


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> No, i dont, you should explain it to me. I wasted my years in the industry.


I already explained. You are just too quick to jump into stupid conclusion trying to bash VT-4 to prove your hatre for it. You can clearly see from the video of the chain shackle at the back of the tank when they do the snorkeling. They are just doing an emergency recovery testing in case of breakdown which precisely they are doing it.

And you are quick to jump on the gun claiming VT-4 is a junk breaks down easily without getting your facts right and try to sell T-84 Oplot is such a wondertank which RTA even dumps this junk tank.

Your advise for asking PA to buy T-84 Oplot is as good as trash. And they are too many stupid idiot claiming VT-4 is just an upgraded of MBT2000. Shut your big mouth if you know nothing. Dont make a fool of yourself. There is a reason why VT-4 is called MBT3000 becos its an generation ahead of MBT2000 in terms of mobility, layout , battle management and weapon sensor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> I already explained. You are just too quick to jump into stupid conclusion trying to bash VT-4 to prove your hatre for it. You can clearly see from the video of the chain shackle at the back of the tank when they do the snorkeling. They are just doing an emergency recovery testing in case of breakdown which precisely they are doing it.
> 
> And you are quick to jump on the gun claiming VT-4 is a junk breaks down easily without getting your facts right and try to sell T-84 Oplot is such a wondertank which RTA even dumps this junk tank.
> 
> Your advise for asking PA to buy T-84 Oplot is as good as trash. And they are too many stupid idiot claiming VT-4 is just an upgraded of MBT2000. Shut your big mouth if you know nothing. Dont make a fool of yourself. There is a reason why VT-4 is called MBT3000 becos its an generation ahead of MBT2000 in terms of mobility, layout , battle management and weapon sensor.



Yes it is a junk as it was manufactured as a third rate export quality tank at best. It doesnt even feature a basic cooled thermal imager. We had to buy them off the shelf from France. The Chinese manual uncooled thermal imager went bonkers during trials and eventually failed. I've been part of things you fanboys and internet warriors can only dream off. 

Tell me, which cooled thermal imager your industries have made to date? 

The overall armor including the ERA of Oplot is a generation ahead of your crappy FY shit. Duplet has been proven effective against modern shaped kinetic energy rounds. It was so shitty that we had to build our own AORAK series for the Al khalids. The shelf life of a standard ERA is 10 years but the FY series had half of that. 

Whatever you call your MBT 3000 or 100000, it will still remain what it is. A poor quality product. In fact, the original type-90IIM was overall a better product apart from the engine. 

Do not push me or i will keep busting you bad.


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> Yes it is a junk as it was manufactured as a third rate export quality tank at best. It doesnt even feature a basic cooled thermal imager. We had to buy them off the shelf from France. The Chinese manual uncooled thermal imager went bonkers during trials and eventually failed. I've been part of things you fanboys and internet warriors can only dream off.
> 
> Tell me, which cooled thermal imager your industries have made to date?
> 
> The overall armor including the ERA of Oplot is a generation ahead of your crappy FY shit. Duplet has been proven effective against modern shaped kinetic energy rounds. It was so shitty that we had to build our own AORAK series for the Al khalids. The shelf life of a standard ERA is 10 years but the FY series had half of that.
> 
> Whatever you call your MBT 3000 or 100000, it will still remain what it is. A poor quality product. In fact, the original type-90IIM was overall a better product apart from the engine.
> 
> Do not push me or i will keep busting you bad.


Looks like I hit right on the nail. None of your BS is backed by any facts beside your so called fake insider or FB source.

Fancy you post a stupid video of VT-4 tank clearly with chain shackle the back of the tank when snorkeling. Clearly it is doing some recovery test and not some BS claim of breakdown when going underwater. All this are facts. 

Dont make a fool of yourself. 

You shall go do consultant for comedy and not defense forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Looks like I hit right on the nail. None of your BS is backed by any facts beside your so called fake insider or FB source.
> 
> Fancy you post a stupid video of VT-4 tank clearly with chain shackle the back of the tank when snorkeling. Clearly it is doing some recovery test and not some BS claim of breakdown when going underwater. All this are facts.
> 
> Dont make a fool of yourself.
> 
> You shall go do consultant for comedy and not defense forum.



BS is your speciality, i deal with serious things. 

Name the cooled thermal imager that your super duper export tank has.


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> BS is your speciality, i deal with serious things.
> 
> Name the cooled thermal imager that your super duper export tank has.


Serious thing like what? Mix up between a clear recovery tank test with chain shackle at the back, mistaken as engine failure due to low quality manufacturing that water slip into engine due to your eagerness to bash just for the sake of bashing? 

Even a 3 years old kid will not make a defense analysis blunder like you.


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Serious thing like what? Mix up between a clear recovery tank test with chain shackle at the back, mistaken as engine failure due to low quality manufacturing that water slip into engine due to your eagerness to bash just for the sake of bashing?
> 
> Even a 3 years old kid will not make a defense analysis blunder like you.



So, what did the test prove, how long will it take to sink with the crew shouting for help sitting in the sealed compartment?


----------



## pzfz

Beast said:


> Don't talk nonsense when you know nothing. VT-4 is not just an upgraded of MBT2000. Its a generation ahead and similar to Western field tank in terms of sensor and layout.
> 
> 
> May I know what do you expect from a MBT?



sensors of another generation can be incorporated into the mbt2000. layout can always be rearranged. That's the definition of being upgraded.

I don't expect a need for another tank when the previous one can or should suffice with a little bit of investment and thought.


----------



## Beast

pzfz said:


> sensors of another generation can be incorporated into the mbt2000. layout can always be rearranged. That's the definition of being upgraded.
> 
> I don't expect a need for another tank when the previous one can or should suffice with a little bit of investment and thought.


Sorry, layout of the tank cannot be re arrange. If so might as well re design a new tank. I suggest you try find out more of what is VT-4 tank instead of passing casual comment and one blind leading another. If you really not sure. I suggest you just listen to Chinese insider cos large number of info about VT-4 is in Chinese or Chinese website. Or simply flip back previous pages of info about VT-4 which is informated by me.

They are large number of misinformation by Pakistanis especially those who brag about having non existent insider info or some who even claim FB as credible source which is nothing but fabricated nonsense.


----------



## GeraltofRivia

Dazzler said:


> Yes it is a junk as it was manufactured as a third rate export quality tank at best. It doesnt even feature a basic cooled thermal imager. We had to buy them off the shelf from France. The Chinese manual uncooled thermal imager went bonkers during trials and eventually failed. I've been part of things you fanboys and internet warriors can only dream off.
> 
> Tell me, which cooled thermal imager your industries have made to date?
> 
> The overall armor including the ERA of Oplot is a generation ahead of your crappy FY shit. Duplet has been proven effective against modern shaped kinetic energy rounds. It was so shitty that we had to build our own AORAK series for the Al khalids. The shelf life of a standard ERA is 10 years but the FY series had half of that.
> 
> Whatever you call your MBT 3000 or 100000, it will still remain what it is. A poor quality product. In fact, the original type-90IIM was overall a better product apart from the engine.
> 
> Do not push me or i will keep busting you bad.



Regarding your question on cooled thermal image sight, there are many sources that have mentioned cooled thermal image sight is in the standard VT4 configuration. Naturally I have not seen a VT4 myself (which makes me one of the fanboys ) or have any knowledge as to whether it was not included in the particular VT4 vehicle that participated the trial in Pakistan (cannot imagine it doesn’t). Anyway, the paragraph below is from Army recognition website (a independent source as we know) for your reference:

*Accessories*
The MBT-3000 is equipped with a stabilised fire control including second-generation cooled thermal imager sights for the commander and gunner. The tank is also fitted with laser range finder. The tank commander position is fitted with a roof-mounted stabilized panoramic sight that allows a target to be acquired and then handed over to the gunner for engagement. Standard equipment of the MBT-3000 includes collective NBC protection system, IFF (Identification, friend or foe), GL5 active protection system, fire extinguisher feature, air-conditioning system and explosion suppression system. The active protection system is linked to laser threat warning with smoke shell launchers.

Cooled thermal image sight is also mentioned in the news regarding Thailand’s additional VT4 order from defense world.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21...e_Chinese_VT_4_Tanks_Order_to_49#.W0QQeCLx2aN

Regarding your comments around VT4 being a junk or third rated tank, you are naturally entitled to your opinion if you have low opinion on either this particular tank or Chinese industry in general. However I just find slightly surprising to see someone with industry experience makes such sentimental comments that dismisses a complex defense product altogether. And this was made on the belief that a specific feature is absent.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## GriffinsRule

In what terms/performance aspects is VT-4 better than an upgraded AK-I?


----------



## Dazzler

GriffinsRule said:


> In what terms/performance aspects is VT-4 better than an upgraded AK-I?



Fire control system and situation awareness. That's where the superiority ends. The Al khalid has the upper hand in several features.


----------



## Beast

GriffinsRule said:


> In what terms/performance aspects is VT-4 better than an upgraded AK-I?


Do not trust any of Dazzler words. This guy knows nothing about VT-4. His comment for VT-4 is as good as trash. Please flip back the earlier thread to get the info you want. I do not want to keep repeating and repeating the same thing when reader do not even bother to look at earlier pages of this thread.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Do not trust any of Dazzler words. This guy knows nothing about VT-4. His comment for VT-4 is as good as trash. Please flip back the earlier thread to get the info you want. I do not want to keep repeating and repeating the same thing when reader do not even bother to look at earlier pages of this thread.



Prove me wrong if you have the info.


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> Prove me wrong if you have the info.


We have repeated all these from previous post. Anyone interested, please flip thru the previous 10 thread and look thru it. I do not want to keep repeating it.


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> We have repeated all these from previous post. Anyone interested, please flip thru the previous 10 thread and look thru it. I do not want to keep repeating it.



You ask people not to believe what i say, so you take the responsibility of presenting the truth. Now bring it.


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> You ask people not to believe what i say, so you take the responsibility of presenting the truth. Now bring it.


You say first that VT-4 is junk, so can you list what of T-84 is better than that of VT-4, and give your reasons?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Malik Alashter

I dont think Thailand pay 5 millions for each of these tanks naively

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> You say first that VT-4 is junk, so can you list what of T-84 is better than that of VT-4, and give your reasons?



You will find my answers in this thread. Scroll back.


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> You will find my answers in this thread. Scroll back.


@Beast also gives you similar answer.


Dazzler said:


> You ask people not to believe what i say, so you take the responsibility of presenting the truth. Now bring it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GriffinsRule

FCS is not a big issue as the same can be employed in older tanks. If it doesn't offer better protection in terms of new/better armor, mobility, firepower, and only minimal improvements in SI, then its not worth buying a tank of the same weight class as the AK. Better to produce more them to replace the T-69s and T-59s imo. We need a large number of modern-ish tank to face off against the upgraded Indian T-72s and new T-90s and the smaller tanks won't cut it. If we do need to buy something as the tip of the spear, then buy a larger and significantly better tank


----------



## Mustang06

GriffinsRule said:


> FCS is not a big issue as the same can be employed in older tanks. If it doesn't offer better protection in terms of new/better armor, mobility, firepower, and only minimal improvements in SI, then its not worth buying a tank of the same weight class as the AK. Better to produce more them to replace the T-69s and T-59s imo. We need a large number of modern-ish tank to face off against the upgraded Indian T-72s and new T-90s and the smaller tanks won't cut it. If we do need to buy something as the tip of the spear, then buy a larger and significantly better tank


How long would the selection process go on for and how many tanks will PA procure eventually? 
Oplot makes sense to me as PA is already operating T80 UD's for a long time and already have the infrastructure to support.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Yes it is a junk as it was manufactured as a third rate export quality tank at best. It doesnt even feature a basic cooled thermal imager. We had to buy them off the shelf from France. The Chinese manual uncooled thermal imager went bonkers during trials and eventually failed. I've been part of things you fanboys and internet warriors can only dream off.
> 
> Tell me, which cooled thermal imager your industries have made to date?
> 
> The overall armor including the ERA of Oplot is a generation ahead of your crappy FY shit. Duplet has been proven effective against modern shaped kinetic energy rounds. It was so shitty that we had to build our own AORAK series for the Al khalids. The shelf life of a standard ERA is 10 years but the FY series had half of that.
> 
> Whatever you call your MBT 3000 or 100000, it will still remain what it is. A poor quality product. In fact, the original type-90IIM was overall a better product apart from the engine.
> 
> Do not push me or i will keep busting you bad.


VT4 has cooled thermal imagers for gunner and commander, uncooled thermal imagers for driver.


----------



## 帅的一匹

the new generation hydraulic transmission integral tank power package of VT 4, way better than 6TD 2/3, a generation ahead. time to wake up.

VT 4 had passed all the trials of PA, now its their decision. quality has no problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> VT4 has cooled thermal imagers for gunner and commander, uncooled thermal imagers for driver.



Which generation and how much MTBF?



Mustang06 said:


> How long would the selection process go on for and how many tanks will PA procure eventually?
> Oplot makes sense to me as PA is already operating T80 UD's for a long time and already have the infrastructure to support.



Same can be said for VT4 as it has several components that are operational on Al khalid and even type-85IIAP.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GriffinsRule

wanglaokan said:


> the new generation hydraulic transmission integral tank power package of VT 4, way better than 6TD 2/3, a generation ahead. time to wake up.
> 
> VT 4 had passed all the trials of PA, now its their decision. quality has no problem.
> View attachment 485606
> View attachment 485607
> View attachment 485608
> 
> View attachment 485609


 
Way better in what regards? Please elaborate


----------



## fitpOsitive

Jinn Baba said:


> Again, *why the F are military personnel releasing such pics on social media!!!? * is there no discipline left in the military?


As per orders.


----------



## 帅的一匹

GriffinsRule said:


> Way better in what regards? Please elaborate


to put it easy, you can drive VT 4 easily like a car. 
I 'm not a technical dog, so you can search hydrodynamic drive. the engine is very intact, smaller size and easy to replace.

high power, low worn gear, little noise.

and its automatic gear shifting, which means driving friendly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> to put it easy, you can drive VT 4 easily like a car.
> I 'm not a technical dog, so you can search hydrodynamic drive. the engine is very intact, smaller size and easy to replace.
> 
> high power, low worn gear, little noise.
> 
> and its automatic gear shifting, which means driving friendly.



Does VT-4 come with multiple reverse speed transmission? it is a must for every modern mbt to maneuver fast to avoid engagement you know. The previous version had no such feature.


----------



## 帅的一匹

and its automatic gear shifting, which means driving friendly.



Dazzler said:


> Does VT-4 come with multiple reverse speed transmission? it is a must for every modern mbt to maneuver fast to avoid engagement you know. The previous version had no such feature.


its not mentioned in the source i get access, i will notice it when more information disclosed.

i dont address anything that i dont know.


----------



## Dazzler

GriffinsRule said:


> Way better in what regards? Please elaborate



Thats where the fanboyism comes, these guys know zilch about technical aspects and still come up with such childish comments. They dont know how mbts, and their components are tested but will boast as if thier super duper stuff bettered all. 

The 6td series has proven credentials against the likes of Perkins Condor engine, MTU 883 engine, and it bettered them both in terms of serviceability, raw performance and torque, MTBO to name a few but somehow this new Chinese engine defeated it. 

Just hilarious.



wanglaokan said:


> and its automatic gear shifting, which means driving friendly.
> 
> 
> its not mentioned in the source i get access, i will notice it when more information disclosed.
> 
> i dont address anything that i dont know.



VT-4 has no such feature. It offers just one reverse gear and can barely move at 3-5 miles/ hour in reverse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

@Dazzler if they repalce the second generarion thermal imagers with third gen thermal imagers, the cost will keep increasing.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> @Dazzler if they repalce the second generarion thermal imagers with third gen thermal imagers, the cost will keep increasing.



First, i seriously doubt if China even produces second generation thermal sights, especially those comparable to Catherine. Provide some info to prove me wrong but Al khalid is outfitted with Catherine and even thirf generation matis imagers. Do you know that Al khalid also uses Sagem Matis, a third generation thermal imager in some command mbts?


----------



## 帅的一匹

it depends how much customer can afford, like high/low configurations.



Dazzler said:


> First, i seriously doubt if China even produces second generation thermal sights, especially those comparable to Catherine. Provide some info to prove me wrong but Al khalid is outfitted with Catherine and even thirf generation matis imagers. Do you know that Al khalid also uses Sagem Matis, a third generation thermal imager in some command mbts?


my.source is sure we are now mass producing thrid gen cooled thermal imagers. Russians are pretty struggling with it, we might provide technical support to them. i heard they also get thermal imagers from France.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> it depends how much customer can afford, like high/low configurations.
> 
> 
> my.source is sure we are now mass producing thrid gen cooled thermal imagers. Russians are pretty struggling with it, we might provide technical support to them. i heard they also get thermal imagers from France.



YEs, they do. All their Armatas, upgraded t-80s, 72s and 90s have French thermal imagers. Developing one is by no means easy but somehow China came up with second and even third generation TIs. Where is the data?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Thats where the fanboyism comes, these guys know zilch about technical aspects and still come up with such childish comments. They dont know how mbts, and their components are tested but will boast as if thier super duper stuff bettered all.
> 
> The 6td series has proven credentials against the likes of Perkins Condor engine, MTU 883 engine, and it bettered them both in terms of serviceability, raw performance and torque, MTBO to name a few but somehow this new Chinese engine defeated it.
> 
> Just hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> VT-4 has no such feature. It offers just one reverse gear and can barely move at 3-5 miles/ hour in reverse.


as i research further, CH 1000 engine of VT 4 fearures 3 reverse gear, the max speed of reverse driving is 34KM/hour.



Dazzler said:


> YEs, they do. All their Armatas, upgraded t-80s, 72s and 90s have French thermal imagers. Developing one is by no means easy but somehow China came up with second and even third generation TIs. Where is the data?


T99A 2 had been using it for quite a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> as i research further, CH 1000 engine of VT 4 fearures 3 reverse gear, the max speed of reverse driving is 34KM/hour.
> 
> 
> T99A 2 had been using it for quite a while.



Where is the data or link to back your claims?


----------



## 帅的一匹

it taks 6 seconds for VT4 to accelerate fro m 0 to 32KM /hour.



Dazzler said:


> Where is the data or link to back your claims?


google CH 1000 in www.baidu.com


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> it taks 6 seconds for VT4 to accelerate fro m 0 to 32KM /hour.



Reading from some random forum and quoting it here will make no difference.


----------



## 帅的一匹

as a Chinese, i know much more than you do. otherwise i will be a joke.

those information was collected by the journalists attending the Zhuhai air show.


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> Reading from some random forum and quoting it here will make no difference.


There is an official video:
http://tv.cctv.com/2017/04/23/VIDEXEOFq8B5G3fkMJmnWvnM170423.shtml


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> as a Chinese, i know much more than you do. otherwise i will be a joke.
> 
> those information was collected by the journalists attending the Zhuhai air show.



I dont care about nationalities. I am a technical guy looking to upgrade my knowledge and want you to help me doing it. When you make claims and dont back it up with data, your claims remain hollow. it is that simple. You may know a lot more than me and others but if your knowledge fails you in proving something you claimed, it is useless.


----------



## 帅的一匹

i want you guys to understand that its important China is.able to produce third gen thermal imagers on our own, cause no one will sell it to us in war time.


----------



## LKJ86

In the TV show, a woman journalist can drive the VT-4 like a car.


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> There is an official video:
> http://tv.cctv.com/2017/04/23/VIDEXEOFq8B5G3fkMJmnWvnM170423.shtml



i have seen the video several times and have done forensics on it as well. There is nothing remarkable i found about this mbt.



LKJ86 said:


> There is an official video:
> http://tv.cctv.com/2017/04/23/VIDEXEOFq8B5G3fkMJmnWvnM170423.shtml



i have seen the video several times and have done forensics on it as well. There is nothing remarkable i found about this mbt.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> I dont care about nationalities. I am a technical guy looking to upgrade my knowledge and want you to help me doing it. When you make claims and dont back it up with data, your claims remain hollow. it is that simple. You may know a lot more than me and others but if your knowledge fails you in proving something you claimed, it is useless.


China has third gen thermal imagers, thats how it is. its not some alien technology. we hsve been get used to be isolated, we have many ways to get those technology we are interested.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> China has third gen thermal imagers, thats how it is. its not some alien technology. we hsve been get used to be isolated, we have many ways to get those technology we are interested.



Do you understand English?? 

All i asked for was the data on the damn thing and you keep ranting the same BS that China has this and that and it is operational. Where is the data?? 

What is the search range, detection range, laser spectrum coverage, and tracking range?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> I dont care about nationalities. I am a technical guy looking to upgrade my knowledge and want you to help me doing it. When you make claims and dont back it up with data, your claims remain hollow. it is that simple. You may know a lot more than me and others but if your knowledge fails you in proving something you claimed, it is useless.


China has third gen thermal imagers, thats how it is. its not some alien technology. we hsve been get used to be isolated, we have many ways to get those technology we are interested.



Dazzler said:


> Do you understand English??
> 
> All i asked for was the data on the damn thing and you keep ranting the same BS that China has this and that and it is operational. Where is the data??
> 
> What is the search range, detection range, laser spectrum coverage, and tracking range?


if i.can have the data, i wont be here. do you understand?


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> China has third gen thermal imagers, thats how it is. its not some alien technology. we hsve been get used to be isolated, we have many ways to get those technology we are interested.
> 
> 
> if i.can have the data, i wont be here. do you understand?



No i dont, you said it is not some alien technology right? Then share the data as they are selling the thing in export tanks. Why such secrecy?


----------



## LKJ86

http://tv.cctv.com/2017/07/28/VIDEFkFiyVaPpUa5R3IXX4Uh170728.shtml


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> No i dont, you said it is not some alien technology right? Then share the data as they are selling the thing in export tanks. Why such secrecy?


The customer is PA, not you and me. they have no practice of make information public. Cause we are not concerned.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> The customer is PA, not you and me. they have no practice of make information public. Cause we are not concerned.



Who said the customer is PA? You claimed it it has cooled thermal imager now prove it. Stop twisting things.


----------



## GriffinsRule

First off, Pakistan's Al-Khalid also uses an automatic transmission, SESM ESM500, same found on the French Lecric. So I don't see how that is an advantage for the VT-4 if at all, given that we don't even know what the transmission is called. 
Even if given the benefit of the doubt that the VT-4 is incrementally ahead of Al-Khalid in certain aspects, my argument is that we are better off following the route the PAF is taking with the JF-17. It is not the best aircraft in PAF neither the best China is capable of producing. However, the basic design is advanced enough to go toe to toe with 4th gen fighters that are the mainstay of IAF, and it can be gradually upgraded to keep up with the enemy it will face, and as it is needed in large numbers, it is also economical to purchase and produce. 
Similarly, VT-4 is not a drastically new and improved design over AK and most of the innards such as sights/optics, FCS can be introduced in newer built AK-IIs etc which are needed in large numbers to replace T-59s and T-69s. The threat perception from Indian armor must not be as great though as the time crunch is seemingly not that big a concern from the way Pakistan Army is taking its time with the procurement and the trials have taken years and had the urgency been there, the production at HIT would have been ramped-up. 
The benefits of increasing the production at HIT, even if half of the parts are to be imported still is a much better alternative then an outright purchase of a marginally better tank in the hundreds. If the facilities there are indeed being upgraded with newer machinery, then it makes sense for PA to trial new equipment in the market, such as upgraded T-84s and VT-4s, as to see what systems work well and could be outsourced for the next upgrade of AK at home. 
If we find our MBTs wanting in some aspects and we have to procure something bigger and better, I would prefer it to be something much more technologically advanced then what Pakistan is already producing in-house. As those numbers are going to be between 200-300 at most, a heavier and better armored tank in the 55 ton range makes most sense as anything in the 45-50 range can be produced at home already

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Who said the customer is PA? You claimed it it has cooled thermal imager now prove it. Stop twisting things.


Please prove it doesn't have cooled thermal imagers. Don't talk me with a tone like that Yankees.


----------



## LKJ86

*China Is Selling a New Tank. Could It Beat the M1 Abrams in a Fight?*
Or Russia's best?
by Charlie Gao

While China’s primary tank is the ZTZ-99, its military industry (in the Western tradition) has also developed completely original designs for export. One of the designs that’s achieved considerable success is the VT-4, which has been recently adopted in significant numbers by the Royal Thai Army. The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine. But how does the VT-4’s technology stack up against Russia’s T-90S, America’s M1 Abrams export models or the Leopard 2?

The VT-4’s roots are in the Al-Khalid tank developed in the 1990s. The Al-Khalid tank was largely built with mostly Chinese and Pakistani technology, but a sore spot for the Chinese designers  was their lack of ability to provide a power plant for the tank. The engines for the tank had to be sourced from Germany or Ukraine. Ukraine ended up providing the production run for the Al-Khalid tank. As a result, the VT-4 program’s primary objective when it began in 2009 was to build an indigenous power plant for future domestic and export tanks. Due to the success of this engine development program, many VT-4 marketing materials tout the reliability and performance of its engine.

The Thai decision to acquire the VT-4 was a result of Ukraine’s failure to deliver T-84 Oplots on schedule. Originally, the decision was between the T-90S and the T-84 Oplot, but American diplomatic pressure resulted in the selection of the T-84 over the T-90S. However, due to various problems and the war in Ukraine, Ukraine has delivered the ordered T-84s at a slow rate. Thus,  a program was initiated in 2016  to select another modern tank to take the place of the T-84. The new contenders were the Chinese VT-4 and the Russian T-90MS. Again, the post-coup Thai government’s pivot towards China and waning Russian influence in the region resulted in the selection of the VT-4 over the T-90, despite the T-90’s greater export success and the VT-4 being an unproven design. The Thai contract is the first adoption of the VT-4.

The VT-4 uses 125-millimeter Chinese BT-4 ammunition. BT-4 is the export designation for the DTW125 round, a last-generation Chinese APFSDS round with a tungsten penetrator, which is rated at seven hundred millimeters of RHA penetration at two kilometers. A  new round is also in development  for the export market based on technology from the current generation DTC125 round (which is rumored to penetrate 750 millimeters at the same range). While 125 millimeters is the standard caliber, the VT-4 may also be exported with a 120-millimeter gun upon a customer’s request. A 140-millimeter cannon was once considered for the VT-4 and future Chinese domestic tanks, but it is currently shelved in favor of research into better ammunition or ETC technology. The VT-4’s autoloader  is also practically identical to those found in the T-72 series of tanks, with horizontal ammo stowage around the turret floor (this can be seen as the autoloader uses a hoist system in the picture, similar to the hoist system of the T-72, illustrated here). The VT-4 in Thai service is also compatible with Ukrainian ammunition, including the gun-launched ATGMs. While the original designer of the VT-4 didn’t see the need for GLATGM on the VT-4, stating that the capability given by kinetic penetrators is enough for developing countries, the feature was added to Thai VT-4s in order to make use of delivered GLATGMs that came with the T-84s. The hull armor of the VT-4 is estimated to be around five to six hundred millimeters’ RHA protection without ERA, and seven to eight hundred with the ERA package. Turret armor statistics remain restricted to potential clients. Other features on the VT-4 include laser warning receivers  and a fully stabilized, independent, thermal commander sight (a feature still lacking on some modern Russian tanks).

In practice, Thai tankers have complained about the ERA on the VT-4 being thinner than that of the Oplot. The Oplot’s soft-kill active-protection system design has been proven in combat (as the Ukrainian Varta system is a close clone of the Shtora system, which has proven effective in Syria), whereas the VT4’s system has not been tested at all. However, in firing drills, the VT-4’s fire control system has proven to be more accurate than the Oplot’s.

While the capabilities of the VT-4 are not revolutionary in any way (unlike some claims from Norinco), it is a solid tank for its price, that will likely have good support from the manufacturing base in China. Survivability wise, it has the same potential issues of the T-72 and T-90 series due to the same ammo layout. While the gun performance is unlikely to be on the same level as the latest American, Chinese or Russian guns, due to being based on last-generation round technology, it should be enough to counter most armored threats that aren’t top tier. As such, the VT-4 is likely to be a popular export to nations without the budget or political connections to Russia, Europe or the United States, as a “good enough” tank. Then again, similar things were said about the Stingray light tank, for which the Royal Thai Army is also the only user.

Source:http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...nk-all-over-the-world-could-it-beat-the-24428

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabi1

Pakistan can technically field both the Oplot and VT-4.

Since VT-4 shares Al-Khalid origins, why can't Pakistan acquire VT-4 input and fast track Al-Khalid 2 production. So we can get the VT-4 in the form of a customized Al-Khalid-2.

Similarly we are upgrading our T-80UDs and seems logical to upgrade them with some technology from the Oplot where possible. Oplot according to Thai Army has better protection so we can induct new build Oplot-Ps as our new heavy tank Haider. Ukraine has production issues which was the reason Thai Army had to go for VT-4s, Pakistan can leverage to move production capabilities to Pakistan for it's own needs.

Ukranian 6TD-2 1200HP and it's 1500HP variant will be standard engines for T-80UD, Al-Khalid, Al-Khalid-2 and Haider (likely for any VT-4 or Oplot induction). So seems logical if HIT acquires license production facility.

Win-Win for all.


----------



## LKJ86

The introductory video of VT-4 from RTA:
https://www.bilibili.com/video/av18798139?from=search&seid=15420179380436087950


----------



## cabatli_53



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

cabatli_53 said:


>


please add China in that picuture.



cabatli_53 said:


>


please add China in that picuture.


----------



## cabatli_53

wanglaokan said:


> please add China in that picuture.
> 
> 
> please add China in that picuture.




I am not the one who prepared that...


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> The introductory video of VT-4 from RTA:
> https://www.bilibili.com/video/av18798139?from=search&seid=15420179380436087950



The video is literally self explanatory. The tank has NO cooled imager, has thin armor compared to Oplot and there is a lot more. 

Details might dissapoint you and other fanboys.



LKJ86 said:


> The introductory video of VT-4 from RTA:
> https://www.bilibili.com/video/av18798139?from=search&seid=15420179380436087950



The video is literally self explanatory. The tank has NO cooled imager, has thin armor compared to Oplot and there is a lot more. 

Details might dissapoint you and other fanboys.


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> The video is literally self explanatory. The tank has NO cooled imager, has thin armor compared to Oplot and there is a lot more.
> 
> Details might dissapoint you and other fanboys.
> 
> 
> 
> The video is literally self explanatory. The tank has NO cooled imager, has thin armor compared to Oplot and there is a lot more.
> 
> Details might dissapoint you and other fanboys.


I don't think VT-4 is the best tank in the world. 
It is just a tank with 52 tons, not the one with 70 tons. 
You pay more, and will get more.
Besides, someone says that VT-4 has passed the test. Is there any news about the T-84?


----------



## cabatli_53

Dazzler said:


> has thin armor compared to Oplot



The protection level of German IBM armour blocks reached on field trials have been introduced in Eurosatory 2018 fair.

STANAG level-5 protection(25mm X 137 APFSDS-T): *135kg/m2*
STANAG level-6 (NATO standart APFSDS-T 30mm X 173): *180kg/m2*









Roketsan introduced the protection level of Turkish Armour blocks in SavTek conference.

STANAG level-5 protection(25mm X 137 APFSDS-T): *114kg/m2*
STANAG level-6 protection against Russian 30mm X165/173 AP-T: *100kg/m2*









If Chinese and Ukrainian members share the info about their armour blocks, We can reach some results about protection level of armours to compare I think.


----------



## 帅的一匹

I think PA is more interested in T99A2.



LKJ86 said:


> I don't think VT-4 is the best tank in the world.
> It is just a tank with 52 tons, not the one with 70 tons.
> 
> You pay more, and will get more.
> Besides, someone says that VT-4 has passed the test. Is there any news about the T-84?


Basically Vt4 is not a top notch. A scaled down version of T99A2.


----------



## Signalian

wanglaokan said:


> I think PA is more interested in T99A2.


Any recent basis for your thinking?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

wanglaokan said:


> I think PA is more interested in T99A2.
> 
> 
> Basically Vt4 is not a top notch. A scaled down version of T99A2.


ZTZ-99A

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

LKJ86 said:


> ZTZ-99A
> View attachment 486759
> View attachment 486760
> View attachment 486761
> View attachment 486762


to be honest, the side armour of the T99A turret is much thicker than VT 4.

we shall send T 99A to Pakistan rather than VT 4.
China shall adjust our conservative weapon export policy accordingly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

wanglaokan said:


> to be honest, the side armour of the T99A turret is much thicker than VT 4.


But Type 99A is much heavier and more expensive than VT-4.


----------



## 帅的一匹

LKJ86 said:


> But Type 99A is much heavier and more expensive than VT-4.


but its better than VT4.

it has a active engage laser system can immediately blind rival gunners eyes.

thicker armour, stronger firepower.


----------



## LKJ86

wanglaokan said:


> but its better than VT4.
> 
> it has a active engage laser system can immediately blind rival gunners eyes.
> 
> thicker armour, stronger firepower.


The most appropriate is the best.


----------



## 帅的一匹

LKJ86 said:


> The most appropriate is the best.


and don't forget the economy of scales effect.


----------



## LKJ86

The VT-4 is back to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

LKJ86 said:


> But Type 99A is much heavier


nope we are searching the tank of same weight class (~55 tones)


----------



## LKJ86

HRK said:


> nope we are searching the tank of same weight class (~55 tones)


You mean Type 99A is about 55 tones?


----------



## HRK

LKJ86 said:


> You mean Type 99A is about 55 tones?


no I mean we are looking for a tank of weight around 55 tonnes, type 99 is around 57 or 58 tonnes


----------



## LKJ86

HRK said:


> no I mean we are looking for a tank of weight around 55 tonnes, type 99 is around 57 or 58 tonnes


What candidates?


----------



## HRK

LKJ86 said:


> What candidates?


till now we are aware about only two tanks which were tested in Pakistan Oplot and VT-4, not sure about any other tank is tested or not but as per rumours at the forum one or two more tanks were expected for trail in Pakistan. Current status is not known

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..
> 
> View attachment 490378
> View attachment 490379
> View attachment 490380


how do you know?

the picture was taken in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> how do you know?
> 
> the picture was taken in China.



So what, does an ARV carries it in China? The only time an ARV is used when the tank becomes immobile.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> So what, does an ARV carries it in China? The only time an ARV is used when the tank becomes immobile.


that only shows your inferior complexity, what else....


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> View attachment 490398
> 
> 
> 
> that only shows your inferior complexity, what else....



To a technical guy, it shows the tank had an engine failure.


----------



## 420canada

wanglaokan said:


> View attachment 490398
> 
> 
> 
> that only shows your inferior complexity, what else....


Wait what?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> To a technical guy, it shows the tank had an engine failure.


the picture was taken long time ago, maybe 5 or 6 years ago when VT4 went through trials in China.

and how do you know its a engine faliure?


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> the picture was taken long time ago, maybe 5 or 6 years ago when VT4 went through trials in China.
> 
> and how do you know its a engine faliure?



Turret swung backwards, the engine bay opened. See the deck.


----------



## 帅的一匹

it maybe just a test of ARV rescueing tanks in battle field.

a test of replacing VT4 integral power package at battle field.

A pakistani member told me VT 4 had cleared alll the trials set by PA in Pakistan. it means everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Dazzler said:


> Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..
> 
> View attachment 490378
> View attachment 490379
> View attachment 490380



is ukrainian UTD an option?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> it maybe just a test of ARV rescueing tanks in battle field.
> 
> a test of replacing VT4 integral power package at battle field.
> 
> A pakistani member told me VT 4 had cleared alll the trials set by PA in Pakistan. it means everything.



Yeah right, they are testing a 20 year old ARV with the engine deck of the tank opened. 



Signalian said:


> is ukrainian UTD an option?



For VT-4? Unlikely, as China offered it solely with indigenous engine this time.



wanglaokan said:


> it maybe just a test of ARV rescueing tanks in battle field.
> 
> a test of replacing VT4 integral power package at battle field.
> 
> A pakistani member told me VT 4 had cleared alll the trials set by PA in Pakistan. it means everything.



So in that case, a pakistani member became an authentic source? Convenient.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Yeah right, they are testing a 20 year old ARV with the engine deck of the tank opened.
> 
> 
> 
> For VT-4? Unlikely, as China offered it solely with indigenous engine this time.


its just your wild guess



Dazzler said:


> Yeah right, they are testing a 20 year old ARV with the engine deck of the tank opened.
> 
> 
> 
> For VT-4? Unlikely, as China offered it solely with indigenous engine this time.
> 
> 
> 
> So in that case, a pakistani member became an authentic source? Convenient.


he live in Pakistan, i think he knows deep in this area.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> its just your wild guess
> 
> As i said, you have no clue.
> 
> he live in Pakistan, i think he knows deep in this area.



So do i. Can come and go to places that are inaccessible to some


----------



## Signalian

Dazzler said:


> For VT-4? Unlikely, as China offered it solely with indigenous engine this time.


Yes VT-4. EME should be able to do something about the engine if the deal is not struck without the engine.

@blueazure wake the hell up !!!!!!!! what is EME doing? There is a rail engine manufacturing factory in risalpur, any collaboration of EME with that?


Dazzler ,secondly, whats the engine option for AK-II.


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> Yes VT-4. EME should be able to do something about the engine if the deal is not struck without the engine.
> 
> @blueazure wake the hell up !!!!!!!! what is EME doing? There is a rail engine manufacturing factory in risalpur, any collaboration of EME with that?
> 
> 
> Dazzler ,secondly, whats the engine option for AK-II.



6td-3 the preferred option, with 150HB (type-99A) and at least one another as backup if the 6td fails trials.


----------



## Signalian

Dazzler said:


> 6td-3 the preferred option, with 150HB (type-99A) and at least one another as backup if the 6td fails trials.


Ukrainian is a practical option. any other options non-ukrainian?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> So do i. Can come and go to places that are inaccessible to some


even its engine failiured, i say if, why you feel so excited...i have no clue


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> even its engine failiured, i say if, why you feel so excited...i have no clue



No, frankly speaking, i am disappointed considering that the MBT 2000 showed more promise when completed. Which is why the VT4 should have done better. I am not the only one, a lot among the army were literally had high hopes but it disappointed many.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> 6td-3 the preferred option, with 150HB (type-99A) and at least one another as backup if the 6td fails trials.


and how do you know Ukrainian will TOT the 6td -3. can you take them for granted.


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> Ukrainian is a practical option. any other options non-ukrainian?



China so far and if Turkey comes up with something good.



wanglaokan said:


> and how do you know Ukrainian will TOT the 6td -3. can you take them for granted.



They are losing customers fast, cannot afford to lose us under the circumstances. ToT is being sought but not necessarily.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> China so far and if Turkey comes up with something good.
> 
> 
> 
> They are losing customers fast, cannot afford to lose us under the circumstances. ToT is being sought but not necessarily.


if they transfer the engine, they will loose the last customer.

thats even worse situation.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> if they transfer the engine, they will loose the last customer.
> 
> thats even worse situation.



No they will not. they have a huge industry with hundreds of projects running concurrently. ToT will help their industry find more customers in the longer run.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> No they will not. they have a huge industry with hundreds of projects running concurrently. ToT will help their industry find more customers in the longer run.


actually they will create a potential competitor in the future.



Dazzler said:


> No they will not. they have a huge industry with hundreds of projects running concurrently. ToT will help their industry find more customers in the longer run.


actually they will create a potential competitor in the future.



Dazzler said:


> No, frankly speaking, i am disappointed considering that the MBT 2000 showed more promise when completed. Which is why the VT4 should have done better. I am not the only one, a lot among the army were literally had high hopes but it disappointed many.


VT4 is very young, got plenty room to grow.



Signalian said:


> Ukrainian is a practical option. any other options non-ukrainian?


type 96b or type 99A



Dazzler said:


> No they will not. they have a huge industry with hundreds of projects running concurrently. ToT will help their industry find more customers in the longer run.


they are dying for money, so maybe its a good chance


----------



## Dazzler

Ammo offered to Thailand








offered to Pakistan, notice the apfsds rounds, the one offered to pakistan is a newer round with longer penetrator.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..
> 
> View attachment 490378
> View attachment 490379
> View attachment 490380


Interesting.
Do you know what tank it is?


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> Interesting.
> Do you know what tank it is?



It is pretty clear that it is MBT 3000 aka VT4


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> Ammo offered to Thailand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> offered to Pakistan, notice the apfsds rounds, the one offered to pakistan is a newer round with longer penetrator.
> 
> View attachment 490409


The two pics you posted are all from Thailand.





Dazzler said:


> It is pretty clear that it is MBT 3000 aka VT4





Dazzler said:


> Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..
> 
> View attachment 490378
> View attachment 490379
> View attachment 490380


It is MBT-2000.




This is the Video link:
https://www.bilibili.com/video/av17429127/?p=3

@wanglaokan @Dazzler @Signalian

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> The two pics you posed are all from Thailand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is MBT-2000.
> View attachment 490469
> 
> This is the Video link:
> https://www.bilibili.com/video/av17429127/?p=3
> 
> @wanglaokan @Dazzler @Signalian



The one in the above pic is, not the one in the pics i posted. It is VT4. The documentary is discussing the evolution and development of both mbts along with military cooperation between both countries.


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> The one in the above pic is, not the one in the pics i posted. It is VT4. The documentary is discussing the evolution and development of both mbts.


No, it is MBT-2000. The video is about ZDK-03, F-22P, MBT-2000, CH-4 and so on.






----------------------------------------
The pic you posted:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> No, it is MBT-2000. The video is about ZDK-03, F-22P, MBT-2000, CH-4 and so on.
> 
> View attachment 490471



it was the upgradation of mbt 2000 that led the development of VT-4. The video shows essentially a tank that was being upgraded, and tested.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> it was the upgradation of mbt 2000 that led the development of VT-4. The video shows essentially a tank that was being upgraded, and tested.


No, it is nothing about VT-4.

The appearance of VT-4 looks like that of MBT-2000, but the development of VT-4 is not based on MBT-2000.

VT-4:




-----------------------------
MBT-2000 you posted:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

LKJ86 said:


> No, it is nothing about VT-4.
> 
> The appearance of VT-4 looks like that of MBT-2000, but the development of VT-4 is not based on MBT-2000.
> 
> VT-4:
> View attachment 490477
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> MBT-2000 you posted:
> View attachment 490472


[/QUOTE]
Check the turret again... Mbt-2000 variant like other AKs.. doesnt have a wedge type turret like VT-4;






VT-4






AK/MBT-2000 prototype:






AK


----------



## LKJ86

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Check the turret again... Mbt-2000 variant like other AKs.. doesnt have a wedge type turret like VT-4;
> 
> View attachment 490487
> 
> 
> VT-4
> 
> View attachment 490490
> 
> 
> AK/MBT-2000 prototype:
> 
> View attachment 490489
> 
> 
> AK
> 
> View attachment 490491
> 
> 
> View attachment 490488


MBT-2000 from China has a wedge type turret like VT-4.

MBT-2000/VT-2:





VT-4:





--------------------------------------------------------------
For comparison:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> MBT-2000 from China has a wedge type turret like VT-4.
> 
> MBT-2000:
> View attachment 490493



Gotcha!

Thats NOT mbt 2000, where is the commander's panoramic sight? The Hull front is also different. 

Clearly a type-96A

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

LKJ86 said:


> MBT-2000 from China has a wedge type turret like VT-4.
> 
> MBT-2000/VT-2:
> View attachment 490493
> 
> 
> VT-4:
> View attachment 490494


VT-2 is an export version of type-96g... the wedge type turret is add on armour.. spaced/oblique armour..

Vt-2;






Type-96







Type-96a 2014 Tank Baithlon;






Alkhalid:


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> Gotcha!
> 
> Thats NOT mbt 2000, where is the commander's panoramic sight? The Hull front is also different.
> 
> Clearly a type-96A





DESERT FIGHTER said:


> VT-2 is an export version of type-96g... the wedge type turret is add on armour.. spaced/oblique armour..
> 
> Vt-2;
> 
> View attachment 490495
> 
> 
> Type-96
> 
> View attachment 490496
> 
> 
> 
> Type-96a 2014 Tank Baithlon;
> 
> View attachment 490497
> 
> 
> Alkhalid:
> 
> View attachment 490499
> View attachment 490500
> View attachment 490501
> View attachment 490503
> View attachment 490504
> View attachment 490502


There are MBT-2000, VT-1, VT-1A, and VT-2 for export.
We usually just call them MBT-2000, or VT-2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> The two pics you posted are all from Thailand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is MBT-2000.
> View attachment 490469
> 
> This is the Video link:
> https://www.bilibili.com/video/av17429127/?p=3
> 
> @wanglaokan @Dazzler @Signalian


From the video (13:24 - 18:40):

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## aliaselin

LKJ86 said:


> From the video (13:24 - 18:40):
> View attachment 490509
> View attachment 490510
> View attachment 490511
> View attachment 490512
> View attachment 490513
> View attachment 490514
> View attachment 490515
> View attachment 490516


我现在越来越相信一句话：八及寺谭就是信了意思蓝的阿三，真为我们在那里投资的钱担忧。那么多钱投下去，GDP增速才5.几，真是废物

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

The show of VT-2/MBT-2000, VT-4, VT-5 in 2017:
http://live.sina.com.cn/zt/l/v/mil/zjcys/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## royalharris

比阿三还鱼唇还极端，比大页还难伺候的奇钙，天生喜欢跪添土鸡与稀方

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

For me, AK is pretty good.



royalharris said:


> 比阿三还鱼唇还极端，比大页还难伺候的奇钙，天生喜欢跪添土鸡与稀方


氯率都这样

这及格都湿圣火再夕仿的啥霍。

这帮人致伤刊优啊。

猫不嫩较老胡上述，幺留意首。

Vt2 is more like type 96A.



LKJ86 said:


> No, it is nothing about VT-4.
> 
> The appearance of VT-4 looks like that of MBT-2000, but the development of VT-4 is not based on MBT-2000.
> 
> VT-4:
> View attachment 490477
> 
> -----------------------------
> MBT-2000 you posted:
> View attachment 490486


Basically Vt4 is a under sized t99a2, overall it's inferior to T99A2. But in some aspects it excels.

It's originated from the technology tree of T99 tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> From the video (13:24 - 18:40):
> View attachment 490509
> View attachment 490510
> View attachment 490511
> View attachment 490512
> View attachment 490513
> View attachment 490514
> View attachment 490515
> View attachment 490516




Yeah i saw the video but you guys are taking it the other way. The same video also shows the interior of a tank that is neither MBT 2000 not Al khalid. I keep hearing that Norinco somehow came with two similar mbt designs, with both featuring virtually identical turret, hull, glacis, roadwheels, and even sensors over the turret roof??? Do you seriously believe that??


This is the VT4







And thats MBT 2000?
















Then we see the interior which does not match the current MBT 2000, Al khalid, or even VT-1A.







BUT, it looks a lot like the VT4's interior..






Sorry folks, the evidence suggests that the so called VT-4 is nothing but a further, evolutionary improvement of MBT 2000. The engine was the only significant change in the VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blueazure

Signalian said:


> Yes VT-4. EME should be able to do something about the engine if the deal is not struck without the engine.
> 
> @blueazure wake the hell up !!!!!!!! what is EME doing? There is a rail engine manufacturing factory in risalpur, any collaboration of EME with that?
> 
> 
> Dazzler ,secondly, whats the engine option for AK-II.





cheaper and ready available engines in the mkt are there. why make from scratch . paisey bhi nahi hain bhai for RD

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..
> 
> View attachment 490378
> View attachment 490379
> View attachment 490380



While you _may be _about engine failure, you assumed it is during field trials with the ambiguous suggestion of current field trials in Pakistan. This isn't the case. The photos you have posted are CCTV footage of a test of the ARV. You are taking some screenshots of video footage from years old Chinese tv program and using it to suggest VT-4 engine problem in Pakistan trials. Now CCTV does not show engine failure in a program. No country's TV program supported by its own government blatantly shows a tank engine failure even if they do occur (and of course they do, every single tank fails there are plenty of examples). So while VT-4 may not be a good tank or suitable for Pakistan, please be honest about stuff you post. You can get a Chinese person to translate the text on the screen next time.



Dazzler said:


> Yeah i saw the video but you guys are taking it the other way. The same video also shows the interior of a tank that is neither MBT 2000 not Al khalid. I keep hearing that Norinco somehow came with two similar mbt designs, with both featuring virtually identical turret, hull, glacis, roadwheels, and even sensors over the turret roof??? Do you seriously believe that??
> 
> 
> This is the VT4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thats MBT 2000?
> 
> View attachment 490532
> 
> 
> View attachment 490533
> 
> 
> View attachment 490533
> 
> 
> Then we see the interior which does not match the current MBT 2000, Al khalid, or even VT-1A.
> 
> View attachment 490534
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, it looks a lot like the VT4's interior..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry folks, the evidence suggests that the so called VT-4 is nothing but a further, evolutionary improvement of MBT 2000. The engine was the only significant change in the VT-4.



Mostly true. VT-4 is certainly based off Type 96 but better than 96B because of updated interior, turret design, sights and optics (the PLA's type 96 at least the A versions are nowhere near as updated as least just from observation). VT-4 does have 1300 HP engine IIRC and can be modified for GL-5 APS (a watered down APS for export) and VT-4 does come with remote weapon system and far better commander optics. These are all substantial improvements to MBT-2000 which is basically a Type 96A.

@Dazzler I'm interested to know if you can disclose any information about VT-4 performance in Pakistan, in particular what was disappointing apart from VT-4 having very similar performance parameters to MBT-2000 (the current one not the AK one from a decade ago). Norinco is just rebranding a lot of the equipment although to me it seems VT-4 is measurably better than Type 96 in almost all key areas. Let's not forget that Type 96 was never a brilliant MBT to start with, just one that is perfectly suited to PLA's war preparations and doctrine. Would be nice to know if they did any destructive tests on armour samples and can compare VT-4 with AK and Oplot... maybe a chunk of armour from each tested and main guns of respective tanks tested against RHA and various armour types. General reliability, mobility, and electronics performance can be gauged and assessed without expensive and destructive testing. Interested to know what you have access to or even what you've heard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliaselin

wanglaokan said:


> For me, AK is pretty good.
> 
> 
> 氯率都这样
> 
> 这及格都湿圣火再夕仿的啥霍。
> 
> 这帮人致伤刊优啊。
> 
> 猫不嫩较老胡上述，幺留意首。
> 
> Vt2 is more like type 96A.
> 
> 
> Basically Vt4 is a under sized t99a2, overall it's inferior to T99A2. But in some aspects it excels.
> 
> It's originated from the technology tree of T99 tank.


前段时间在北方工业的微信上看到北方工业的领导对霸及来访的人说：希望霸及提供*公平*的竞争机会。不知道是不是说这事


----------



## Dazzler

serenity said:


> While you _may be _about engine failure, you assumed it is during field trials with the ambiguous suggestion of current field trials in Pakistan. This isn't the case. The photos you have posted are CCTV footage of a test of the ARV. You are taking some screenshots of video footage from years old Chinese tv program and using it to suggest VT-4 engine problem in Pakistan trials. Now CCTV does not show engine failure in a program. No country's TV program supported by its own government blatantly shows a tank engine failure even if they do occur (and of course they do, every single tank fails there are plenty of examples). So while VT-4 may not be a good tank or suitable for Pakistan, please be honest about stuff you post. You can get a Chinese person to translate the text on the screen next time.
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly true. VT-4 is certainly based off Type 96 but better than 96B because of updated interior, turret design, sights and optics (the PLA's type 96 at least the A versions are nowhere near as updated as least just from observation). VT-4 does have 1300 HP engine IIRC and can be modified for GL-5 APS (a watered down APS for export) and VT-4 does come with remote weapon system and far better commander optics. These are all substantial improvements to MBT-2000 which is basically a Type 96A.
> 
> @Dazzler I'm interested to know if you can disclose any information about VT-4 performance in Pakistan, in particular what was disappointing apart from VT-4 having very similar performance parameters to MBT-2000 (the current one not the AK one from a decade ago). Norinco is just rebranding a lot of the equipment although to me it seems VT-4 is measurably better than Type 96 in almost all key areas. Let's not forget that Type 96 was never a brilliant MBT to start with, just one that is perfectly suited to PLA's war preparations and doctrine. Would be nice to know if they did any destructive tests on armour samples and can compare VT-4 with AK and Oplot... maybe a chunk of armour from each tested and main guns of respective tanks tested against RHA and various armour types. General reliability, mobility, and electronics performance can be gauged and assessed without expensive and destructive testing. Interested to know what you have access to or even what you've heard.



VT-4 performed poorly during desert trials in Pakistan. There were several issues with engine, electronics reliability among others. Engine failed multiple times. Transmission needs improvements, the FCS and armour are decent so is the main gun and ammo so no issues here.

The Ukrainian oplot m suffered the similar fate but was overall considered a better option. The armour of oplot is miles ahead of VT-4. Keep in mind that these tanks are meant to replace obsolete fleet of 59s and 69s. 

Also, type-96 and MBT 2000/ Al khalid/ VT-4 are different systems belonging to different class of mbts. Comparing both makes little sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> VT-4 performed poorly during desert trials in Pakistan. There were several issues with engine, electronics reliability among others. Engine failed multiple times. Transmission needs improvements, the FCS and armour are decent so is the main gun and ammo so no issues here.
> 
> The Ukrainian oplot m suffered the similar fate but was overall considered a better option. The armour of oplot is miles ahead of VT-4. Keep in mind that these tanks are meant to replace obsolete fleet of 59s and 69s.
> 
> Also, type-96 and MBT 2000/ Al khalid/ VT-4 are different systems belonging to different class of mbts. Comparing both makes little sense.



I thought they are in the same class owing to their similar weights. Just upgraded to meet developing threats etc. But yes I understand your point as well. For the Oplot, am I to understand the engine and/or transmission also suffered in the heat? I know Chinese forums have been saying 96 and 99 series have experienced transmission woes for a very long time (although the latest is that these have been addressed, how well we'll not know) and transmission is one serious weakness in Chinese tanks at the moment, engines are pretty decent and point of failure usually lies with the transmission.

As for the armour, could you elaborate on VT-4 weaknesses? and Oplot's comparative strengths? Appreciate your responses. Both are roughly the same weight with VT-4 being slightly heavier while having very similar dimensions to Oplot. Materials and composition specifics aside, I cannot imagine why the Oplot (which is not *renowned *for its protection levels) can be miles ahead of VT-4 unless VT-4 is using armour from the 80s. I understand that Chinese used welded turrets and adopted western style turret design (read engineering) before the Soviets and composite armour with spacing, exotic materials, and optimised geometry is very simple easy stuff these days. Reactive armour is either directly purchased or license produced (maybe reverse engineered) from latest Russian ERA like Kontakt 5 and Relikt. Could they have watered down the armour for PA that much? Doubt it. Is it an issue of thickness (again VT-4 is heavier). You say that VT-4's armour is decent (I'm going to assume that's just acceptable and did not malfunction in tests (as expected for simple static components) but Oplot is miles ahead even though Oplot is not "well protected" compared to heavy weights. Heavy weights like M1 series, Leclerc, Leopard 2A5+ have all been knocked out in numbers by various primitive methods and weapons. Of course this is all a function of many complex factors but what I mean is, if Oplot's protection is miles ahead of VT-4 and at best overall equal to 53-70+Tonne tanks (actually pretty much so unrealistic it's impossible that a Ukrainian 80s based light tank can be equal in protection to something like a Leo2a5) just how bad is VT-4's armour hahahaha. They could have used mild steel  at this point going by how you described it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> VT-4 performed poorly during desert trials in Pakistan. There were several issues with engine, electronics reliability among others. Engine failed multiple times. Transmission needs improvements, the FCS and armour are decent so is the main gun and ammo so no issues here.
> 
> The Ukrainian oplot m suffered the similar fate but was overall considered a better option. The armour of oplot is miles ahead of VT-4. Keep in mind that these tanks are meant to replace obsolete fleet of 59s and 69s.
> 
> Also, type-96 and MBT 2000/ Al khalid/ VT-4 are different systems belonging to different class of mbts. Comparing both makes little sense.


No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.



serenity said:


> I thought they are in the same class owing to their similar weights. Just upgraded to meet developing threats etc. But yes I understand your point as well. For the Oplot, am I to understand the engine and/or transmission also suffered in the heat? I know Chinese forums have been saying 96 and 99 series have experienced transmission woes for a very long time (although the latest is that these have been addressed, how well we'll not know) and transmission is one serious weakness in Chinese tanks at the moment, engines are pretty decent and point of failure usually lies with the transmission.
> 
> As for the armour, could you elaborate on VT-4 weaknesses? and Oplot's comparative strengths? Appreciate your responses. Both are roughly the same weight with VT-4 being slightly heavier while having very similar dimensions to Oplot. Materials and composition specifics aside, I cannot imagine why the Oplot (which is not *renowned *for its protection levels) can be miles ahead of VT-4 unless VT-4 is using armour from the 80s. I understand that Chinese used welded turrets and adopted western style turret design (read engineering) before the Soviets and composite armour with spacing, exotic materials, and optimised geometry is very simple easy stuff these days. Reactive armour is either directly purchased or license produced (maybe reverse engineered) from latest Russian ERA like Kontakt 5 and Relikt. Could they have watered down the armour for PA that much? Doubt it. Is it an issue of thickness (again VT-4 is heavier). You say that VT-4's armour is decent (I'm going to assume that's just acceptable and did not malfunction in tests (as expected for simple static components) but Oplot is miles ahead even though Oplot is not "well protected" compared to heavy weights. Heavy weights like M1 series, Leclerc, Leopard 2A5+ have all been knocked out in numbers by various primitive methods and weapons. Of course this is all a function of many complex factors but what I mean is, if Oplot's protection is miles ahead of VT-4 and at best overall equal to 53-70+Tonne tanks (actually pretty much so unrealistic it's impossible that a Ukrainian 80s based light tank can be equal in protection to something like a Leo2a5) just how bad is VT-4's armour hahahaha. They could have used mild steel  at this point going by how you described it.


He keep saying Oplot's armour is mile ahead of Vt4's. I don't know why....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

wanglaokan said:


> No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.



Internet claims are worthless. Reality exists separate to internet claims. But Dazzler may have interesting stories to share. Whether or not one believes him and what they do with the knowledge is up to them. What some people say online and what observers think from reading it, it doesn't change actual reality, whether Chinese engines are unreliable junk or pretty much as decent as bargained for considering price and engineering compromises (assuming stereotypes hold true). PRC can defend sovereignty in any scale of actual war with zero tanks. Honestly all one needs is a good enough MAD deterrence and if they wish to play the conventional edge arms race game, they are welcomed to it. Just don't go broke. Some failed nations (most on Earth unfortunately) are destined for continued poverty in this century... at the VERY least.

He says it maybe because he actually knows worthwhile stuff which i'm genuinely interested in. Without proof or evidence, of course they are just worthless online claims out of the many billions that float around. But even then, you don't need to take personal offence. For example, PLA tanks aren't a priority and have received very little attention and investment compared to efforts made by CPC in modernising airforce, navy, and space assets, which are actually effective means of conducting warfare in the 21st century. Tanks are now just little toys... so easy to wreck and increasingly useless for modern warfare. Optimising funding is more important than fielding super complex halo tanks (think Nazi Mouse) that are not effective combat weapons just like how AK-47 variants are superior combat weapons to FN2000s even though the former is cheaper, less accurate, less effective range, less sophisticated, less impressive, more inconsistent, and overall less capable. I really doubt Chinese tanks are competitive with modern MBTs but 99A is an exception and seems to have the goodies the others have, whether it is well executed is anyone's guess. The 96s and older gen tanks are just numbers for show. Of course Soviet era tanks and their modernisations are also pretty substandard (probably even worse than second rate Chinese tanks) except for T-90MS and T-14 series of armoured vehicles. e.g. Tank biathlon led to the spreading of Type 96 wheel detachment but ignores the fact that in this admittedly short showing, that was the only failure and it was due to forceful collision with other tank and bad approach to the track that bounced the 40+tonne tank repeatedly until axle sheared off. T-72 meanwhile in same 3 years of biathlons have flipped, gun bounced, turret separated from hull in a landing, track fallen off, and broken down multiple times (but not widespread although the images are circulated on some tank forums and do make fun of "russian quality" in a similarly sinister manner. Anyway I would rather a single gunship or drone for multiple MBTs. If all else are equal, the former destroys the latter group with ease and the tanks can't even touch them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## serenity

I should add this though because I was unfairly one dimensional in judgment re tanks. MBTs are obviously still useful in certain situations and are still worth developing if only to develop the talents and the industry. Modern warfare is no longer the same as WW1 or 2 where tanks were highly effective. Even cold war era conflicts saw a gradual reduction in this effectiveness which only eroded further as history showed in Chechnya, Merkavas being destroyed by various groups, Leclercs ditto, Leopards ditto, Abrams ditto. Sure we can say it was because of bad strategy, bad users, bad export quality variants (somewhat bullshit). Yes latest and greatest like T-14, K2, M1A3, Merkava 4 upgraded with APS do address many threats while still maintaining that old fashioned tank advantage, anti-tank weapons will continue to evolve and developing those are cheaper than developing and modifying tanks that specifically counter those and then there's the fielding and training costs. Tanks are still vitally important but peer vs peer fights will see huge losses of tank fleets. Not every future conflict will be like US military level strength with supports vs some original T-72s and Polish T-72Ms with second rate ammo with no supports.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.
> 
> 
> He keep saying Oplot's armour is mile ahead of Vt4's. I don't know why....



Ukrainians know how to build tank armour near impenetrable. Add Duplet layers to the turret front and even M829A3 will struggle against it. Thats what Oplot has.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Ukrainians know how to build tank armour near impenetrable. Add Duplet layers to the turret front and even M829A3 will struggle against it. Thats what Oplot has.


That's little bit exaggeration.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

t84 ranks last in the tank competition held in German.

Its auto loader get jammed and FCS shorted out

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

wanglaokan said:


> No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.
> ....



It was the gun that couldn't perform as required.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

serenity said:


> I should add this though because I was unfairly one dimensional in judgment re tanks. MBTs are obviously still useful in certain situations and are still worth developing if only to develop the talents and the industry. Modern warfare is no longer the same as WW1 or 2 where tanks were highly effective. Even cold war era conflicts saw a gradual reduction in this effectiveness which only eroded further as history showed in Chechnya, Merkavas being destroyed by various groups, Leclercs ditto, Leopards ditto, Abrams ditto. Sure we can say it was because of bad strategy, bad users, bad export quality variants (somewhat bullshit). Yes latest and greatest like T-14, K2, M1A3, Merkava 4 upgraded with APS do address many threats while still maintaining that old fashioned tank advantage, anti-tank weapons will continue to evolve and developing those are cheaper than developing and modifying tanks that specifically counter those and then there's the fielding and training costs. Tanks are still vitally important but peer vs peer fights will see huge losses of tank fleets. Not every future conflict will be like US military level strength with supports vs some original T-72s and Polish T-72Ms with second rate ammo with no supports.


The issue here isnt just electronics and armor but the environment meant for the tanks to operate in. The mean temperature that the desert gets to during summertime operations is around 55 degree centigrade. The severe dust gets into the air cooling inlets and only worsens the stress on engines, electronics and components. Fluids meant for systems heat up and rubber starts to melt; these are real conditions faced in the Thar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

Oscar said:


> The issue here isnt just electronics and armor but the environment meant for the tanks to operate in. The mean temperature that the desert gets to during summertime operations is around 55 degree centigrade. The severe dust gets into the air cooling inlets and only worsens the stress on engines, electronics and components. Fluids meant for systems heat up and rubber starts to melt; these are real conditions faced in the Thar.





Signalian said:


> It was the gun that couldn't perform as required.



Desert conditions are difficult on tanks. M1's issue in gulf wars was more the dust disrupting the turbine's performance. Not so much the gun. They can wrap seals around the muzzle.



Dazzler said:


> Ukrainians know how to build tank armour near impenetrable. Add Duplet layers to the turret front and even M829A3 will struggle against it. Thats what Oplot has.



This is indeed impressive for Oplot if true but I've a very hard time believing a sub 50 tonne Soviet cast armour based tank can withstand even 90s ammunition. Okay add modifications, modernisation of armour, and some of the best ERA in the world, it should be quite a well protected tank. But that sabot round is designed to penetrate 60+ tonne 21st century armour. Maybe the new ERAs are highly effective though. Maybe Norinco can purchase Duplet for export options if any buyers are unhappy with existing Chinese ERA. Maybe even get them on PLA 96s and 99s (I always assumed they just purchased or copied the latest available Russian ERA so they are at least competitive with those from Ukraine). BTW Dazzler could you supply any sources of information or if you can disclose any specifics?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> That's little bit exaggeration.



On the contrary, thats the truth. Its armor, especially the turret front is commendable.



serenity said:


> Desert conditions are difficult on tanks. M1's issue in gulf wars was more the dust disrupting the turbine's performance. Not so much the gun. They can wrap seals around the muzzle.
> 
> 
> 
> This is indeed impressive for Oplot if true but I've a very hard time believing a sub 50 tonne Soviet cast armour based tank can withstand even 90s ammunition. Okay add modifications, modernisation of armour, and some of the best ERA in the world, it should be quite a well protected tank. But that sabot round is designed to penetrate 60+ tonne 21st century armour. Maybe the new ERAs are highly effective though. Maybe Norinco can purchase Duplet for export option. BTW Dazzler could you supply any sources of information or if you can disclose any specifics?



Cast armor? Ukrainians abandoned cast armor back in the 90s. The t-80ud and 84 series contain all welded esr refined HHS steel construction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> On the contrary, thats the truth. Its armor, especially the turret front is commendable.



Do you have information on how testing of armour was done? Or did engineers rely on blueprints, material composition, and salesman claims to evaluate armour? Would be nice and fun to have destructive testing 

I meant it was based on T-80 which was designed as a cast armour turret originally. They have been modernised since then but the real extent of which eludes all. Like Type99 has all these modern tank features but how well executed we don't know either. But at least it is a ground up design and not based off Type 59 or 80 series.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

serenity said:


> Do you have information on how testing of armour was done? Or did engineers rely on blueprints, material composition, and salesman claims to evaluate armour? Would be nice and fun to have destructive testing



Who discusses such things on an internet forum?



serenity said:


> Do you have information on how testing of armour was done? Or did engineers rely on blueprints, material composition, and salesman claims to evaluate armour? Would be nice and fun to have destructive testing
> 
> I meant it was based on T-80 which was designed as a cast armour turret originally. They have been modernised since then but the real extent of which eludes all. Like Type99 has all these modern tank features but how well executed we don't know either. But at least it is a ground up design and not based off Type 59 or 80 series.



Do you know which variant? T80 had several variants from object 478 to 219.


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> Who discusses such things on an internet forum?



Well you are making some claims that makes us think you are in the know (giving you the benefit of the doubt). I can understand why you won't want to disclose further information but surely you can understand how that would be interesting to know so you can't blame me. Beyond that, anyone can claim anything. I can claim I am the chief designer of Type 110 next gen Chinese tank and its armour cannot be penetrated by anything in existence. What makes the Ukrainian 40 something tonne tank impervious to latest US sabot round. If that science is achieved by Ukraine surely other bigger military nations have it too. Then does that mean M1A3 is impenetrable being 60+ tonnes.

Oplot has won 0.5 exports (Thailand is sort of a win but they also decided on Oplot BEFORE VT-4 was introduced and marketed to them so the original Oplot decision was made without the consideration of VT-4, MBT2000 probably significantly worse than VT-4 enough for them to order VT-4 twice and completely ignore MBT2000 which means latter was not to their liking) in a market that has had many buyers looking for 40 something tonne tanks. If the performance was good, it would have many export orders.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

serenity said:


> Well you are making some claims that makes us think you are in the know (giving you the benefit of the doubt). I can understand why you won't want to disclose further information but surely you can understand how that would be interesting to know so you can't blame me. Beyond that, anyone can claim anything. I can claim I am the chief designer of Type 110 next gen Chinese tank and its armour cannot be penetrated by anything in existence. What makes the Ukrainian 40 something tonne tank impervious to latest US sabot round. If that science is achieved by Ukraine surely other bigger military nations have it too. Then does that mean M1A3 is impenetrable being 60+ tonnes.



No one will discuss each detail. Yes, some salient points will make their way to the public but that's it.


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> No one will discuss each detail. Yes, some salient points will make their way to the public but that's it.



Okay fair enough. Please don't take my comments about Oplot to be insulting to either Ukraine or Oplot or T-80. I just have a difficult time believing its armour can withstand M3 sabot while the whole tank is under 50 tonnes. That is some seriously world leading armour engineering. Others will need to catch up or copy it quickly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

serenity said:


> Okay fair enough. Please don't take my comments about Oplot to be insulting to either Ukraine or Oplot or T-80. I just have a difficult time believing its armour can withstand M3 sabot while the whole tank is under 50 tonnes. That is some seriously world leading armour engineering. Others will need to catch up or copy it quickly.



JapNese type 10 sits at 45 tons and has a better armor. You guys should get hold of them asap.


----------



## Hu Yao

Dazzler said:


> JapNese type 10 sits at 45 tons and has a better armor. You guys should get hold of them asap.


Put how good type 10 is aside, that tank is far too expensive for us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

serenity said:


> Well you are making some claims that makes us think you are in the know (giving you the benefit of the doubt). I can understand why you won't want to disclose further information but surely you can understand how that would be interesting to know so you can't blame me. Beyond that, anyone can claim anything. I can claim I am the chief designer of Type 110 next gen Chinese tank and its armour cannot be penetrated by anything in existence. What makes the Ukrainian 40 something tonne tank impervious to latest US sabot round. If that science is achieved by Ukraine surely other bigger military nations have it too. Then does that mean M1A3 is impenetrable being 60+ tonnes.
> 
> Oplot has won 0.5 exports (Thailand is sort of a win but they also decided on Oplot BEFORE VT-4 was introduced and marketed to them so the original Oplot decision was made without the consideration of VT-4, MBT2000 probably significantly worse than VT-4 enough for them to order VT-4 twice and completely ignore MBT2000 which means latter was not to their liking) in a market that has had many buyers looking for 40 something tonne tanks. If the performance was good, it would have many export orders.



T64 was never exported. That doesn't make it less effective. On the contrary, when the R variant was revealed, the west had no answer to it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> JapNese type 10 sits at 45 tons and has a better armor. You guys should get hold of them asap.



What are you talking about now? How can China buy Japanese Type 10? It has good armour it is still a lightly armoured tank. The overall protection is still less than a heavy weight with 20 tonnes more armour or even a medium weight with 10 tonnes more armour. Also Type 10 is stupid for China. PLA wants to have numbers in order to have tanks everywhere on the giant landmass. It cannot afford to go down the track of buying a handful of super expensive "hangar queens". It needs numbers and to get numbers you have to compromise on quality and ability. Type 96 is ideal.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

serenity said:


> What are you talking about now? How can China buy Japanese Type 10? It has good armour it is still a lightly armoured tank. The overall protection is still less than a heavy weight with 20 tonnes more armour or even a medium weight with 10 tonnes more armour.



Armor efficiency has little to do with weight, rather the right combination of materials used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

But what do you mean by you guys should get a hold of it? Sounds like a snide remark. No need for that stuff. Just because I don't believe your claims, doesn't mean you need to be passive aggressive. Please provide some evidence Ukrainian armour is so good. Saying type 10 at similar weight has good armour does not constitute evidence. Type 10 uses ultra high tensile steels and composites, like many tanks (except the ultra high tensile steel part which is why each is over $8M USD for Japan itself). Seriously pointless when one drone can take out multiple Type 10s when they still don't have semi-spherical APS. As far as I understand Type 10 is good armour for its weight but still saying that Oplot can be good is true but so can any 40 tonne tank. But this is considering armour relative to weight. 40 tonnes may be high quality armour but it's still 40 tonnes and M3 round will make easy work of it (high quality 40 tonnes or low quality). Armour science is not particularly difficult. India also does well in it with Arjun variants. The armour on that is as good as heavy weight westerns. Norinco may be short changing customers with dodgy armour though. But the overall take is that if M3 can be beaten by 40 tonnes of armour, 60 tonnes is useless. Why then do so many nations choose to go with heavy tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hu Yao

serenity said:


> What are you talking about now? How can China buy Japanese Type 10? It has good armour it is still a lightly armoured tank. The overall protection is still less than a heavy weight with 20 tonnes more armour or even a medium weight with 10 tonnes more armour.


I am not sure about your opoinion. Type 10 has decent armour for sure. We just didn't know how good it is.

If you make your tank smaller, then you don't need that much steal, your tank will be much lighter. Remember AMX-30 brennus a 36 ton tank with decent firepower and protection, and that is made in 1970s. 

Using 21 centry tech you can get a very good tank within 50 tons. Just how much money you wanna cost.

For Japan, their type 90 tanks can go nowhere except Hokkaido. In most East Asian Countries, the terrian is quite soft. Heavy tanks always sucked into the mud.

So their type 10 tanks just gave up some new features like 120M/L55 cannon, heavy armour and something else. Just focusing on weight. Have to say type 10 is good. But too expensive for every other countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

serenity said:


> But what do you mean by you guys should get a hold of it? Sounds like a snide remark. No need for that stuff. Just because I don't believe your claims, doesn't mean you need to be passive aggressive. Please provide some evidence Ukrainian armour is so good. Saying type 10 at similar weight has good armour does not constitute evidence. Type 10 uses ultra high tensile steels and composites, like many tanks (except the ultra high tensile steel part which is why each is over $8M USD for Japan itself). Seriously pointless when one drone can take out multiple Type 10s when they still don't have semi-spherical APS. As far as I understand Type 10 is good armour for its weight but still saying that Oplot can be good is true but so can any 40 tonne tank. But this is considering armour relative to weight. 40 tonnes may be high quality armour but it's still 40 tonnes and M3 round will make easy work of it (high quality 40 tonnes or low quality). Armour science is not particularly difficult. India also does well in it with Arjun variants. The armour on that is as good as heavy weight westerns. Norinco may be short changing customers with dodgy armour though. But the overall take is that if M3 can be beaten by 40 tonnes of armour, 60 tonnes is useless. Why then do so many nations choose to go with heavy tanks.



I usually avoid responding to useless rhetoric. Its a workable idea provided both sides are willing. Choosing heavy tank has more to do with the doctrine and the way user wants to employ the system in a given scenario.


----------



## Hu Yao

serenity said:


> But what do you mean by you guys should get a hold of it? Sounds like a snide remark. No need for that stuff. Just because I don't believe your claims, doesn't mean you need to be passive aggressive. Please provide some evidence Ukrainian armour is so good. Saying type 10 at similar weight has good armour does not constitute evidence. Type 10 uses ultra high tensile steels and composites, like many tanks (except the ultra high tensile steel part which is why each is over $8M USD for Japan itself). Seriously pointless when one drone can take out multiple Type 10s when they still don't have semi-spherical APS. As far as I understand Type 10 is good armour for its weight but still saying that Oplot can be good is true but so can any 40 tonne tank. But this is considering armour relative to weight. 40 tonnes may be high quality armour but it's still 40 tonnes and M3 round will make easy work of it (high quality 40 tonnes or low quality). Armour science is not particularly difficult. India also does well in it with Arjun variants. The armour on that is as good as heavy weight westerns. Norinco may be short changing customers with dodgy armour though. But the overall take is that if M3 can be beaten by 40 tonnes of armour, 60 tonnes is useless. Why then do so many nations choose to go with heavy tanks.


U don't know what type 10 tanks armour is made of. So don't look down upon your enemy.

Modern ERA is effective against APFSDS. A tank below 50 ton can resist M3 round is for sure. 

Plus: I thought we are not big mouth Indians, so don't need to bluff

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tanlixiang28776

All this VT-4 trash talking. It will be quite hilarious if the Pakistan Army chooses it anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

serenity said:


> Desert conditions are difficult on tanks. M1's issue in gulf wars was more the dust disrupting the turbine's performance. Not so much the gun. They can wrap seals around the muzzle.


the trials conducted in pakistan showed gun problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

Hu Yao said:


> U don't know what type 10 tanks armour is made of. So don't look down upon your enemy.
> 
> Modern ERA is effective against APFSDS. A tank below 50 ton can resist M3 round is for sure.
> 
> Plus: I thought we are not big mouth Indians, so don't need to bluff



There's some obvious confusion here. I'm not saying Type 10 is bad, quite the contrary. I'm saying that using the example of Type 10 to make the case for Oplot is bad. It is fallacious reasoning. Dazzler responded to my skepticism that a 40 something tonne tank can defeat M3 round from which is the latest sabot developed by the Americans particularly to defeat the latest Russian armour (with focus on defeating the latest ERA and penetrating through thickest section of turret). He says that Type 10 is well protected (it is) and Type 10 is 40 something tonnes, therefore Oplot being similar weight can be as well protected (it can indeed) but we know that Type 10 is over $8M USD for JSDF and Oplot is a fraction of that. If Oplot utilises ultra high tensile steels as part of the composite armour makeup along with expensive ceramics armour plates, it can indeed be similarly well protected as Type 10. All of this are big assumptions and then the bigger assumption on top of all this is that Type 10 and Oplot by association, can withstand M3 sabot rounds. No information on this but I'm skeptical Type 10 can 100% withstand M3 APFSDS. Maybe Oplot can with Duplet but let's not forget that M3 is designed with the aim to defeat ERA like Duplet, Relikt, and maybe even Malachit. So yes 40 tonne tanks can be well protected (semantics) but if 60+ tanks can be destroyed by primitively armed and trained, 40 tonne tanks are easy work no matter what they are and what they pretend to be.



Signalian said:


> the trials conducted in pakistan showed gun problems.



I thought you were referring to M1 all this time. Can you provide sources to VT-4 trials in Pakistan? Why did Pakistan ever buy a single Al Khalid (whatever the Chinese base product is) if engine and gun are both crap. They can't be more crap now than the original Type 90s or whatever they were called. I hope Pakistan doesn't buy VT-4, it'll hint to me that the purchases they do make like Type 054A frigates, missiles, and others are decent and Pakistan does properly evaluate purchases and only make purchases of decent equipment. Personally I think Chinese tanks are far less competitive than their peers because tanks haven't been an area of priority for modernisation in a long time. It stands to reason that many things are outdated or underperform on Chinese tanks owing to this fact and the PLA's continued use of the old Soviet style cannon fodder doctrine of superior numbers (at least all this does apply to Type 96 and lesser tanks in PLA, Type 99 is unknown but seems to favour western doctrine). It will be interesting to see which tank Pakistan goes for. Was Altay considered? or rejected because of budget considerations? In this weight and cost class, Pakistan pretty much only has the choice of VT-4, T-80 variants, and T-72 variants (including T-90S but not MS due to costs). Oplot does seem to stand out along with VT-4 at least on paper. T-72 variants are if anything less capable and no more reliable. T-90 is better than T-72 but also costs more. No point purchasing T-72 when Pakistan has AK anyway. Oplot is also pretty unreliable even when not tested to extremes as shown in major failures in Strong Europe competitions in the last few years, especially this year's iirc. T-90 could be a decent option but cost and India has them as well and in greater numbers. They will know the T-90 more intimately and understand its weaknesses more than PA when PA gets through training with them. So realistically VT-4 or Oplot in this market. To us without confidential trial information that so many members say they have access to, out of these two Oplot has publicly showed problems with reliability more than VT-4. That's not to say VT-4 is better! But it is what it is to otherwise ignorant observers. PA will know better and make the right decision.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

serenity said:


> There's some obvious confusion here. I'm not saying Type 10 is bad, quite the contrary. I'm saying that using the example of Type 10 to make the case for Oplot is bad. It is fallacious reasoning. Dazzler responded to my skepticism that a 40 something tonne tank can defeat M3 round from which is the latest sabot developed by the Americans particularly to defeat the latest Russian armour (with focus on defeating the latest ERA and penetrating through thickest section of turret). He says that Type 10 is well protected (it is) and Type 10 is 40 something tonnes, therefore Oplot being similar weight can be as well protected (it can indeed) but we know that Type 10 is over $8M USD for JSDF and Oplot is a fraction of that. If Oplot utilises ultra high tensile steels as part of the composite armour makeup along with expensive ceramics armour plates, it can indeed be similarly well protected as Type 10. All of this are big assumptions and then the bigger assumption on top of all this is that Type 10 and Oplot by association, can withstand M3 sabot rounds. No information on this but I'm skeptical Type 10 can 100% withstand M3 APFSDS. Maybe Oplot can with Duplet but let's not forget that M3 is designed with the aim to defeat ERA like Duplet, Relikt, and maybe even Malachit. So yes 40 tonne tanks can be well protected (semantics) but if 60+ tanks can be destroyed by primitively armed and trained, 40 tonne tanks are easy work no matter what they are and what they pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were referring to M1 all this time. Can you provide sources to VT-4 trials in Pakistan? Why did Pakistan ever buy a single Al Khalid (whatever the Chinese base product is) if engine and gun are both crap. They can't be more crap now than the original Type 90s or whatever they were called. I hope Pakistan doesn't buy VT-4, it'll hint to me that the purchases they do make like Type 054A frigates, missiles, and others are decent and Pakistan does properly evaluate purchases and only make purchases of decent equipment. Personally I think Chinese tanks are far less competitive than their peers because tanks haven't been an area of priority for modernisation in a long time. It stands to reason that many things are outdated or underperform on Chinese tanks owing to this fact and the PLA's continued use of the old Soviet style cannon fodder doctrine of superior numbers (at least all this does apply to Type 96 and lesser tanks in PLA, Type 99 is unknown but seems to favour western doctrine). It will be interesting to see which tank Pakistan goes for. Was Altay considered? or rejected because of budget considerations? In this weight and cost class, Pakistan pretty much only has the choice of VT-4, T-80 variants, and T-72 variants (including T-90S but not MS due to costs). Oplot does seem to stand out along with VT-4 at least on paper. T-72 variants are if anything less capable and no more reliable. T-90 is better than T-72 but also costs more. No point purchasing T-72 when Pakistan has AK anyway. Oplot is also pretty unreliable even when not tested to extremes as shown in major failures in Strong Europe competitions in the last few years, especially this year's iirc. T-90 could be a decent option but cost and India has them as well and in greater numbers. They will know the T-90 more intimately and understand its weaknesses more than PA when PA gets through training with them. So realistically VT-4 or Oplot in this market. To us without confidential trial information that so many members say they have access to, out of these two Oplot has publicly showed problems with reliability more than VT-4. That's not to say VT-4 is better! But it is what it is to otherwise ignorant observers. PA will know better and make the right decision.


Type 99A2 is very very very expensive.

Maybe Ukraine promised to give some sort of Tot to Pakistan, who knows.....
Pakistan need a new engine so they can export tanks to friendly nations. They see Vt4 as potential competitor than something they really want. The current test of Vt4 in Pakistan, in my eyes, is just a walk through to pay respect.

教会徒弟，饿死师傅。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rocky rock

AK2

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Lone Ranger

Rocky rock said:


> AK2
> View attachment 490807


****AK-I *
*
*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

@serenity 

Pakistan Army doesn't disclose much about these trials at official capacity. You have little choice but to take the word of certain members at face value. Their are nuggets of truth in them because no MBT is perfect.

In the case of M1 Abrams, an export variant was trialed in a sector of Bahawalpur in 1988 and it reportedly performed poorly. It might not be M1A1* but original M1 because it was equipped with the older 105 mm M68A1 rifled gun. You won't find much information about this trial on the web however. It is possible that this unit/variant was not optimized for combat operations in harsh desert conditions at the time.

When US Army and Marines were dispatched to Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Storm in 1991, US troops installed an _air filter_ on the engine of each M1A1 Abrams to address the issue of 'sand ingestion' in harsh desert conditions and this solution worked. More advanced PJAC air filter emerged in the same year [1] which enabled any M1 Abrams variant to traverse huge swaths of a desert without the need to stop for maintenance checks on a frequent basis. US continued to improve M1A1 Abrams with new components and capabilities over time and the latest variant in service is M1A2 SEPv3 [designed to meet challenges of the near future]. Battlefield experiences are valuable teachers in short.

IMO, an MBT should be repeatedly trialed to achieve a higher understanding of its qualities. Repeat trials also make it possible for the provider to address potential shortcomings in its product with appropriate value additions as per the suggestions of the customer. Procurement of an MBT should not be rushed because this is an expensive endeavor. Nevertheless, an argument is that Pakistan Army does not have the logistics capability to support a heavy MBT (> 60 tons in weight). Therefore, Western options might not be on the cards for now.

I do not have much to say about Chinese VT-4. Pakistan Army should thoroughly test both Chinese Type-99A and Russian T-90S in order to make a more informed decision, if possible. Procure few but something good.

---

*_M1A1 (and above) feature 120 mm M256 Smoothbore gun which is globally renowned for its stabilization mechanism, accuracy and ability to shoot a variety of rounds. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, scores of M1A1 Abrams struck Iraqi tanks from over 2000 KM without any issue while on the move. Existing variants can do much better._

[1] Produced by Donaldson. FYI: http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/071714.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

tanlixiang28776 said:


> All this VT-4 trash talking. It will be quite hilarious if the Pakistan Army chooses it anyway.



No body trash talked VT 4, but rather some performance shortfalls were mentioned. Remember, the first step to accept a product is to have its flaws identified, and then removed to suit customer needs. That's a universal practice and is standard around the globe.

Some of you get so offended when a flaw is mentioned in some Chinese product which sounds rather childish.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> No body trash talked VT 4, but rather some performance shortfalls were mentioned. Remember, the first step to accept a product is to have its flaws identified, and then removed to suit customer needs. That's a universal practice and is standard around the globe.
> 
> Some of you get so offended when a flaw is mentioned in some Chinese product which sounds rather childish.


you guys are quite picky


----------



## Hu Yao

serenity said:


> There's some obvious confusion here. I'm not saying Type 10 is bad, quite the contrary. I'm saying that using the example of Type 10 to make the case for Oplot is bad. It is fallacious reasoning. Dazzler responded to my skepticism that a 40 something tonne tank can defeat M3 round from which is the latest sabot developed by the Americans particularly to defeat the latest Russian armour (with focus on defeating the latest ERA and penetrating through thickest section of turret). He says that Type 10 is well protected (it is) and Type 10 is 40 something tonnes, therefore Oplot being similar weight can be as well protected (it can indeed) but we know that Type 10 is over $8M USD for JSDF and Oplot is a fraction of that. If Oplot utilises ultra high tensile steels as part of the composite armour makeup along with expensive ceramics armour plates, it can indeed be similarly well protected as Type 10. All of this are big assumptions and then the bigger assumption on top of all this is that Type 10 and Oplot by association, can withstand M3 sabot rounds. No information on this but I'm skeptical Type 10 can 100% withstand M3 APFSDS. Maybe Oplot can with Duplet but let's not forget that M3 is designed with the aim to defeat ERA like Duplet, Relikt, and maybe even Malachit. So yes 40 tonne tanks can be well protected (semantics) but if 60+ tanks can be destroyed by primitively armed and trained, 40 tonne tanks are easy work no matter what they are and what they pretend to be.
> 
> M3 is designed to defeat Kontakt-5 not relikt and other modern ERAs. We are in year 2018 not 1998 sir!
> 
> M1 abrams is not M1A1 it's M1A2SepV3, T-80 is not T-80 1976 they are T-84 or t-80BVM. Don't look down upon them.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were referring to M1 all this time. Can you provide sources to VT-4 trials in Pakistan? Why did Pakistan ever buy a single Al Khalid (whatever the Chinese base product is) if engine and gun are both crap. They can't be more crap now than the original Type 90s or whatever they were called. I hope Pakistan doesn't buy VT-4, it'll hint to me that the purchases they do make like Type 054A frigates, missiles, and others are decent and Pakistan does properly evaluate purchases and only make purchases of decent equipment. Personally I think Chinese tanks are far less competitive than their peers because tanks haven't been an area of priority for modernisation in a long time. It stands to reason that many things are outdated or underperform on Chinese tanks owing to this fact and the PLA's continued use of the old Soviet style cannon fodder doctrine of superior numbers (at least all this does apply to Type 96 and lesser tanks in PLA, Type 99 is unknown but seems to favour western doctrine). It will be interesting to see which tank Pakistan goes for. Was Altay considered? or rejected because of budget considerations? In this weight and cost class, Pakistan pretty much only has the choice of VT-4, T-80 variants, and T-72 variants (including T-90S but not MS due to costs). Oplot does seem to stand out along with VT-4 at least on paper. T-72 variants are if anything less capable and no more reliable. T-90 is better than T-72 but also costs more. No point purchasing T-72 when Pakistan has AK anyway. Oplot is also pretty unreliable even when not tested to extremes as shown in major failures in Strong Europe competitions in the last few years, especially this year's iirc. T-90 could be a decent option but cost and India has them as well and in greater numbers. They will know the T-90 more intimately and understand its weaknesses more than PA when PA gets through training with them. So realistically VT-4 or Oplot in this market. To us without confidential trial information that so many members say they have access to, out of these two Oplot has publicly showed problems with reliability more than VT-4. That's not to say VT-4 is better! But it is what it is to otherwise ignorant observers. PA will know better and make the right decision.


----------



## 帅的一匹

but recent there is a statement issued.by NORINCO calls for fair treatment to VT4 in competition, why is that?



Dazzler said:


> No body trash talked VT 4, but rather some performance shortfalls were mentioned. Remember, the first step to accept a product is to have its flaws identified, and then removed to suit customer needs. That's a universal practice and is standard around the globe.
> 
> Some of you get so offended when a flaw is mentioned in some Chinese product which sounds rather childish.


its not.about get offended, its about you.dont have proof to back your claim.

Not everything you tell, is bound to be true.

going for T84 oplot is a predetermined result before the trial started, cut and dried. VT4 is just a passer by. its like waste out time and resource.


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> No body trash talked VT 4, but rather some performance shortfalls were mentioned. Remember, the first step to accept a product is to have its flaws identified, and then removed to suit customer needs. That's a universal practice and is standard around the globe.
> 
> Some of you get so offended when a flaw is mentioned in some Chinese product which sounds rather childish.


Like somebody faking a recovery snorkelling test video which claim as defect? I am absolutely comfortable accepting a true report of VT-4 trial problem with solid proof.

But spreading lies and hearsay are another thing. It is a fact they are too many VT-4 haters bend to badmouth this tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Beast said:


> Like somebody faking a recovery snorkelling test video which claim as defect? I am absolutely comfortable accepting a true report of VT-4 trial problem with solid proof.
> 
> But spreading lies and hearsay are another thing. It is a fact they are too many VT-4 haters bend to badmouth this tank.


Agree!
Someone even confused VT-4 with other tanks.


Dazzler said:


> Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..
> 
> View attachment 490378
> View attachment 490379
> View attachment 490380





Dazzler said:


> It is pretty clear that it is MBT 3000 aka VT4

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> but recent there is a statement issued.by NORINCO calls for fair treatment to VT4 in competition, why is that?
> 
> 
> its not.about get offended, its about you.dont have proof to back your claim.
> 
> you are not God or Allah that whatever you tell is.bound to be true.
> 
> going for T84 oplot is a predetermined result before the trial started, cut and dried. VT4 is just a passer by. its like waste out time and resource.



Post reported for dragging religion totally out of context for no reason at all. As i said, such trials are based on pragmatic testing, not some baseless nationalistic behavior but i guess it is too much for you guys to handle.

This is not the first time a chinese mbt struggled here in Pakistan. 

Listen, see and learn. The type-85III was tested alongside the t-80ud for stopgap third generation mbt as the development of Alkhalid was delayed due to engine and other issues. The tests took place in 94-95 and eventually the type-85III lost to t-80ud, again, the engine and transmission were main culprits. 

The 6td diesel engine was hands down a better option, though it also had problems initially but it ran almost twice as much distance as the Chinese mbt without failing. Though the army had high hopes for type-85III as they were already using the IIAP and were satisfied. 

An interesting old video showing the results of the original trials.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Post reported for dragging religion totally out of context for no reason at all. As i said, such trials are based on pragmatic testing, not some baseless nationalistic behavior but i guess it is too much for you guys to handle.
> 
> This is not the first time a chinese mbt struggled here in Pakistan.
> 
> Listen, see and learn. The type-85III was tested alongside the t-80ud for stopgap third generation mbt as the development of Alkhalid was delayed due to engine and other issues. The tests took place in 94-95 and eventually the type-85III lost to t-80ud, again, the engine and transmission were main culprits.
> 
> The 6td diesel engine was hands down a better option, though it also had problems initially but it ran almost twice as much distance as the Chinese mbt without failing. Though the army had high hopes for type-85III as they were already using the IIAP and were satisfied.
> 
> An interesting old video showing the results of the original trials.


nothing religious here, dont misinterpret here. as i browse at CJDBY, the production cost of AK1 is only 1.8 million USD. I dont think Pakistan will pay 5.8 million per to get VT 4 unless we promise TOT it. oplot is the only option left.

VT 4 is not bad at all, but it may be not cost effective for Pakistan at the moment. thats why i said the bidding result is predetermined.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> nothing religious here, dont misinterpret here. as i browse at CJDBY, the production cost of AK1 is only 1.8 million USD. I dont think Pakistan will pay 5.8 million per to get VT 4 unless we promise TOT it. oplot is the only option left.



Production cost of Alkhalid as per director of Tank manufacturing factory is $3 million.Who knows what fanboys a CJDBY are smoking these days. Even an average t-72B3 without having proper FCS costs $2 million these days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> Production cost of Alkhalid as per director of Tank manufacturing factory is $3 million.Who knows what fanboys a CJDBY are smoking these days. Even an average t-72B3 without having proper FCS costs $2 million these days.


i think he is talking about the MBT 2000.

as Ak 1 has more foreign parts, cost is higher.


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> No body trash talked VT 4, but rather some performance shortfalls were mentioned. Remember, the first step to accept a product is to have its flaws identified, and then removed to suit customer needs. That's a universal practice and is standard around the globe.
> 
> Some of you get so offended when a flaw is mentioned in some Chinese product which sounds rather childish.



Agree with the first part.

Every Russian on Russian forums gets offended if someone mentions truthful facts about problems, same goes for Pakistanis, same goes for Indians, same goes for Chinese. I however do not find any Chinese member obviously offended and resorting to the usual displays of aggression like other nationalities. We have just rightfully questioned the statements but I suppose readers can either believe it or not, and I've offered my personal belief (probably incorrect) as to why Oplot is unlikely miles ahead in protection because it is so light. The discussion went into direction of Type 10 (owing to its similar weight) but no absolute comparison can be made between 40 tonne tanks and 60 tonne tanks so while Type 10's protection can be great for its weight class, it does not mean it is great overall. Like how a 2.0L inline 4 can produce great horsepower and torque for its weight it does not measure up to a V12 that produces less power and torque curves for its weight but greater overall. I get you are saying that it is not impossible to build a well protected 40 tonne tank because Type 10 is a great example, but I think it is impossible to build one for the price of an Oplot. That's my possibly incorrect judgement but there it is and I was only interested in hearing what you are allowed to possibly reveal... definitely was not offended. Maybe one or two other passing members were. I don't get why they should feel offended either but saying bad things about a Chinese product is like threatening everything else by association even when it is not. Stupid people around the world aren't able to differentiate though. So there lies the friction... at least I suspect.

Tank prices are actually much higher than the ones posted online and it depends a lot on parts, training, support, and maintenance deals. It really varies. The latest leopard 2 purchases netted something like close to $20M USD per tank. Although this is export price and comes with some parts support. AK at $3M is really expensive for what it offers though. I'm surprised armies continue on insisting on tanks even though many terrains just aren't suitable for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

wanglaokan said:


> but recent there is a statement issued.by NORINCO calls for fair treatment to VT4 in competition, why is that?


plz post the statement of NORINCO with link .....

Any detail was mention about the competition ...??


----------



## Hu Yao

HRK said:


> plz post the statement of NORINCO with link .....
> 
> Any detail was mention about the competition ...??


If you wanna official statement from NORINCO, no such thing. If you wanna some fan made statement, there are a lot.

Plus, I still don't think you guys should buy VT-4 or T-84. Just put Relikt or some modern ERA and upgrade FCS, your AK tank is good enough. I don't think T-84 or VT-4 have something that AK can't have.

Make in Pakistan, save your dollars for domestic constration. In 1990s PLA is extremely poor too.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

wanglaokan said:


> but recent there is a statement issued.by NORINCO calls for fair treatment to VT4 in competition, why is that?





HRK said:


> plz post the statement of NORINCO with link .....
> 
> Any detail was mention about the competition ...??





Hu Yao said:


> If you wanna official statement from NORINCO, no such thing. If you wanna some fan made statement, there are a lot.
> 
> Plus, I still don't think you guys should buy VT-4 or T-84. Just put Relikt or some modern ERA and upgrade FCS, your AK tank is good enough. I don't think T-84 or VT-4 have something that AK can't have.
> 
> Make in Pakistan, save your dollars for domestic constration. In 1990s PLA is extremely poor too.


NORINCO calls for fair treatment to VT-4 in competition indeed.

From NORINCO's official website on May 23, 2018:
http://www.norincogroup.com.cn/art/2018/5/23/art_84_108508.html

*推动打造“一带一路”标杆项目，温刚出访巴基斯坦取得重要成果*
发布时间：2018-05-23





5月18日-20日，集团公司总经理温刚率团出访巴基斯坦，会见了巴基斯坦陆军总参谋长比拉尔中将及旁遮普省首席部长沙巴兹，调研了橙线项目并慰问驻巴中方员工。

　　在会见比拉尔时，比拉尔中将表示，巴陆军十分重视与北方工业集团的合作，*在重大军事装备采购中，巴陆军将会进行客观、公正和全面的对比考核评估，希望北方工业集团给予一如既往的支持*。温刚表示，中巴友谊源远流长，北方工业集团与巴基斯坦在国防领域的紧密合作是对中巴友谊的深刻践行和诠释。北方工业集团愿意与巴基斯坦朋友分享科技进步的成果，为提升巴基斯坦国防装备水平继续贡献力量。

　　在会见沙巴兹时，沙巴兹表示，北方工业集团在轨道交通领域经验丰富，橙线项目执行团队铁总-北方联营体在巴首条地铁项目建设中表现出了极高的专业素质，体现了中国标准、中国速度，希望今后继续与北方工业集团在橙线项目运营和以轨道交通为基础的多领域工程项目方面展开更加全面和多元化的合作。温刚感谢沙巴兹先生对橙线项目给予的大力支持。他表示，拉合尔橙线轨道交通项目是在两国元首见证下签约的中巴经济走廊早期收获项目，北方工业集团有丰富的海外基础设施建设的项目经验，期待双方在基础设施领域开展多维度合作，建设一批有国际影响力的标杆项目。

　　随后，温刚到拉合尔轨道交通橙线项目现场，实地查看了项目部分工点，到项目驻地亲切看望慰问了中方员工，听取了联营体项目部工作汇报。温刚对项目的执行情况表示满意，对联营体的合作模式、管理方式和经营理念表示肯定。他强调，橙线项目是在习近平主席亲自见证下，中国北方工业集团与中国铁总合作“走出去”的典范项目，作为巴基斯坦的第一个电气化铁路项目，意义十分重大。目前，项目建设正一步步变成现实，希望联营体再接再厉，加强团队建设和安全工作，在加强业务出海的同时做到党建出海，把党建优势转化为能力优势，将橙线项目建设成中巴经济走廊乃至“一带一路”建设中的标杆项目，为国家“一带一路”建设作出积极贡献。

　　集团公司总部有关部门和北方公司主要负责人植玉林、马保勇等随同出访并参加了会见。(北方公司)

*Baidu Translate*:
On -20 May 18th, Wen Gang, the general manager of the group company, visited Pakistan, met with general chief of staff of the Pakistan army, general Bilal, and Changsha Baz, the chief Ministry of Punjab Province, investigated the orange line project and consoled the Chinese employees in Pakistan.

When meeting with Bilal, lieutenant general Bilal said that the Pakistani army attaches great importance to the cooperation with the northern industrial group. *In the procurement of major military equipment, the Pakistani army will carry out an objective, fair and comprehensive assessment and assessment, and hope that the North Industrial Group will give the support as always.* Wen Gang said that the friendship between China and Pakistan has a long history. The close cooperation between the Northern Industrial Group and Pakistan in the field of national defense is a profound practice and interpretation of the friendship between China and Pakistan. Northern Industrial Group is willing to share the fruits of scientific and technological progress with Pakistani friends and continue to contribute to the improvement of Pakistani defense equipment.

When meeting with Shabazz, Shabazz said that the northern industrial group was experienced in the field of rail transportation, and the orange line project team, iron general - the North joint body, showed high professional quality in the construction of the subway project, reflecting the Chinese standard and China's speed, hoping to continue with the northern industrial group in the orange line in the future. More comprehensive and diversified cooperation in project operation and multi-field projects based on rail transit. Wen Gang thanked Mr. Shabaz for his strong support for the Orange Line project. He said that the Lahore orange line rail transit project is the early harvest project of the Sino Pakistan Economic Corridor signed by the two heads of state. The north industrial group has rich experience in the construction of overseas infrastructure projects, and expects the two sides to carry out multi-dimensional cooperation in the field of infrastructure and build a number of benchmarks with international influence.

Then, Wen gang went to the site of the orange line project of Lahore rail transit and examined part of the project on the spot. He visited the Chinese staff and listened to the report of the joint project department. Wen Gang expressed his satisfaction with the implementation of the project and affirmed the cooperative mode, management mode and management concept of the consortium. He stressed that the orange line project is a model project of "going out" by China north industrial group and China iron general, as the first electrified railway project in Pakistan, which is of great significance as chairman Xi Jinping personally witnessed. At present, the construction of the project is becoming a reality step by step. We hope that the joint venture will make persistent efforts to build up the team construction and safety work, and make the party build the sea at the same time, and transform the party's construction advantage into the capacity advantage, and build the orange line project into the Benchmarking Project in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor and even the "one way" construction. To make positive contributions to the construction of the country 's "one way and one way".

The relevant departments of the headquarters of the group company and the principal responsible persons of the northern company, such as Zhiyulin and Ma Baoyong, accompanied them to visit and attended the meeting. (North Company)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> NORINCO calls for fair treatment to VT-4 in competition indeed.
> 
> From NORINCO's official website on May 23, 2018:
> http://www.norincogroup.com.cn/art/2018/5/23/art_84_108508.html
> 
> *推动打造“一带一路”标杆项目，温刚出访巴基斯坦取得重要成果*
> 发布时间：2018-05-23
> View attachment 491257
> 
> 5月18日-20日，集团公司总经理温刚率团出访巴基斯坦，会见了巴基斯坦陆军总参谋长比拉尔中将及旁遮普省首席部长沙巴兹，调研了橙线项目并慰问驻巴中方员工。
> 
> 在会见比拉尔时，比拉尔中将表示，巴陆军十分重视与北方工业集团的合作，*在重大军事装备采购中，巴陆军将会进行客观、公正和全面的对比考核评估，希望北方工业集团给予一如既往的支持*。温刚表示，中巴友谊源远流长，北方工业集团与巴基斯坦在国防领域的紧密合作是对中巴友谊的深刻践行和诠释。北方工业集团愿意与巴基斯坦朋友分享科技进步的成果，为提升巴基斯坦国防装备水平继续贡献力量。
> 
> 在会见沙巴兹时，沙巴兹表示，北方工业集团在轨道交通领域经验丰富，橙线项目执行团队铁总-北方联营体在巴首条地铁项目建设中表现出了极高的专业素质，体现了中国标准、中国速度，希望今后继续与北方工业集团在橙线项目运营和以轨道交通为基础的多领域工程项目方面展开更加全面和多元化的合作。温刚感谢沙巴兹先生对橙线项目给予的大力支持。他表示，拉合尔橙线轨道交通项目是在两国元首见证下签约的中巴经济走廊早期收获项目，北方工业集团有丰富的海外基础设施建设的项目经验，期待双方在基础设施领域开展多维度合作，建设一批有国际影响力的标杆项目。
> 
> 随后，温刚到拉合尔轨道交通橙线项目现场，实地查看了项目部分工点，到项目驻地亲切看望慰问了中方员工，听取了联营体项目部工作汇报。温刚对项目的执行情况表示满意，对联营体的合作模式、管理方式和经营理念表示肯定。他强调，橙线项目是在习近平主席亲自见证下，中国北方工业集团与中国铁总合作“走出去”的典范项目，作为巴基斯坦的第一个电气化铁路项目，意义十分重大。目前，项目建设正一步步变成现实，希望联营体再接再厉，加强团队建设和安全工作，在加强业务出海的同时做到党建出海，把党建优势转化为能力优势，将橙线项目建设成中巴经济走廊乃至“一带一路”建设中的标杆项目，为国家“一带一路”建设作出积极贡献。
> 
> 集团公司总部有关部门和北方公司主要负责人植玉林、马保勇等随同出访并参加了会见。(北方公司)
> 
> *Baidu Translate*:
> On -20 May 18th, Wen Gang, the general manager of the group company, visited Pakistan, met with general chief of staff of the Pakistan army, general Bilal, and Changsha Baz, the chief Ministry of Punjab Province, investigated the orange line project and consoled the Chinese employees in Pakistan.
> 
> When meeting with Bilal, lieutenant general Bilal said that the Pakistani army attaches great importance to the cooperation with the northern industrial group. *In the procurement of major military equipment, the Pakistani army will carry out an objective, fair and comprehensive assessment and assessment, and hope that the North Industrial Group will give the support as always.* Wen Gang said that the friendship between China and Pakistan has a long history. The close cooperation between the Northern Industrial Group and Pakistan in the field of national defense is a profound practice and interpretation of the friendship between China and Pakistan. Northern Industrial Group is willing to share the fruits of scientific and technological progress with Pakistani friends and continue to contribute to the improvement of Pakistani defense equipment.
> 
> When meeting with Shabazz, Shabazz said that the northern industrial group was experienced in the field of rail transportation, and the orange line project team, iron general - the North joint body, showed high professional quality in the construction of the subway project, reflecting the Chinese standard and China's speed, hoping to continue with the northern industrial group in the orange line in the future. More comprehensive and diversified cooperation in project operation and multi-field projects based on rail transit. Wen Gang thanked Mr. Shabaz for his strong support for the Orange Line project. He said that the Lahore orange line rail transit project is the early harvest project of the Sino Pakistan Economic Corridor signed by the two heads of state. The north industrial group has rich experience in the construction of overseas infrastructure projects, and expects the two sides to carry out multi-dimensional cooperation in the field of infrastructure and build a number of benchmarks with international influence.
> 
> Then, Wen gang went to the site of the orange line project of Lahore rail transit and examined part of the project on the spot. He visited the Chinese staff and listened to the report of the joint project department. Wen Gang expressed his satisfaction with the implementation of the project and affirmed the cooperative mode, management mode and management concept of the consortium. He stressed that the orange line project is a model project of "going out" by China north industrial group and China iron general, as the first electrified railway project in Pakistan, which is of great significance as chairman Xi Jinping personally witnessed. At present, the construction of the project is becoming a reality step by step. We hope that the joint venture will make persistent efforts to build up the team construction and safety work, and make the party build the sea at the same time, and transform the party's construction advantage into the capacity advantage, and build the orange line project into the Benchmarking Project in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor and even the "one way" construction. To make positive contributions to the construction of the country 's "one way and one way".
> 
> The relevant departments of the headquarters of the group company and the principal responsible persons of the northern company, such as Zhiyulin and Ma Baoyong, accompanied them to visit and attended the meeting. (North Company)



Neever knew general Bilal had become NORINCOs spokesperson. Hope they are paying him well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> Neever knew general Bilal had become NORINCOs spokesperson. Hope they are paying him well.


And whose spokesperson are you?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> And whose spokesperson are you?



I believe in self reliance. HIT is not getting anything new out of the tests. These mbts dont offer an iota of improvement over Al-Khalid series.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.
> 
> 
> He keep saying Oplot's armour is mile ahead of Vt4's. I don't know why....



Yeah the Abrams failed on several accounts including engine and gun accuracy. There is a long list of mbts that failed in this forsaken desert.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> I believe in self reliance. HIT is not getting anything new out of the tests. These mbts dont offer an iota of improvement over Al-Khalid series.


As if you know a lot. In fact, you know nothing.

The only obstacle for VT-4 will be TOT for engine and the price high tag of USD 5.8million per tank.



Hu Yao said:


> If you wanna official statement from NORINCO, no such thing. If you wanna some fan made statement, there are a lot.
> 
> Plus, I still don't think you guys should buy VT-4 or T-84. Just put Relikt or some modern ERA and upgrade FCS, your AK tank is good enough. I don't think T-84 or VT-4 have something that AK can't have.
> 
> Make in Pakistan, save your dollars for domestic constration. In 1990s PLA is extremely poor too.


I suggest you go Google for more of VT-4 info instead of spewing misinfo.

VT-4 and AK are 2 different generation of tank. Their transmission layout is totally different. VT-4 is following modeen western tank layout with gearbox and engine intergrated into single piece for ease of maintenance and repair. While AK , T-90 and oplot t-84 still follow old Russian transmission layout that do not allow engine to be replaced in less than an hour time. 

They need half a day time to replace transmission, gearbox before engine able to replaced. This greatly reduced the survival of MBT during battle. There are more to talk about but just this point allow will not allow any amount of upgrade to replace it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sinait

Dazzler said:


> Yeah the Abrams failed on several accounts including engine and gun accuracy. There is a long list of mbts that failed in this forsaken desert.


If conditions are so severe and challenging in this desert, only a custom made for this desert tank will work.
Afraid Pakistan may have to make such a tank themselves.
Cost also may be prohibitive unless tradeoffs are made.
.


----------



## serenity

Upgrading AK will be far better choice for PA than spending billions on purchases that only offer slightly better engines, FCS, and armor. The armor can be upgraded on AK with modular add ones with modern ERA on top, similar to how Type 99 upgraded the wedge shaped ERA frame on Type 98. FCS is more difficult but can't imagine AK FCS being so bad it can't do its job in defending Pakistan. AK is lighter than both Oplot and VT-4 so shouldn't really need a more powerful engine. PA should either go for a much better light tank or just stick with AK upgrades. T-90MS is really the only one I can think of. If they want to venture into heavier territory, Type 99 and Altay are the only considerations available in the 50-60 tonne range. Don't think the other modern alternatives are up for export.


----------



## Signalian

serenity said:


> I thought you were referring to M1 all this time. Can you provide sources to VT-4 trials in Pakistan? Why did Pakistan ever buy a single Al Khalid (whatever the Chinese base product is) if engine and gun are both crap. They can't be more crap now than the original Type 90s or whatever they were called. I hope Pakistan doesn't buy VT-4, it'll hint to me that the purchases they do make like Type 054A frigates, missiles, and others are decent and Pakistan does properly evaluate purchases and only make purchases of decent equipment. Personally I think Chinese tanks are far less competitive than their peers because tanks haven't been an area of priority for modernisation in a long time. It stands to reason that many things are outdated or underperform on Chinese tanks owing to this fact and the PLA's continued use of the old Soviet style cannon fodder doctrine of superior numbers (at least all this does apply to Type 96 and lesser tanks in PLA, Type 99 is unknown but seems to favour western doctrine). It will be interesting to see which tank Pakistan goes for. Was Altay considered? or rejected because of budget considerations? In this weight and cost class, Pakistan pretty much only has the choice of VT-4, T-80 variants, and T-72 variants (including T-90S but not MS due to costs). Oplot does seem to stand out along with VT-4 at least on paper. T-72 variants are if anything less capable and no more reliable. T-90 is better than T-72 but also costs more. No point purchasing T-72 when Pakistan has AK anyway. Oplot is also pretty unreliable even when not tested to extremes as shown in major failures in Strong Europe competitions in the last few years, especially this year's iirc. T-90 could be a decent option but cost and India has them as well and in greater numbers. They will know the T-90 more intimately and understand its weaknesses more than PA when PA gets through training with them. So realistically VT-4 or Oplot in this market. To us without confidential trial information that so many members say they have access to, out of these two Oplot has publicly showed problems with reliability more than VT-4. That's not to say VT-4 is better! But it is what it is to otherwise ignorant observers. PA will know better and make the right decision.


Yes i meant M-1 all this time, no other MBT.
I am neither in favour of VT-4 nor against it. same goes for Oplot-M or T-84 or upgraded version of T-80 UD.

My thoughts are hypothetically aligned towards Leo2A6/7, K-2 and Altay. Its hypotheical because PA is not considering any of these.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

sinait said:


> If conditions are so severe and challenging in this desert, only a custom made for this desert tank will work.
> Afraid Pakistan may have to make such a tank themselves.
> Cost also may be prohibitive unless tradeoffs are made.
> .



Thats what they've done with the Al-Khalid.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sinait

Dazzler said:


> Thats what they've done with the Al-Khalid.


Correct, no need to criticize tanks made in other countries that are not optimum for your local conditions.
So many tanks cannot make it in this desert, conditions must be very harsh.
Just make your own or integrate some imports where beneficial to further improve your tanks.

Anyway I get to know such terrible place exist, gets me curious on the location of this desert.
How about reforesting this place like how they do it in China.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

sinait said:


> Correct, no need to criticize tanks made in other countries that are not optimum for your local conditions.
> So many tanks cannot make it in this desert, conditions must be very harsh.
> Just make your own or integrate some imports where beneficial to further improve your tanks.
> 
> Anyway I get to know such terrible place exist, gets me curious on the location of this desert.
> How about reforesting this place like how they do it in China.
> .















































Beast said:


> As if you know a lot. In fact, you know nothing.
> 
> The only obstacle for VT-4 will be TOT for engine and the price high tag of USD 5.8million per tank.
> 
> 
> I suggest you go Google for more of VT-4 info instead of spewing misinfo.
> 
> VT-4 and AK are 2 different generation of tank. Their transmission layout is totally different. VT-4 is following modeen western tank layout with gearbox and engine intergrated into single piece for ease of maintenance and repair. While AK , T-90 and oplot t-84 still follow old Russian transmission layout that do not allow engine to be replaced in less than an hour time.
> 
> They need half a day time to replace transmission, gearbox before engine able to replaced. This greatly reduced the survival of MBT during battle. There are more to talk about but just this point allow will not allow any amount of upgrade to replace it.


AK uses French Transmission System/ SESM by Renk.


Also used in Lecrec.



serenity said:


> Upgrading AK will be far better choice for PA than spending billions on purchases that only offer slightly better engines, FCS, and armor. The armor can be upgraded on AK with modular add ones with modern ERA on top, similar to how Type 99 upgraded the wedge shaped ERA frame on Type 98. FCS is more difficult but can't imagine AK FCS being so bad it can't do its job in defending Pakistan. AK is lighter than both Oplot and VT-4 so shouldn't really need a more powerful engine. PA should either go for a much better light tank or just stick with AK upgrades. T-90MS is really the only one I can think of. If they want to venture into heavier territory, Type 99 and Altay are the only considerations available in the 50-60 tonne range. Don't think the other modern alternatives are up for export.


AK II with a 1500hp engine is under development.

Its FCS is top of the line.. even tiny AZ comes with Italian Thetis System.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

sinait said:


> Anyway I get to know such terrible place exist, gets me curious on the location of this desert.
> How about reforesting this place like how they do it in China.
> .


Harsh desert conditions are not unique to Pakistan. You will come across them in different countries. It is another thing that some in Pakistan are into creating legends.

Take a good look:-






Sand is incredibly soft [like talcum powder] there; conditions cannot get any worse than that. This kind of sand creeps into anything and is known to kill electronics. Only the most rugged units can function in these conditions.

US Army on the whole have adapted well to fighting in harsh desert conditions since WW2.

Now, take a look at sand storms in Iraq:






ZERO visibility. Iraqi Sand Storms are among the most intense in the world.

---

The M1 variant they offered to Pakistan for trials in 1988 might not be optimized for operations in harsh desert conditions at the time. This doesn't imply that American units are lacking in such optimizations; they have performed well in a wide-range of environments including in Afghanistan.

*The other side of the story:* maintenance requirements of virtually any [sophisticated] equipment significantly increases in harsh desert conditions due to high probability of sand creeping into its components during the course of operations. A sophisticated equipment is a sum of numerous components and moving parts in them. Secondly; diesel engine or multi-fuel engine - each have its share of vulnerabilities and each will suffer from increased wear-and-tear in harsh desert conditions. Components can be rugged but are not magic. *A good army is nothing without adequate logistics.*

---

I agree with your point. Pakistan Army should make do with Al-Khalid and stick to its modernization. No point in buying stuff of similar weight class.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Beast

GriffinsRule said:


> Way better in what regards? Please elaborate


Western and VT-4 engine are single piece component which just replacing the whole engine parts in an hour time can revive the tank and put into battlefield immediately. Unlike Russian and Ukraine engine and transmission gear box which are all separate. If you want to replace the engine. The transmission gearbox need to be seperated removed together with engine. And this will need half a day time to accomplish just to revive the tank if the engine is damaged in battlefield.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

https://www.guancha.cn/XiYaZhou/2018_08_26_469621_7.shtml

*Baidu Translate:*
The greatest advance in the latest Russian military demonstration of a new generation of old equipment modified vehicles is that most of them are equipped with "pine-U" thermal imagery, which Russia introduced French technology to build factories in the country. Previously, there was a general feeling of wonder about how Russia was able to maintain production after France joined sanctions against Russia, because it had been reported that some key components still had to be imported from France. However, at this year's "Army 2018" exhibition, some Chinese enterprises said that at present several Russian enterprises producing thermal imagery, and they have a cooperative relationship... Although this statement can not be done any evidence, but I think... The relationship between China and Russia's thermal imagers is still a matter of fact. This is also a basic premise for Russia to popularize thermal imagery in new generation tanks and infantry combat vehicles when its military expenditure has fallen sharply this year compared with last year.
I have said before that Russia will sooner or later have to "hate the truth". Now at least the thermal imager... Congratulations on Chinese thermal imaging enterprises.

@wanglaokan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 494395
> 
> https://www.guancha.cn/XiYaZhou/2018_08_26_469621_7.shtml
> @wanglaokan



Nothing related to VT-4 in the link.


----------



## ptldM3

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 494395
> 
> https://www.guancha.cn/XiYaZhou/2018_08_26_469621_7.shtml
> 
> *Baidu Translate:*
> The greatest advance in the latest Russian military demonstration of a new generation of old equipment modified vehicles is that most of them are equipped with "pine-U" thermal imagery, which Russia introduced French technology to build factories in the country. Previously, there was a general feeling of wonder about how Russia was able to maintain production after France joined sanctions against Russia, because it had been reported that some key components still had to be imported from France. However, at this year's "Army 2018" exhibition, some Chinese enterprises said that at present several Russian enterprises producing thermal imagery, and they have a cooperative relationship... Although this statement can not be done any evidence, but I think... The relationship between China and Russia's thermal imagers is still a matter of fact. This is also a basic premise for Russia to popularize thermal imagery in new generation tanks and infantry combat vehicles when its military expenditure has fallen sharply this year compared with last year.
> I have said before that Russia will sooner or later have to "hate the truth". Now at least the thermal imager... Congratulations on Chinese thermal imaging enterprises.
> 
> @wanglaokan






Thank you for the usual propaganda


----------



## Dazzler

ptldM3 said:


> Thank you for the usual propaganda



Russians make thermal imagers? Which ones? Even the t-14 has French thermal imagers.


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Beast said:


> Fake news. There is no problem with engine. There are many lies on social media about Chinese product especially those Western born Pakistanis who still try to cling onto the falsehood that western countries is the best friend of Pakistan while China is a evil nation just trying to lynch Pakistan.
> 
> From Chinese forum, some of the Chinese side representative involved in VT-4 tender for Pakistan. Never say anything about engine problem complaint from the Pakistan. And they claim they are confident to meet all requirement of Pakistan. The others competitor tank are simply too outdated to compete with VT-4 in terms of sensor and network. VT-4 is a highy network tank that can share data with a battalion, UAV and even radar that it has very high chance of locate enemy tank first and take action. Ukraine Oplot-M simply lack of such sophisticated network to be the new generation tank.
> 
> Thailand army are very impressed with VT-4 and they quickly placed order of it.
> 
> VT-4 engine is using computerized fully automatic transmission that makes the response and handling like a sport car. The engine of VT-4 can be swapped out and replace with a new one in just 45mins while Oplot engine needs half day time to complete such task. I do not know why so many Pakistanis think so highly of such an obsolete tank like Oplot?


Why can't we get ztz 99


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Dazzler said:


> The engine failed twice at Tamewala/ Bahawalpur region alone. Why you think they came with an improved model?


Why can't we get ztz 99


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Beast said:


> It more of you cant accept VT-4 is a superior tank. 3 replies and you still cant give nay proof besides babbling..


Why can't we get ztz 99


----------



## Fawadqasim1

wanglaokan said:


> I tell you what. If I'm PA, I will straightly go for T99A2 if it's available. It will be a huge regret if we don't bring out the best for competition. PA deserves for the best. The stupid sales strategy should be adjusted.


T99a2 all the way


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Beast said:


> LOL.. Typical backward mentality where they think China is backward and needs Turkish advice. VT-4 is much higher standard than Altay and Oplot M. No joke. please do more research on VT-4 before making silly comment.


Why should we buy VT-4 why not 99a2


----------



## Dazzler

Desperado in the house.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Basel said:


> I also believe VT-4 should be rejected and one thing should be conveyed to Chinese, offer top of the line products if you want us to be your closest strategic partner or your Israel and face west as foes.
> 
> Export oriented weapons should be rejected as similar are offered to other countries too.


Just my thoughts we are not Thailand or any other third world country we are your only real strategic partners. So no to vt4 only t99a2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sinait

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 494395
> 
> https://www.guancha.cn/XiYaZhou/2018_08_26_469621_7.shtml
> 
> *Baidu Translate:*
> The greatest advance in the latest Russian military demonstration of a new generation of old equipment modified vehicles is that most of them are equipped with "pine-U" thermal imagery, which Russia introduced French technology to build factories in the country. Previously, there was a general feeling of wonder about how Russia was able to maintain production after France joined sanctions against Russia, because it had been reported that some key components still had to be imported from France. However, at this year's "Army 2018" exhibition, some Chinese enterprises said that at present several Russian enterprises producing thermal imagery, and they have a cooperative relationship... Although this statement can not be done any evidence, but I think... The relationship between China and Russia's thermal imagers is still a matter of fact. This is also a basic premise for Russia to popularize thermal imagery in new generation tanks and infantry combat vehicles when its military expenditure has fallen sharply this year compared with last year.
> I have said before that Russia will sooner or later have to "hate the truth". Now at least the thermal imager... Congratulations on Chinese thermal imaging enterprises.


Maybe Google Translate can make it clearer.
The article suggest that Russia is able to continue to manufacture thermal imagers by reluctantly accepting cooperation with China.

*Google Translate:*
Recently, the biggest progress of the new generation of old equipment modified vehicles exhibited by the Russian military is that most of them are equipped with the "Pine-U" thermal imager, which was built in Russia by the introduction of French technology. Like an enterprise.

What was strangely felt before was how Russia continued to maintain production after France’s sanctions against Russia, because previous news said that some key components still have to be imported from France.
But at this year's "Army 2018" exhibition, some Chinese companies said that at present, several companies in 

Russia that produce thermal imaging cameras have a cooperative relationship with them... Although this is not enough evidence, I think... China and Russia’s thermal imager’s “small relationship” can still be said.
This is also a basic premise that Russia (are still able to) promote thermal imaging cameras in a new generation of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in the case of a sharp drop in military spending this year, the whole world knows.
The author has said before that Russia will sooner or later be "speaking properly"(accept the truth/reality)
... Now at least the thermal imager... Congratulations to China's thermal imaging company.
.


----------



## Dazzler

Almost all modern Russian mbts use optics developed by Peleng which uses French sights and termal imagers. So technically, if France ever embargoes Russia, they will have a hard time upgrading tanks with second and third generation thermal imagers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Zarvan said:


> Sorry but VT 4 hardly impressed any one in the Army when it first came to trials. OPLOT was the one which we liked only issue was engine. Both got changes so let see who wins now


Sir why not t99a2


----------



## LKJ86

Fawadqasim1 said:


> Sir why not t99a2


There is ZTZ-99A, not t99a2.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Beast said:


> Misconception and his link is from a fake so called insider from facebook.
> 
> Nothing is from PA. Oplot M is already rejected by RTA. Not only becos the delivery date is delayed. What they received is not up to expectation and a retrial carry out which VT-4 beats all competitors that included Leopard 2.





wanglaokan said:


> That's an irresponsible conclusion.


I agree


----------



## ptldM3

Dazzler said:


> Russians make thermal imagers? Which ones? Even the t-14 has French thermal imagers.





Yes, and they have for a long time particularly for various aircraft.


Tank sights:

http://mil.today/2017/Weapons52/

Irbis-K sight and Argat-MDT




As for T-14 and Thales, there is no Thales on the T-14.

This is Thales:








Lower left screen, is the same screen you posted, notice what it is showing:









Thales setup in T-72, notice the console with the toggle switches are absent in the T-14.







One of the T-14 thermal imagery screens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fawadqasim1

LKJ86 said:


> There is ZTZ-99A, not t99a2.


Sir My question is why not the best Chinese mbt why this second grade vt4 for Pakistan


----------



## LKJ86

Fawadqasim1 said:


> Sir My question is why not the best Chinese mbt why this second grade vt4 for Pakistan


It is based on what PA needs and affords.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fawadqasim1

wanglaokan said:


> Bro,You just bring it too far. Type 99 is not ready for export, how can it be in Pakistan?


just a heresy


----------



## Fawadqasim1

wanglaokan said:


> Maybe few hundreds until now.
> 
> 
> Look at the armour of the T99A2
> View attachment 458829
> 
> 
> Said recently T99A2 has entered into mass production after several years service in PLA army.


It looks like a beast we need to test them

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Hu Yao said:


> There are AK MBT, heavier MBT and lighter MBT. I thought AK is good enough, heavy tanks are not very useful considering your bridge and enviroment.
> 
> Basically AK is a pakistan version of ZTZ-96 and could easily turn into ZTZ-96B or even better tank. FY-5 ERA can break down enemy APDS and HEAT. There are already lot of active proction systems like chinese GL-5 on the market which can proctect your tanks from enemy HEAT and ATGM.
> 
> I thought upgrade AK with better Relik or FY-5 ERA, and put something like GL-5 on it will make AK a far better thank than Oplot-M. Ukraine tanks are still in 1990s. After 27 years unstopped deindustrialization Ukraine have to buy truks from Korea and China for their army now. No need to wast your dollars in 1990s tanks.


Ukraine makes good armour and engines but they are generations behind China in electronics
We need t99a2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

ptldM3 said:


> Yes, and they have for a long time particularly for various aircraft.
> 
> 
> Tank sights:
> 
> http://mil.today/2017/Weapons52/
> 
> Irbis-K sight and Argat-MDT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for T-14 and Thales, there is no Thales on the T-14.
> 
> This is Thales:
> 
> 
> View attachment 494425
> 
> 
> 
> Lower left screen, is the same screen you posted, notice what it is showing:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 494426
> 
> 
> 
> Thales setup in T-72, notice the console with the toggle switches are absent in the T-14.
> 
> View attachment 494427
> 
> 
> 
> One of the T-14 thermal imagery screens.
> 
> 
> View attachment 494428



The pic i shared shows the inside of Armata. 






Here is another, this time from T-90, Essa sight with catherine FC







T-80BVM








Read more here

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/18464/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fawadqasim1

sinait said:


> Correct, no need to criticize tanks made in other countries that are not optimum for your local conditions.
> So many tanks cannot make it in this desert, conditions must be very harsh.
> Just make your own or integrate some imports where beneficial to further improve your tanks.
> 
> Anyway I get to know such terrible place exist, gets me curious on the location of this desert.
> How about reforesting this place like how they do it in China.
> .


A good idea

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

ptldM3 said:


> Thank you for the usual propaganda


i think its not a shame to seek help from friendly China side cause we will not impose arm embargo on Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Dazzler said:


> The pic i shared shows the inside of Armata.
> 
> View attachment 494430
> 
> 
> Here is another, this time from T-90, Essa sight with catherine FC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-80BVM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more here
> 
> https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/18464/


Sir can't we customise t99a2 for Pakistan


----------



## 帅的一匹

this is pure business.


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> this is pure business.



Are you suggesting that China helped Russia in this sector? Any evidence for that?


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Dazzler said:


> Almost all modern Russian mbts use optics developed by Peleng which uses French sights and termal imagers. So technically, if France ever embargoes Russia, they will have a hard time upgrading tanks with second and third generation thermal imagers.


they have started building them or developing them now...i read somewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Umair Nawaz said:


> they have started building them or developing them now...i read somewhere.



Only recently. Note that theyve been making day and night IR sights for decades. It is the thermal imagers theyve struggled with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Dazzler said:


> Only recently. Note that theyve been making day and night IR sights for decades. It is the thermal imagers theyve struggled with.


they can buy sensors from many sources china turkey etc after that they need good optronics system integration and software engineers which they have in abundance and in time they can develop their own state of the art sensors so what's the problem.


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ptldM3

Dazzler said:


> The pic i shared shows the inside of Armata.





I know.






Dazzler said:


> View attachment 494430
> 
> 
> Here is another, this time from T-90, Essa sight with catherine FC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-80BVM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more here
> 
> https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/18464/





Once again the T-14 does not use French thermal imagers. Kazan manufacturers domestic thermal imagers for both T-14 and T-15.









Commander and gunner have their own displays; unique ones only found in T-14. The driver has one display that looks similar to those found on T-90. So far that display has shown none imagery information.


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 494395
> 
> https://www.guancha.cn/XiYaZhou/2018_08_26_469621_7.shtml
> 
> *Baidu Translate:*
> The greatest advance in the latest Russian military demonstration of a new generation of old equipment modified vehicles is that most of them are equipped with "pine-U" thermal imagery, which Russia introduced French technology to build factories in the country. Previously, there was a general feeling of wonder about how Russia was able to maintain production after France joined sanctions against Russia, because it had been reported that some key components still had to be imported from France. However, at this year's "Army 2018" exhibition, some Chinese enterprises said that at present several Russian enterprises producing thermal imagery, and they have a cooperative relationship... Although this statement can not be done any evidence, but I think... The relationship between China and Russia's thermal imagers is still a matter of fact. This is also a basic premise for Russia to popularize thermal imagery in new generation tanks and infantry combat vehicles when its military expenditure has fallen sharply this year compared with last year.
> I have said before that Russia will sooner or later have to "hate the truth". Now at least the thermal imager... Congratulations on Chinese thermal imaging enterprises.
> 
> @wanglaokan





ptldM3 said:


> Thank you for the usual propaganda



*Sputnik: Chinese Firms at Army-2018 Forum Pledge Better Offers to Russian Partners*
MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
17:33 22.08.2018(updated 17:34 22.08.2018)

*KUBINKA (Moscow Region) (Sputnik) - Chinese companies which have arrived in Russia for the annual International Military-Technical Forum Army-2018 are promising to never act against Moscow’s interests, and to instead pursue a lasting partnership in the defense sector while the West continues slapping Russia with more sanctions.*

This year's forum, which kicked off at Patriot Park in the western suburbs of Moscow on Tuesday, marked the first appearance of prominent Chinese military equipment manufacturers such as the China North Industries Group Corporation, officially abbreviated as Norinco, which is one of the largest defense companies in the world.

Norinco's booth has become a key element of the Chinese pavilion at the defense industry forum, showcasing top-notch models of tanks, high-power cannons and anti-aircraft systems the company offers.

On the first day of the forum, Chinese Ambassador to Russia Li Hui and senior Chinese military officials visited Norinco's booth, where they were introduced to the capabilities of the company's weapons systems.

_"This is the first time our company takes part in this annual military forum. The reason we're here this year is because the Russian military invited Chinese defense manufactures like us to join the forum, as part of the bilateral military exchange between the two countries. That's why the Chinese government organized eight Chinese defense companies including us to come here," Ji Yongzhao, deputy marketing director of Norinco, told Sputnik._

Ji admitted that when it came to working with Russian partners, China traditionally focused on importing advanced Russian military equipment and technology.

_"From Russia, we used to import a lot of their military hardware. We rarely exported anything to Russia, as our exports mostly reached Central Asian countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. I can't reveal the details of our cooperation with our Russian partners. But we did import certain technology and products from Russia," he said._

Ji expressed hope that the military forum would help his company become better known among potential Russian partners.

_"This year, we just want to be here first and let everyone know who we are. There could be some opportunities for cooperation in the future," he said._

*Unique Option*

China Electronics Corporation (CEC), one of the largest Chinese computer hardware and telecom equipment manufacturers, also hopes to expand its presence in the region through the forum.

"Under China's Belt and Road Initiative, we're motivated to introduce our products to different countries in neighboring regions who take part in this forum," Lv Baoli, deputy director of the systems equipment department at CEC, told Sputnik.

Lv explained that the CEC had brought complete computing systems, networking equipment, industrial control systems and aerospace components to exhibit at the forum.

The CEC representative noted that his company had a unique competitive advantage, compared to offerings from other countries, when working with potential Russian partners.
_
"We have not established long-term relationships with Russian clients. But we can tell our Russian partners that we can offer you a different option, which will be a long-term and stable service. As China and Russia are strategic partners today, along with our intertwined history, our partnership would be long lasting. China would not introduce sanctions or things like that," Lv said._

*No Restrictions*

*The Shandong-based IRay Technology Corporation, which is also taking part in the forum for the first time, said that it was benefiting from the sanctions that prohibited the West from exporting participial technology to Russia because this opened up new market opportunities for China.
*
_*"Our company offers infrared thermal imaging technology. As Russia cannot produce infrared imaging sensors domestically, it used to rely on imports from France, the United States or Israel. We have an advantage today, because such technology exports from Western countries to Russia have been restricted in recent years. As bilateral relations between China and Russia warmed in recent years, the Russian side start to prefer to import such sensors from China. There's no restriction in China about exporting our products" Frank Hu, overseas sales manager at the IRay Technology Corporation, told Sputnik.*_
*
Hu added that his company had been attending similar technology exhibitions in Russia for two years and already established business relations with local partners.
*
_*"Several of the Russian exhibitors that offer infrared imaging products at this year's forum are our clients," he said.*_

*New Customers*

Aside from buyers from Russia, the most promising market for Chinese producers, the companies also hope to find clients in Moscow's partner regions — the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America — which are also present at Army-2018.

_"This year, our company took part in six-seven similar military forums overseas, where we met with military delegations from different countries. To come to the forum here in Moscow [Region], we also could showcase our products to military delegations from countries that are friendly to Russia," Ji from Norinco said._

Ji noted that while Norinco's existing customers came from the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, where it may face competition from Russian defense companies, it was up to a customer to make the final decision.

_"It's all up to the customers' choice. Today, we face steep competition from many countries, including Russia, European countries and the United States. Although the military hardware market appears to be rather sensitive, it is still a very open and highly competitive global market," he said._

Source:https://sputniknews.com/military/201808221067393244-china-firms-army-offer/

@ptldM3

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ptldM3

LKJ86 said:


> *Sputnik: Chinese Firms at Army-2018 Forum Pledge Better Offers to Russian Partners*
> MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
> 17:33 22.08.2018(updated 17:34 22.08.2018)
> 
> *KUBINKA (Moscow Region) (Sputnik) - Chinese companies which have arrived in Russia for the annual International Military-Technical Forum Army-2018 are promising to never act against Moscow’s interests, and to instead pursue a lasting partnership in the defense sector while the West continues slapping Russia with more sanctions.*
> 
> This year's forum, which kicked off at Patriot Park in the western suburbs of Moscow on Tuesday, marked the first appearance of prominent Chinese military equipment manufacturers such as the China North Industries Group Corporation, officially abbreviated as Norinco, which is one of the largest defense companies in the world.
> 
> Norinco's booth has become a key element of the Chinese pavilion at the defense industry forum, showcasing top-notch models of tanks, high-power cannons and anti-aircraft systems the company offers.
> 
> On the first day of the forum, Chinese Ambassador to Russia Li Hui and senior Chinese military officials visited Norinco's booth, where they were introduced to the capabilities of the company's weapons systems.
> 
> _"This is the first time our company takes part in this annual military forum. The reason we're here this year is because the Russian military invited Chinese defense manufactures like us to join the forum, as part of the bilateral military exchange between the two countries. That's why the Chinese government organized eight Chinese defense companies including us to come here," Ji Yongzhao, deputy marketing director of Norinco, told Sputnik._
> 
> Ji admitted that when it came to working with Russian partners, China traditionally focused on importing advanced Russian military equipment and technology.
> 
> _"From Russia, we used to import a lot of their military hardware. We rarely exported anything to Russia, as our exports mostly reached Central Asian countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. I can't reveal the details of our cooperation with our Russian partners. But we did import certain technology and products from Russia," he said._
> 
> Ji expressed hope that the military forum would help his company become better known among potential Russian partners.
> 
> _"This year, we just want to be here first and let everyone know who we are. There could be some opportunities for cooperation in the future," he said._
> 
> *Unique Option*
> 
> China Electronics Corporation (CEC), one of the largest Chinese computer hardware and telecom equipment manufacturers, also hopes to expand its presence in the region through the forum.
> 
> "Under China's Belt and Road Initiative, we're motivated to introduce our products to different countries in neighboring regions who take part in this forum," Lv Baoli, deputy director of the systems equipment department at CEC, told Sputnik.
> 
> Lv explained that the CEC had brought complete computing systems, networking equipment, industrial control systems and aerospace components to exhibit at the forum.
> 
> The CEC representative noted that his company had a unique competitive advantage, compared to offerings from other countries, when working with potential Russian partners.
> _
> "We have not established long-term relationships with Russian clients. But we can tell our Russian partners that we can offer you a different option, which will be a long-term and stable service. As China and Russia are strategic partners today, along with our intertwined history, our partnership would be long lasting. China would not introduce sanctions or things like that," Lv said._
> 
> *No Restrictions*
> 
> *The Shandong-based IRay Technology Corporation, which is also taking part in the forum for the first time, said that it was benefiting from the sanctions that prohibited the West from exporting participial technology to Russia because this opened up new market opportunities for China.
> *
> _*"Our company offers infrared thermal imaging technology. As Russia cannot produce infrared imaging sensors domestically, it used to rely on imports from France, the United States or Israel. We have an advantage today, because such technology exports from Western countries to Russia have been restricted in recent years. As bilateral relations between China and Russia warmed in recent years, the Russian side start to prefer to import such sensors from China. There's no restriction in China about exporting our products" Frank Hu, overseas sales manager at the IRay Technology Corporation, told Sputnik.*_
> *
> Hu added that his company had been attending similar technology exhibitions in Russia for two years and already established business relations with local partners.
> *
> _*"Several of the Russian exhibitors that offer infrared imaging products at this year's forum are our clients," he said.*_
> 
> *New Customers*
> 
> Aside from buyers from Russia, the most promising market for Chinese producers, the companies also hope to find clients in Moscow's partner regions — the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America — which are also present at Army-2018.
> 
> _"This year, our company took part in six-seven similar military forums overseas, where we met with military delegations from different countries. To come to the forum here in Moscow [Region], we also could showcase our products to military delegations from countries that are friendly to Russia," Ji from Norinco said._
> 
> Ji noted that while Norinco's existing customers came from the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, where it may face competition from Russian defense companies, it was up to a customer to make the final decision.
> 
> _"It's all up to the customers' choice. Today, we face steep competition from many countries, including Russia, European countries and the United States. Although the military hardware market appears to be rather sensitive, it is still a very open and highly competitive global market," he said._
> 
> Source:https://sputniknews.com/military/201808221067393244-china-firms-army-offer/
> 
> @ptldM3




Again, you are posting nonsense. Shandong is clueless about what Russia produces. Russia produces its own thermal imagers. It reminds me of the time Norenco was claiming the VT-4 had a better engine and transmission then the T-14 without ever actually knowing anything about the T-14 engine and transmission.


Russian thermal imagers:


----------



## A.Muqeet khan

ptldM3 said:


> are posting nonsense. Shandong is clueless about what Russia produces. Russia produces its own thermal imagers. It reminds me of the time Norenco was claiming the VT-4 had a better engine and transmission then the T-14 without ever actually knowing anything about the T-





ptldM3 said:


> Again, you are posting nonsense. Shandong is clueless about what Russia produces. Russia produces its own thermal imagers. It reminds me of the time Norenco was claiming the VT-4 had a better engine and transmission then the T-14 without ever actually knowing anything about the T-14 engine and transmission.
> 
> 
> Russian thermal imagers:
> 
> 
> View attachment 494552
> View attachment 494553



the article clearly states that Russia is importing the sensors not the whole item


----------



## ptldM3

A.Muqeet khan said:


> the article clearly states that Russia is importing the sensors not the whole item




Russia has been building infares sensors for decaded, dating back to the Cold War when the Soviet Union could not import anything sophisticated from the United States or China.



The Soviet Union imported this IR technology from space aliens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ptldM3 said:


> Russia has been building infares sensors for decaded, dating back to the Cold War when the Soviet Union could not import anything sophisticated from the United States or China.
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union imported this IR technology from space aliens.
> 
> View attachment 494554
> View attachment 494555
> View attachment 494556


There are many grades of infra sensor. The highest grade one needs very large investment in order to accomplish. There is a reason why those Chinese firms are invited to participate.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> There are many grades of infra sensor. The highest grade one needs very large investment in order to accomplish. There is a reason why those Chinese firms are invited to participate.


China will provide thermal imager to Russian T90 tanks.


----------



## 帅的一匹

https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20180826A1D2VE00?uid=8730528


----------



## 帅的一匹

to partially replace French Catherine.


----------



## 帅的一匹

deny it or not, its a fact. the inventory of Thales thermal imagers is running low.


----------



## 帅的一匹

you guys can google translate the link i posted, it.might help further.


----------



## LKJ86

wanglaokan said:


> https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20180826A1D2VE00?uid=8730528


*Google Translate*:





*Russian T-90 main battle tank, it is possible to change China's thermal imaging night vision system*

Above the Russian Army-2018 International Military Technology Forum, many Chinese manufacturers participated in the exhibition, including infrared thermal imaging manufacturers. From the disclosure of relevant manufacturers, they already have Russian customers. This is the first time that domestic manufacturers have revealed that they have exported infrared thermal imaging to Russia. system.

The night vision system has always been a weak link in Russian-made weapons and equipment. In the 1980s, the Western three-generation main battle tanks were equipped with thermal imaging night vision systems. The Soviet tank night vision system was still the previous generation of low-light night vision devices until the last century. In the era, Russia completed the first generation of thermal imaging night vision system - agave, but this night vision system uses line array, mechanical scanning system, low performance, into the new century, Russia completed the second generation of thermal imaging system Its performance has been enhanced, but compared with the new generation of thermal imaging night vision systems in the West, Russia's export tanks and armored vehicles have to be equipped with Western thermal imaging systems, such as T-90S tanks exported to India. It is equipped with the French Catherine Thermal Imaging Night Vision System.





*The Soviet Union's most advanced T-80U main battle tank is still equipped with a low-light night vision system*

When Russia integrated the Catherine thermal imaging night vision system for the Indian T-90S tank, it believed that its performance was far superior to its own counterparts, so it decided that Russian tanks and armored vehicles were also equipped with Catherine thermal imaging night vision systems, such as the Russian T-72B3 main. The battle tank, which is equipped with the French Catherine thermal imaging night vision system, but after the Ukrainian crisis, the Western military embargo on Russia, thermal imaging is also in the embargo, Russia to strengthen investment in the field of thermal imaging, according to overseas According to the data, Russia announced the localization of thermal imaging night vision system in 2016, and replaced the Western thermal imaging night vision device on the Russian main battle tank and infantry fighting vehicle. However, the 2018 Russian public T-80BV main battle tank is the latest. The improved-T-80BVM, it is found that it is still installed in France's Catherine thermal imaging night vision system. It is speculated that Russia still has shortcomings in the development and production capacity of domestic thermal imaging, and has to continue to use the French thermal imaging night vision system. .





*T-80 latest improved -T-80BVM main battle tank*





*The nameplate of the THALES equipment in the turret is clearly visible*

The relevant units in China began to develop thermal imaging systems in the 1970s, and in the 1980s, they solved the line array technology. In the 1990s, they began to develop large-scale arrays and achieved technological breakthroughs in the new century. According to the manual of military electronic components, domestic Mass production of 640*512 focal plane arrays has been realized. The new generation of thermal imaging night vision systems are widely equipped with main battle tanks, fighters and missiles to improve the combat capability of domestic weapons and equipment. On this basis, the relevant units have launched larger scale focal planes. The development and production of arrays have successfully developed 2000*512 and 2000*2000 focal plane arrays. These focal plane arrays can further improve the performance of domestic night vision systems and infrared imaging systems, and push forward the domestic weapon equipment combat capability. A breakthrough in the generation of focal plane arrays, the relevant departments also approved the 640 * 512 focal plane array can be exported, this export to Russia should be this specification of thermal imaging night vision system.





*ZTZ-99A main battle tank equipped with domestic thermal imaging night vision system*





*Domestic 2000*512 focal plane array*





*Image obtained by domestic 2000*2000 focal plane array*

From now on, there is no sign of thawing between Russia and the West. The Western military embargo on Russia will not be lifted. It is generally believed that Russia may now still use the French thermal imaging system previously stocked to produce tank night vision systems. When used up, domestic equipment can not keep up, it will face the embarrassing situation that no night vision system is available, so Russia hopes to introduce thermal imaging system from China, which can replace the French thermal imaging night vision system, and secondly, the domestic system has problems. I have a backup.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

The T-90 and T-80 tanks will use the Irbis thermal system. T-14 is using thermals made by Kazan. It is as simple as that. There is no debate here. Chinese companies sell various products to Russian companies and visa versa. There is no details about any of the components of the thermals but, it's clear that they are Russian designed and made.




*In 2016, the Krasnogorsk plant finished tests of the heat-vision sighting system Irbis for modernized tanks T-80U and T-90. The sights will be supplied to the army after 2017 under the already concluded contract, says the manufacturer’s annual reporting. According to the experts of Mil.Today, commissioning of the new sight will for the first time give Russian tankers a homemade thermal vision device based on the mercury-cadmium-telluride (MCT) matrix, which will bridge a gap between the leading NATO countries in this area.*
*
*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

*Xinhua*:http://www.xinhuanet.com/mil/2018-01/10/c_129787467.htm

*Google Translate:*
January 10, 2018 15:15:07





*The picture shows an infrared image detected with a 2.7K x 2.7K infrared focal plane detector.*

Recently, after overcoming a number of technical difficulties, 11 technical teams of China Electronics Division successfully developed short-wave and medium-wave single-chip 2.7K×2.7K infrared focal plane detectors, and carried out imaging demonstrations with good results. The successful development of the detector marks a major breakthrough in the development of three generations of super-large array infrared detectors by China Electronics, filling the domestic single-chip 2K×2K array scale infrared detector blank, representing the highest in the country and the world advanced. Level.

Infrared detection detects the thermal radiation of the target object itself, converts the difference between the temperature and the emissivity of the object into a video image signal, and obtains infrared imaging of the target object. It is a passive detection, which has good concealment, anti-interference, easy identification, camouflage, and rich information. Advantages, widely used in early warning detection, search and tracking, astronomical observation, remote sensing, maritime rescue, medicine and other fields.

Infrared focal plane detector is the core component of infrared imaging system. This short-wave and medium-wave single-chip 2.7K×2.7K detector is a high-sensitivity cooling infrared focal plane detector, involving materials, chips and integrated circuit design. Various disciplines such as refrigeration and packaging are extremely difficult. Previously, single-chip 2K×2K array-scale infrared focal plane detectors were only mastered by individual countries.

*The successful development of China's electric short-wave and medium-wave single-chip 2.7K×2.7K infrared focal plane detectors has made China the second country to master this technology after the United States, which not only achieved zero breakthrough in domestic products.* It has also established the Group's leading position in the development of *third generation of super large array infrared detector components*. (Wei Shuling, Shang Sujuan)



Dazzler said:


> First, i seriously doubt if China even produces second generation thermal sights, especially those comparable to Catherine. Provide some info to prove me wrong but Al khalid is outfitted with Catherine and even thirf generation matis imagers. Do you know that Al khalid also uses Sagem Matis, a third generation thermal imager in some command mbts?





Dazzler said:


> YEs, they do. All their Armatas, upgraded t-80s, 72s and 90s have French thermal imagers. Developing one is by no means easy but somehow China came up with second and even third generation TIs. Where is the data?


@Dazzler

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> *Xinhua*:http://www.xinhuanet.com/mil/2018-01/10/c_129787467.htm
> 
> *Google Translate:*
> January 10, 2018 15:15:07
> 
> View attachment 494581
> 
> *The picture shows an infrared image detected with a 2.7K x 2.7K infrared focal plane detector.*
> 
> Recently, after overcoming a number of technical difficulties, 11 technical teams of China Electronics Division successfully developed short-wave and medium-wave single-chip 2.7K×2.7K infrared focal plane detectors, and carried out imaging demonstrations with good results. The successful development of the detector marks a major breakthrough in the development of three generations of super-large array infrared detectors by China Electronics, filling the domestic single-chip 2K×2K array scale infrared detector blank, representing the highest in the country and the world advanced. Level.
> 
> Infrared detection detects the thermal radiation of the target object itself, converts the difference between the temperature and the emissivity of the object into a video image signal, and obtains infrared imaging of the target object. It is a passive detection, which has good concealment, anti-interference, easy identification, camouflage, and rich information. Advantages, widely used in early warning detection, search and tracking, astronomical observation, remote sensing, maritime rescue, medicine and other fields.
> 
> Infrared focal plane detector is the core component of infrared imaging system. This short-wave and medium-wave single-chip 2.7K×2.7K detector is a high-sensitivity cooling infrared focal plane detector, involving materials, chips and integrated circuit design. Various disciplines such as refrigeration and packaging are extremely difficult. Previously, single-chip 2K×2K array-scale infrared focal plane detectors were only mastered by individual countries.
> 
> *The successful development of China's electric short-wave and medium-wave single-chip 2.7K×2.7K infrared focal plane detectors has made China the second country to master this technology after the United States, which not only achieved zero breakthrough in domestic products.* It has also established the Group's leading position in the development of *third generation of super large array infrared detector components*. (Wei Shuling, Shang Sujuan)
> 
> 
> 
> @Dazzler



Good share. Some little known info there. Any info on performance and shelf life, wavebands, search and detection ranges? The VT-4 optics were pretty basic and had low shelf life. They had a tough competition in thales and safran.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

ptldM3 said:


> I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the T-14 does not use French thermal imagers. Kazan manufacturers domestic thermal imagers for both T-14 and T-15.
> 
> View attachment 494460
> View attachment 494461
> 
> 
> Commander and gunner have their own displays; unique ones only found in T-14. The driver has one display that looks similar to those found on T-90. So far that display has shown none imagery information.
> 
> 
> View attachment 494459
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 494527



The black display unit is clearly belongs to Thales TI.


Look at the display monitors... too close for comfort right?


Armata TI sight display..







Catherine FC onboard Al khalid during testing of reduced IR signature paint.






There is no difference between the two.




Rosoboronexport got hold of 1000 units from France back in 2008. Not all went into 80s and 90s.

https://lenta.ru/news/2008/07/09/thermal/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Dazzler said:


> The black display unit is clearly belongs to Thales TI.
> 
> 
> Look at the display monitors... too close for comfort right?





Monitor(s)? The monitor on the drivers side is the same or similar to the ones found in T-90s and don't even appear like the ones Thales offers. Even if it was a French display the thermals are not French nor are the rest of the displays that commander and shooter have, which I will show again the difference because you still don't get it.







Dazzler said:


> Armata TI sight display..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catherine FC onboard Al khalid during testing of reduced IR signature paint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no difference between the two.






There is no difference between the two if you are blind. Your logic-- both have cross hairs, therefore they must be French. If you actually look closely the cross hairs are different, the box outside the crosshairs are different, ballistic information is different, font size is different, and the icon on the upper right hand side is missing on the Thales monitor. The actual displays are totally different too.

But yea other then that there is no difference 




T-90 in Syria with Thales sight:








T-14 with Kazan sight:









Totally the same 





Dazzler said:


> Rosoboronexport got hold of 1000 units from France back in 2008. Not all went into 80s and 90s.





1000 units is not enough to equip:

T-90
T-90M
T-80BMV
T-72B3
T-14
T-15
Boomerang
Kurgantes-25


God must be raining down Thales sights because they seem to be everywhere:








You spoke without knowing enough about the state of the T-14 or the Russian thermal sight industry, you have been throughly debunked and discredited but because you are too stubborn to admit your mistake, you keep on pushing ridiculous propaganda that you yourself know is weak. I have sources and proof, you have nothing. Your argument is posting two different monitors and claiming they are somehow the same depite the fact that they are are very different.





Once again, T-14 uses Kazan sight, let's compare the Kazan sight itself to the Thales one:


*Kazan*:







*Thales*:








I guess the link below just means Kazan is lying, you have cracked the case. Kazan must have copied the Thales system but made it look totally different to fool people on the internet.


http://prokazan.ru/news/view/101756

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

ptldM3 said:


> Monitor(s)? The monitor on the drivers side is the same or similar to the ones found in T-90s and don't even appear like the ones Thales offers. Even if it was a French display the thermals are not French nor are the rest of the displays that commander and shooter have, which I will show again the difference because you still don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no difference between the two if you are blind. Your logic-- both have cross hairs, therefore they must be French. If you actually look closely the cross hairs are different, the box outside the crosshairs are different, ballistic information is different, font size is different, and the icon on the upper right hand side is missing on the Thales monitor. The actual displays are totally different too.
> 
> But yea other then that there is no difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90 in Syria with Thales sight:
> 
> 
> View attachment 494916
> 
> 
> 
> T-14 with Kazan sight:
> 
> 
> View attachment 494915
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1000 units is not enough to equip:
> 
> T-90
> T-90M
> T-80BMV
> T-72B3
> T-14
> T-15
> Boomerang
> Kurgantes-25
> 
> 
> God must be raining down Thales sights because they seem to be everywhere:
> 
> 
> View attachment 494930
> 
> 
> 
> You spoke without knowing enough about the state of the T-14 or the Russian thermal sight industry, you have been throughly debunked and discredited but because you are too stubborn to admit your mistake, you keep on pushing ridiculous propaganda that you yourself know is weak. I have sources and proof, you have nothing. Your argument is posting two different monitors and claiming they are somehow the same depite the fact that they are are very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, T-14 uses Kazan sight, let's compare the Kazan sight itself to the Thales one:
> 
> 
> *Kazan*:
> 
> View attachment 494914
> 
> 
> 
> *Thales*:
> 
> View attachment 494917
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the link below just means Kazan is lying, you have cracked the case. Kazan must have copied the Thales system but made it look totally different to fool people on the internet.
> 
> 
> http://prokazan.ru/news/view/101756




Thoroughly debunked?? Where? What proof you provided that debunked my assumption?? All you provided was an image and a link that Kazan is making the TI matrix LATELY! They barely began making decent 2nd gen TI since two years.

Feel some shame if you have any before making tall claims, as huge number of your mbt/ IFV fleet uses French sights, including those you export. If ARmata uses Russian sights, why it uses them with a French made monitor?

There is no shame in admitting the obvious.

You compared Kazan TI with Catherine FC. How about this one?

Co incidence that they look almost the same?






Funnily, the link you provided has this written under the pic. I guess you overlooked..

*At present, surveillance systems that will become analogues of French thermal imagers are being tested, and in the future they will be equipped with T-14 tanks
*
In other words, the sights are not in service yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

ptldM3 said:


> Monitor(s)? The monitor on the drivers side is the same or similar to the ones found in T-90s and don't even appear like the ones Thales offers. Even if it was a French display the thermals are not French nor are the rest of the displays that commander and shooter have, which I will show again the difference because you still don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no difference between the two if you are blind. Your logic-- both have cross hairs, therefore they must be French. If you actually look closely the cross hairs are different, the box outside the crosshairs are different, ballistic information is different, font size is different, and the icon on the upper right hand side is missing on the Thales monitor. The actual displays are totally different too.
> 
> But yea other then that there is no difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90 in Syria with Thales sight:
> 
> 
> View attachment 494916
> 
> 
> 
> T-14 with Kazan sight:
> 
> 
> View attachment 494915
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1000 units is not enough to equip:
> 
> T-90
> T-90M
> T-80BMV
> T-72B3
> T-14
> T-15
> Boomerang
> Kurgantes-25
> 
> 
> God must be raining down Thales sights because they seem to be everywhere:
> 
> 
> View attachment 494930
> 
> 
> 
> You spoke without knowing enough about the state of the T-14 or the Russian thermal sight industry, you have been throughly debunked and discredited but because you are too stubborn to admit your mistake, you keep on pushing ridiculous propaganda that you yourself know is weak. I have sources and proof, you have nothing. Your argument is posting two different monitors and claiming they are somehow the same depite the fact that they are are very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, T-14 uses Kazan sight, let's compare the Kazan sight itself to the Thales one:
> 
> 
> *Kazan*:
> 
> View attachment 494914
> 
> 
> 
> *Thales*:
> 
> View attachment 494917
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the link below just means Kazan is lying, you have cracked the case. Kazan must have copied the Thales system but made it look totally different to fool people on the internet.
> 
> 
> http://prokazan.ru/news/view/101756





Catherine XP thermal camera at the gunner's station

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## khanasifm

__ https://www.facebook.com/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

VT-4












150HB engine

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 帅的一匹

Russians always have their own way to figure it out. so dont worry.


----------



## LKJ86

The new video of Thailand VT-4:
https://m.weibo.cn/2348604107/4322268085584298

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AsifIjaz

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 540210
> View attachment 540211
> View attachment 540212
> View attachment 540213
> View attachment 540214


Looks like a defense exhibition.. Can you please elaborate...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

AsifIjaz said:


> Looks like a defense exhibition.. Can you please elaborate...


IDEX 2019

The IFV about 50 tons is based on VT-4 tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## monitor

_

_


_Homepage_
_Top News_

_bengalidesk in FeaturedLatest NewsTop Newsআন্তর্জাতিক_
_*ভারত দিল আতিথেয়তা, ‘উপহার’ পেল পাকিস্তান! ইসলামাবাদকে ৩০০টি ট্যাঙ্ক দিচ্ছে বেজিং*








*মহানগর ওয়েবডেস্ক:* পুলওয়ামা হামলা হোক কী কাশ্মীর ইস্যু, সবেতেই পাকিস্তানের পাশে দাঁড়িয়েছে চিন। এমনকি পাকিস্তানের সুরে সুর মিলিয়ে জম্মু-কাশ্মীরের দিকে নজর রাখার কথাও বলা হয়েছে বেজিং-এর তরফে। তবে চিনা প্রেসিডেন্টের হঠাৎ ভারত সফর দুই রাষ্ট্রের সম্পর্ক সঠিক জায়গায় আনবে বলে মনে করেছিলেন অনেকেই। কিন্তু কোথায় কী? ভারতে তৃপ্তি পেলেও বন্ধুত্বের উপহার সেই পাকিস্তানকেই দিচ্ছেন চিনা প্রেসিডেন্ট। ইমরান সরকারকে ৩০০টি অত্যাধুনিক ট্যাঙ্ক দেওয়ার কথা ঘোষণা করেছে বেজিং।


জানা গিয়েছে, পাকিস্তান সেনার হাতে ৩০০টি ‘ভিটি-৪’ ট্যাঙ্ক তুলে দিতে চলেছে বেজিং। এর পাশাপাশি বিভিন্ন প্রযুক্তিও হস্তান্তর করবে তারা। জম্মু-কাশ্মীর ইস্যুতে পাকিস্তানকে সমর্থন করে আসা চিন এই পদক্ষেপ নিয়ে যে তাদের মধ্যেই সম্পর্ক আরও গাঢ় করল তা বলাই বাহুল্য। ভারত সফরে এসে প্রধানমন্ত্রীর সঙ্গে সৌজন্য দেখালেও চিন নিজেদের অবস্থানে অনড়ই থাকল। উল্লেখ্য, দক্ষিণ কোরিয়া, রাশিয়া থেকে ট্যাঙ্ক কিনতে আগ্রহী হয়েছিল পাকিস্তান। কিন্তু তাদের তুলনায় এই চিনা ট্যাঙ্ক অনেক সস্তা। তাই সেইদিকেই মন দিল ইসলামাবাদ সরকার।

আন্তর্জাতিক মঞ্চে বিগত কিছু মাস ধরেই ভারত-পাকিস্তান সম্পর্কে যে টানাপোড়েন চলছে তাতে সরাসরি হস্তক্ষেপ না করলেও ভারত বিরোধী মনোভাবই দেখিয়েছিল শি জিংপিং নেতৃত্ব। তবে ভারতের সঙ্গে সুসম্পর্ক গড়ে তুলতে উদ্যোগী হওয়া চিনা সরকারের প্রধান শি-এর এদেশ সফর নয়া মোড় তৈরি করবে বলেই মনে করছিল বিশেষজ্ঞরা। কিন্তু সেই পাকিস্তানের দিকে ঢলেই চিন যে সিদ্ধান্ত নিল তাতে একটা বিষয় স্পষ্ট, অবস্থান কোনওভাবেই বদল করতে রাজি নয় বেজিং।_

_CHINAindiapakistantank



*bengalidesk*:
_
Metropolitan Webdesk: Whether the Pulwama attack is the issue of Kashmir, China is barely standing by Pakistan. Even in Pakistan, the focus is on Jammu and Kashmir, with Beijing saying. However, many thought the sudden visit of the Chinese president to India would bring relations between the two countries to the right place. But where? China is giving Pakistan the gift of friendship even though India is satisfied. Beijing has announced five sophisticated tanks to the Imran government.


*It has been reported that Beijing is about to release 300 'VT-4' tanks in the hands of Pakistani troops. Besides, they will transfer technologies.* Needless to say, China, which has backed Pakistan in the Jammu and Kashmir issue, has deepened ties between them in this step. While visiting India, the Prime Minister showed courtesy, but China remained firm in its position. It should be noted that Pakistan was interested in buying tanks from South Korea, Russia. But these Chinese tanks are much cheaper than them. That is why the government of Islamabad gave its heart.

Xi Jinping's leadership showed the anti-India sentiment, even though it did not directly interfere with the tensions that had been going on about Indo-Pakistan for the past few months on the international stage. Experts, however, believed that the visit of the Chinese government's chief Shi, who is zealous for establishing good relations with India, would create a new turning point. But one of the things that China decided to do when it came to Pakistan was clear: Beijing is not willing to change its position.


----------



## gangsta_rap

If it is true then BD folks might follow suit.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## khansaheeb

India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Paklower

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.


Its u

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## khansaheeb

Paklower said:


> Its u


Y u ?


----------



## Safriz

I hope it's fake news . Too much reliance on any foreign country is bad.
We have our own Al Khalid , which can be upgraded

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Riz

شاھین میزایل said:


> I hope it's fake news . Too much reliance on any foreign country is bad.
> We have our own Al Khalid , which can be upgraded


What else wr can do?? We have been waiting for our AL-khalid 2 since ages.. And still its not ready yet.. We have no option other then go to Russian or Chinese tank


----------



## Shabi1

Its a stop gap order while Al-Khalid-2 is still in development. As per MOD T-80Us being upgraded and they will get Oplot level modifications. So PA getting all three VT-4, T-84 Oplot and Al-Khalid-2. Besides these the Al-Zarrar program is still progressing and T-85s being modded as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## War Thunder

khansaheeb said:


> Y u ?





khansaheeb said:


> Y u ?





We buy what we need. We don't need anything special to counter Rafael.
We have flown F-16 without a BVR for decades against SU-30MKI's and didn't feel insecure nor did the indians feel they can come and blow shit up. What makes you think we have something to be worried about just becaus ethey have Rafael's now? We can still create a better EW environment in any part of our land and outshoot and outrange the Rafael's with our combination of sensors and AA missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Shabi1

War Thunder said:


> We buy what we need. We don't need anything special to counter Rafael.
> We have flown F-16 without a BVR for decades against SU-30MKI's and didn't feel insecure nor did the indians feel they can come and blow shit up. What makes you think we have something to be worried about just becaus ethey have Rafael's now? We can still create a better EW environment in any part of our land and outshoot and outrange the Rafael's with our combination of sensors and AA missiles.



JF-17 B3 can counter rafael, PL-15 equipped PAF is more of a threat to InAF. And why PAF is saving up money.
https://quwa.org/2019/10/12/pakistan-makes-progress-on-next-gen-fighter-program-2/
"The CAS had also revealed the current Air Staff Requirements (ASR) of the FGFA, i.e., a “twin-engine single-seater, boasting the likes of super-cruise and laser weapons (directed energy weapons).”[3] Thus, the FGFA is not only a clean-sheet design, but currently slated as a medium-to-heavyweight, high-performance jet."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Umar Nazir

immediate threat which Pakistan have to face is a frequent air attack from indian air force in Azad Kashmir. Therefore focus should be on air power and air defence system rather than tanks and other army/Naval equipment. Pakistan should buy at least 50 J10c which can counter Refale

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Yaseen1

i think indian rafale have more capabiity to penetrate inside our airspace than mirage 2000 so there are high chances of future air strikes by india after may 2020 when they receive 7 rafales,we should be better prepared for this threat and buy at least 8 to 10 fully operational jets from china before may 2020,it will take time for development of jf17 block 3 so we should focus on short term measures to deal with indian threat















Umar Nazir said:


> immediate threat which Pakistan have to face is a frequent air attack from indian air force in Azad Kashmir. Therefore focus should be on air power and air defence system rather than tanks and other army/Naval equipment. Pakistan should buy at least 50 J10c which can counter Refale

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Trango Towers

Yaseen1 said:


> i think indian rafale have more capabiity to penetrate inside our airspace than mirage 2000 so there are high chances of future air strikes by india after may 2020 when they receive 7 rafales,we should be better prepared for this threat and buy at least 8 to 10 fully operational jets from china before may 2020,it will take time for development of jf17 block 3 so we should focus on short term measures to deal with indian threat


Yes they may strike again but the response will be dire for them.
I saw how Pakistan came together in feb. For the 1st time in my life is was truly proud of this country and it's people. Jf17s flying over our house. People making dua for them. It was incredible. You cant defeat nations like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Zarvan

شاھین میزایل said:


> I hope it's fake news . Too much reliance on any foreign country is bad.
> We have our own Al Khalid , which can be upgraded


News most likely is true. Yes we are getting VT 4 tanks and we have Al Khalid but we need a new Tank to replace lot of old tanks which we have. Not all old tanks can be upgraded.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Type59

Bad move


----------



## Safriz

Riz said:


> What else wr can do?? We have been waiting for our AL-khalid 2 since ages.. And still its not ready yet.. We have no option other then go to Russian or Chinese tank


Al Khalid is a victim of lack of funds. Very less funds were dedicated to production of Al Khalid.
Situation is still the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TOTUU

Yaseen1 said:


> i think indian rafale have more capabiity to penetrate inside our airspace than mirage 2000 so there are high chances of future air strikes by india after may 2020 when they receive 7 rafales,we should be better prepared for this threat and buy at least 8 to 10 fully operational jets from china before may 2020,it will take time for development of jf17 block 3 so we should focus on short term measures to deal with indian threat






bought the J10 fighter , which means that when the war occurs, it can be collected from the Chinese Air Force .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Char

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.



New jets are not ready, but air defense missiles were ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

Only explanation can be the fact that Pak military is expecting a high intensity conflict on IB with India in next 3-4 years. That keeping in mind the fact that in 2023 Modi will again be contesting elections, possibility is there.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Umar Nazir

tanks battles are history. Now War will be the war of fighter jets and air defence system and later it will be converted to Missiles and maybe Nukes. Pakistan should allocate 50% defence budget for Air Force

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ali_Baba

If this new is "true" then it is bad news, and not what Pakistan needs right now. Pakistan needs a stronger airforce, they are better off buying 50 more Block II JF17s (Block III may take time to debug etc) then 400 tanks.... lets see if this turns out to be true or not ..


----------



## Imran Khan

they always talk and not buy tanks no issue

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## xyxmt

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.



because their planes are no threat to Pakistan.


----------



## JonAsad

Yaseen1 said:


> so there are high chances of future air strikes by india after may 2020 when they receive 7 rafales


We will have to wait for a decade to see Rafaels in action - such prize possessions indians will not risk it early - same as ill famed MKIs -


----------



## ZedZeeshan

Paklower said:


> Its u


Nice answer..!!


----------



## denel

Imran Khan said:


> they always talk and not buy tanks no issue


Indian sources are not credible; i dont see why they would waste resources of stop gap tank measures. Instead focus should be on tank hunter killers.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Type59 said:


> Bad move


Why the funk are people believing a local Bangladeshi portal?

AK-II is around the corner and we have almost 600 AKs. After that AK-II enters production.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## monitor

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Why the funk are people believing a local Bangladeshi portal?
> 
> AK-II is around the corner and we have almost 600 AKs. After that AK-II enters production.


 This portal is from your neighbour India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nasr

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.



They can buy anything they want, we will fight the enemy on our terms, our time and place of chosing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

denel said:


> Indian sources are not credible; i dont see why they would waste resources of stop gap tank measures. Instead focus should be on tank hunter killers.


in real world there is no stop gap in tanks sir . once you buy tanks you have to use them next 40 years or more . this news is another joke . specially when AK-1 production is going on as per gov opened docs 


The low-rate production of 20 Al-Khalid I tanks, plus the final-stage development of the Al-Khalid II (featuring an enhanced power pack and fire-control/gun-control system).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mahmood-ur-Rehman

Bad decision if correct only if TOT and local production

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Danish Moazzam

Yaseen1 said:


> i think indian rafale have more capabiity to penetrate inside our airspace than mirage 2000 so there are high chances of future air strikes by india after may 2020 when they receive 7 rafales,we should be better prepared for this threat and buy at least 8 to 10 fully operational jets from china before may 2020,it will take time for development of jf17 block 3 so we should focus on short term measures to deal with indian threat



Can you imagine the psychological impact India will get if it losses one of those jets?? It will be a white elephant for atleast a few years till they have all 36.

India will never risk sending in one of those jets if it has inventory of only 7 jets, plus if the talks of Aesa (already tested) on blk-2 plus upgraded Aesa on Blk-03 are correct with pairing to PL-15, then the F-16+JF-17 combo with all the AWACS and EW aircraft Rafale will not have an easy time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yaseen1

Danish Moazzam said:


> Can you imagine the psychological impact India will get if it losses one of those jets?? It will be a white elephant for atleast a few years till they have all 36.
> 
> India will never risk sending in one of those jets if it has inventory of only 7 jets, plus if the talks of Aesa (already tested) on blk-2 plus upgraded Aesa on Blk-03 are correct with pairing to PL-15, then the F-16+JF-17 combo with all the AWACS and EW aircraft Rafale will not have an easy time.


India had successfully used mirage 2000 without interception at balakot strikes , they can do the same by using rafale which is more capable, they will not use rafale for dogfight or engagement but for carrying out strikes at our ground as rafale has much better jammers which may disable or delay detection by radars


----------



## monitor

Mahmood-ur-Rehman said:


> Bad decision if correct only if TOT and local production



Its coming with TOT and Local production .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Fake news

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Archie

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.



India ordered the Rafales in September 2016, we have now just started taking the Deliveries for the same

This order appear more to be a response to recent Indian order for 464 T90MS tanks which are meant to replace the 468 T-72A tanks which were not updated to the Ajeya Standard and are now in storage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viper27

Yaseen1 said:


> India had successfully used mirage 2000 without interception at balakot strikes , they can do the same by using rafale which is more capable, they will not use rafale for dogfight or engagement but for carrying out strikes at our ground as rafale has much better jammers which may disable or delay detection by radars



Don’t know whether you know what happened at Balakot or what your definition of “successful” is but you clearly don’t seem to have any idea.

The only reason their jets “successfully” left Balakot with their tails between their legs is due to PAF interception. SOP’s developed by PAF are primarily based around the Air Space Agreement with India of 1991 which, during peacetime, allows fighter jets of both sides to operate within 5kms of the LoC if taking off from a FOB. That means that effectively both sides can use supersonic jets to cross LoC for a short span of time from that distance & turn back without fear of being shot down immediately. Also, the political environment at the time had to be considered which called for restraint should IAF jets turn back which is what they did once locked on to by PAF jets. That also explains why they jettisoned their payload to ensure the aircraft was light enough to get back before PAF’s patience ran out.

Oh and IAF is buying advanced air to air BVR missiles with the Rafales so I am pretty sure those are not meant to be used for ground strikes only. 

Please avoid posting if you really don’t know the background of what your talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S.Y.A

Umar Nazir said:


> tanks battles are history. Now War will be the war of fighter jets and air defence system and later it will be converted to Missiles and maybe Nukes. Pakistan should allocate 50% defence budget for Air Force


maybe that is why US has sh*t tonnes of tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haris Ali2140

S.Y.A said:


> maybe that is why US has sh*t tonnes of tanks.


Tanks are for invasion only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S.Y.A

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.


Pakistani armour is (mostly)old. it consists of type 69s, type 85s and whatnot. we need those tanks as well.


----------



## Hayreddin

Yaseen1 said:


> i think indian rafale have more capabiity to penetrate inside our airspace than mirage 2000 so there are high chances of future air strikes by india after may 2020 when they receive 7 rafales,we should be better prepared for this threat and buy at least 8 to 10 fully operational jets from china before may 2020,it will take time for development of jf17 block 3 so we should focus on short term measures to deal with indian threat



New fighter jets induction requires years to get operational . Rafael is non threat at the moment ateast for next 2 years . Jets r not like cars u go buy and drive . Its take time . 
J10 doesnt offer any thing new . Jft is filling gap . Jft3 will be here but even our pilots need time to get used to Aesa radar and other new tech of jet. 

VT4 was under trial in PA for quite sometime so wont be surprised for any induction in PA . 

Any war btw india pak within next 12 months if fought wld be within the capacity and capability of current weaponry . 
Only IN enjoy the superiority edge which falls in the parameters of offensive capacity which even can be neutralize by other factors . 
IA and IAF terribly lacks this offensive capability against PA and PAF .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Archie

S.Y.A said:


> maybe that is why US has sh*t tonnes of tanks.



Tanks are useful but they are no longer the sword that wins the war
UK and France barely have 500 tanks each and Germany which once had 50000 MBT during World war 2, now operates barely 300 tanks,. Which is less number of Leapord tanks than their export customer Saudi Arabia 
Even Indian Army has reduced the number of MBTs from over


----------



## S.Y.A

Archie said:


> Tanks are useful but they are no longer the sword that wins the war
> UK and France barely have 500 tanks each and Germany which once had 50000 MBT during World war 2, now operates barely 300 tanks,. Which is less number of Leapord tanks than their export customer Saudi Arabia
> Even Indian Army has reduced the number of MBTs from over


that is because Germany, France, Uk are no longer fighting each other. and they know that the US will jump in in any future conflict with Russia. Plus, their forces will be operating with each other, so their lesser numbers will operate together.

and on that topic, their airforces have also shrunk over the years. they hardly have 200-300 jets each. looking at those numbers, one can argue that airforces are obsolete too.


----------



## Archie

S.Y.A said:


> that is because Germany, France, Uk are no longer fighting each other. and they know that the US will jump in in any future conflict with Russia. Plus, their forces will be operating with each other, so their lesser numbers will operate together.
> 
> and on that topic, their airforces have also shrunk over the years. they hardly have 200-300 jets each. looking at those numbers, one can argue that airforces are obsolete too.



Well fighter numbers have gone down world wide over the last several decades mainly due rapid rise in the price of advance fighters
IAF had over 1200 fighters in late 1970s mainly due to the fact that Mig21 used to only cost Rs 2 crores.
That number declined to 630 in 2018, that's because a mid level fighter today costs Rs 450 crores while a high end one will cost upward of 700 crores

UK and Germany mainly operates the Eurofighter, and are replacing their Tornadoes with F35 which are even more expensive
France has Rafale and Mirage 2000 and in future will only field 280 Rafales

All these are very expensive advanced fighters , hence the reason why UK France and Germany only field 220-300 fighters

Given the choice, Indian Airforce would rather have a fleet of 450 Rafales F4s spread across 24 squadrons , rather than a fleet of 680 fighters in 34 squadrons comprising 5 different aircrafts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alibaz

Umar Nazir said:


> tanks battles are history. Now War will be the war of fighter jets and air defence system and later it will be converted to Missiles and maybe Nukes. Pakistan should allocate 50% defence budget for Air Force



It seems histordy because you see US attacking Iraq or Libya where nothing can be compared either qualitatively or quantitatively, still they needed, infantry, APCs and tanks to occupy grounds. In our case, certain degree of parity exist, therefore, won't be easy going for Indians. As far as we are concerned we need all type of equipments required for ground, water or air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S.Y.A

Archie said:


> Well fighter numbers have gone down world wide over the last several decades mainly due rapid rise in the price of advance fighters
> IAF had over 1200 fighters in late 1970s mainly due to the fact that Mig21 used to only cost Rs 2 crores.
> That number declined to 630 in 2018, that's because a mid level fighter today costs Rs 450 crores while a high end one will cost upward of 700 crores
> 
> UK and Germany mainly operates the Eurofighter, and are replacing their Tornadoes with F35 which are even more expensive
> France has Rafale and Mirage 2000 and in future will only field 280 Rafales
> 
> All these are very expensive advanced fighters , hence the reason why UK France and Germany only field 220-300 fighters
> 
> Given the choice, Indian Airforce would rather have a fleet of 450 Rafales F4s spread across 24 squadrons , rather than a fleet of 680 fighters in 34 squadrons comprising 5 different aircrafts


Still doesnt change the fact that they will be fighting together, if they fight at all, against a well armed enemy and not against weak states and rag tag groups. so a limited number of advanced tanks makes sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umar Nazir

S.Y.A said:


> maybe that is why US has sh*t tonnes of tanks.


exactly


----------



## S.Y.A

also, their focus is mainly on the navy, in Pakistan's case, our coastline is limited, navy's only goal is area denial. and an indo-pak war will see huge land battles. so, (good)tanks are needed, with appropriate air cover of course.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Umar Nazir

alibaz said:


> It seems history because you see US attacking Iraq or Libya where nothing can be compared either qualitatively or quantitatively, still they needed, infantry, APCs and tanks to occupy grounds. In our certain degree of parity exist therefore, won't be easy going for Indians. As far as we are concerned we need all type of equipments required for ground, water or air.


Indians will do air force attack when ever their 10-15 soldiers will be killed in occupied Kashmir. so immediate threat to Pakistan is from Indian air force . As both countries have nuclear weapons, so the chance of full fledged war where tanks can be involved is near to impossible


----------



## alibaz

Umar Nazir said:


> Indians will do air force attack when ever their 10-15 soldiers will be killed in occupied Kashmir. so immediate threat to Pakistan is from Indian air force . As both countries have nuclear weapons, so the chance of full fledged war where tanks can be involved is near to impossible



Normally air forces have their own target list, first they try to neutralize those and then turn to ground forces. God forbid if things go beyond skirmishes or minor operation along LoC then you will see tanks and guns roaring from both sides.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yaseen1

Viper27 said:


> Don’t know whether you know what happened at Balakot or what your definition of “successful” is but you clearly don’t seem to have any idea.
> 
> The only reason their jets “successfully” left Balakot with their tails between their legs is due to PAF interception. SOP’s developed by PAF are primarily based around the Air Space Agreement with India of 1991 which, during peacetime, allows fighter jets of both sides to operate within 5kms of the LoC if taking off from a FOB. That means that effectively both sides can use supersonic jets to cross LoC for a short span of time from that distance & turn back without fear of being shot down immediately. Also, the political environment at the time had to be considered which called for restraint should IAF jets turn back which is what they did once locked on to by PAF jets. That also explains why they jettisoned their payload to ensure the aircraft was light enough to get back before PAF’s patience ran out.
> 
> Oh and IAF is buying advanced air to air BVR missiles with the Rafales so I am pretty sure those are not meant to be used for ground strikes only.
> 
> Please avoid posting if you really don’t know the background of what your talking about.


I think when jets dropped payload there was no reason by our jets not to shoot them down after locking them down and also balakot is not near border area like loc or working boundry , it is more inside our territory so not downing them after interception raises questions .Rafale is much more capable jet than mirage2000 so I am not saying that Paf is not good airforce but at the same time we should not become ignorant of our weaknesses and limitations and learn from what happened in past to be better prepared for future


----------



## Aasimkhan

Umar Nazir said:


> immediate threat which Pakistan have to face is a frequent air attack from indian air force in Azad Kashmir. Therefore focus should be on air power and air defence system rather than tanks and other army/Naval equipment. Pakistan should buy at least 50 J10c which can counter Refale


What will be next step after air attack ? With in 24 hours tanks will be banging against each other so dont think tanks are not important, you have to take care of each step of ESCALATION LADDER.


----------



## maximuswarrior

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.



This acquisition should be seen in a separate context to Rafale. Pakistan will take necessary steps to address the Rafale threat.


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

So is azm supposed to be an aircraft from star wars??

Which wont be far from reality. Raytheon already tested laser pods on Apaches.


Shabi1 said:


> JF-17 B3 can counter rafael, PL-15 equipped PAF is more of a threat to InAF. And why PAF is saving up money.
> https://quwa.org/2019/10/12/pakistan-makes-progress-on-next-gen-fighter-program-2/
> "The CAS had also revealed the current Air Staff Requirements (ASR) of the FGFA, i.e., a “twin-engine single-seater, boasting the likes of super-cruise and laser weapons (directed energy weapons).”[3] Thus, the FGFA is not only a clean-sheet design, but currently slated as a medium-to-heavyweight, high-performance jet."



S400/500, Hisar, pantsi or hq series would have been much more sensible than a few tanks. I don't like Bajwa and his "make a choice argument".


----------



## Zapper

Why are all Pakistanis comparing the VT4 acquisition to that of Rafale or S-400 or the likes? Infact, India is locally producing 400+ T-90 Bhishmas in a new deal and this move might be a response to that. 

Also, there have been reports of PA looking at the Ukrainian Oplot until recently and the VT4 might have been selected instead since Thailand also acquired it recently

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khafee

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.


What makes you think an MOU for fighter jets wasn't signed?

@Horus

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## maverick1977

S.Y.A said:


> also, their focus is mainly on the navy, in Pakistan's case, our coastline is limited, navy's only goal is area denial. and an indo-pak war will see huge land battles. so, (good)tanks are needed, with appropriate air cover of course.



if you want to relieve pressure on main land pakistan. you need a strong navy followed by Wasp Class marine assault carriers.. 4 of them can open a front north of Mumbai between Gujrat and Marhashtra. 4 Wasp means 1 brigade landing. Pakistan is raising 16 thousand Marines, 1 Div strength. do you know how much havoc can you create with that new front ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khansaheeb

maverick1977 said:


> if you want to relieve pressure on main land pakistan. you need a strong navy followed by Wasp Class marine assault carriers.. 4 of them can open a front north of Mumbai between Gujrat and Marhashtra. 4 Wasp means 1 brigade landing. Pakistan is raising 16 thousand Marines, 1 Div strength. do you know how much havoc can you create with that new front ?


Once you have landed then what? Do you not realise the complexity of maintaining a supply line whilst being bombarded with every the Indians have got?



maximuswarrior said:


> This acquisition should be seen in a separate context to Rafale. Pakistan will take necessary steps to address the Rafale threat.


I hope so for Pakistan's sake.



Danish Moazzam said:


> Can you imagine the psychological impact India will get if it losses one of those jets?? It will be a white elephant for atleast a few years till they have all 36.
> 
> India will never risk sending in one of those jets if it has inventory of only 7 jets, plus if the talks of Aesa (already tested) on blk-2 plus upgraded Aesa on Blk-03 are correct with pairing to PL-15, then the F-16+JF-17 combo with all the AWACS and EW aircraft Rafale will not have an easy time.


We need to plan for the worst case not fantasise and gloat of the positive possible outcomes. It should be full panic stations , alarm bells ringing and we should be aiming for JF18 or J20s.



Haris Ali2140 said:


> Tanks are for invasion only.


Yes, it's for taking fire power to the enemy at (relatively) close range and at speed.


----------



## crankthatskunk

khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.



I cannot say I know the reason for buying tanks and not jets. 
But as much as I am concerned, there is no valid point to get worried about Rafale, despite knowing the fact it is a good machine. But not extra ordinary machine. 
Otherwise why wouldn't the world buying Rafale, except the Egyptians and Qatris!! 

When comparison presented between Rafale and F 16, there was not much difference. 
The Meteor can be handle by PL 15 on JF 17. F 16 would be protected by JF 17 in any BVR battles, to take care of Rafale from a distance before Rafale able to use its own longer range Meteor.


----------



## khansaheeb

crankthatskunk said:


> I cannot say I know the reason for buying tanks and not jets.
> But as much as I am concerned, there is no valid point to get worried about Rafale, despite knowing the fact it is a good machine. But not extra ordinary machine.
> Otherwise why wouldn't the world buying Rafale, except the Egyptians and Qatris!!
> 
> When comparison presented between Rafale and F 16, there was not much difference.
> The Meteor can be handle by PL 15 on JF 17. F 16 would be protected by JF 17 in any BVR battles, to take care of Rafale from a distance before Rafale able to use its own longer range Meteor.


I am not for taking risks but having a tested counter. If India obtains 100 Rafales then we must buy 100 of something that is twice as good, whether we like it or not we are in an arms race , and rightly so, with that Nazi RSS next door.


----------



## Novice09

Yaseen1 said:


> i think indian rafale have more capabiity to penetrate inside our airspace than mirage 2000 so there are high chances of future air strikes by india after may 2020 when they receive 7 rafales,we should be better prepared for this threat and buy at least 8 to 10 fully operational jets from china before may 2020,it will take time for development of jf17 block 3 so we should focus on short term measures to deal with indian threat



Ask some experts... you don't start using jets in offensive role as soon as you receive them... yes the induction would be swift but won't be like that...


----------



## Umar Nazir

Aasimkhan said:


> What will be next step after air attack ? With in 24 hours tanks will be banging against each other so dont think tanks are not important, you have to take care of each step of ESCALATION LADDER.


as both countries are nuclear . so full fledged war is impossible, but after 26 feb 2019 indians will feel no hesitation to launch air strikes again and again until Pakistan improve its air defence and Air power


----------



## Novice09

Umar Nazir said:


> as both countries are nuclear . so full fledged war is impossible, but after 26 feb 2019 indians will feel no hesitation to launch air strikes again and again until Pakistan improve its air defence and Air power



I don't think that India and Pakistan are going to start a full fledged war... can you remember the slogan of crossing LOC on 4th October... what happened... containers to contain the march...

Both leadership's are ready to convert the LOC into International Border... and current war on LOC is just a hogwash...
If both sides are destroying the posts of each other... why they are not capturing them...

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1


----------



## Signalian

S.Y.A said:


> Pakistani armour is (mostly)old. it consists of type 69s, type 85s and whatnot. we need those tanks as well.


T-85 is a formidable Tank. T-69 has been handed over to FC.



Type 85 III Tank of Pakistan
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/type-85-iii-tank-of-pakistan.391926/


Major Up gradation of Type 85 and Type 69 of Pakistan Army
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/majo...85-and-type-69-of-pakistan-army.316644/page-2

Pics
https://defence.pk/pdf/media/categories/t-85-ii-mbt.570/

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Umar Nazir

Novice09 said:


> I don't think that India and Pakistan are going to start a full fledged war... can you remember the slogan of crossing LOC on 4th October... what happened... containers to contain the march...
> 
> Both leadership's are ready to convert the LOC into International Border... and current war on LOC is just a hogwash...
> If both sides are destroying the posts of each other... why they are not capturing them...


exactly thats what i am saying that full fledged war is impossible. but after 26 feb, Indian hesitation to launch air strike on Pakistan is ended, because after Indian and Pakistani air strike, situation remained under control . Therefore if Kashmir not resolved, we will see lot of air strikes from both air forces


----------



## The Accountant

Umar Nazir said:


> exactly thats what i am saying that full fledged war is impossible. but after 26 feb, Indian hesitation to launch air strike on Pakistan is ended, because after Indian and Pakistani air strike, situation remained under control . Therefore if Kashmir not resolved, we will see lot of air strikes from both air forces


I feel its the exactly opposite.

They got a bloody nose and now they r sure that with current inventory they cant challenge Pakistan unopposed... rafael induction will take time and we have inducter PL15 which means that now all indian aircrafts are outgunned by both viper and thunder

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

GIANTsasquatch said:


> If it is true then BD folks might follow suit.


BD Army has a version of AK (MBT2000) already - 44.


----------



## Umar Nazir

The Accountant said:


> I feel its the exactly opposite.
> 
> They got a bloody nose and now they r sure that with current inventory they cant challenge Pakistan unopposed... rafael induction will take time and we have inducter PL15 which means that now all indian aircrafts are outgunned by both viper and thunder


yup Pakistan won feb 2019 air battle decisively , no question about it. But Indian media is brainless , they will believe what ever modi will feed them, and people like modi can sacrifice more IAF jets to get fake fame by using their propaganda media, therefore more air strikes from indian side are quite possible when ever 10-15 indian army soldiers will be killed in Occupied Kashmir


----------



## The Accountant

Umar Nazir said:


> yup Pakistan won feb 2019 air battle decisively , no question about it. But Indian media is brainless , they will believe what ever modi will feed them, and people like modi can sacrifice more IAF jets to get fake fame by using their propaganda media, therefore more air strikes from indian side are quite possible when ever 10-15 indian army soldiers will be killed in Occupied Kashmir


Possibility ... yes but the possibility was always there however threat has reduced in short term and will increase in medium term after couple of years time.

A major war between India and Pakistan is inevitable. And if India keep on going at this pace they will also see a big civil war...

After 27th limited air attack is out of option as we clearly showed them that we are ready to take such an attack to a full blown war so unless they are ready for a full blown war they will not attack ...

If u analyze closely i think targeted the trees to check the Pakistani responses otherwise spice are accurate weapons ...

They got the response that we r not afraid and altough less in quantity we have better preparations both in terms of training but equipment as well


----------



## Umar Nazir

The Accountant said:


> Possibility ... yes but the possibility was always there however threat has reduced in short term and will increase in medium term after couple of years time.
> 
> A major war between India and Pakistan is inevitable. And if India keep on going at this pace they will also see a big civil war...
> 
> After 27th limited air attack is out of option as we clearly showed them that we are ready to take such an attack to a full blown war so unless they are ready for a full blown war they will not attack ...


yes India Pakistan war is inevitable. infact it will be the war between subcontinent Muslims and Hindus but it will happen after 10-15 years. Because RSS need more time to take full control of india. In next few years RSS (BJP) is going to become only political party of india (same like chines communist party) and than they will convert Indian army into pure hindu extremist army. Muslims will face same future in india which currently chines Muslims are facing, and than million of Muslims will try to migrate to Pakistan. Such situation will forced Pakistan to go for final war with india which will result in do or die .


----------



## gangsta_rap

Signalian said:


> BD Army has a version of AK (MBT2000) already - 44.



i was referring to the mbt3000 variant not mbt2000


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> T-85 is a formidable Tank. T-69 has been handed over to FC.
> 
> 
> 
> Type 85 III Tank of Pakistan
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/type-85-iii-tank-of-pakistan.391926/
> 
> 
> Major Up gradation of Type 85 and Type 69 of Pakistan Army
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/majo...85-and-type-69-of-pakistan-army.316644/page-2
> 
> Pics
> https://defence.pk/pdf/media/categories/t-85-ii-mbt.570/


How you will put in 300-360 new modern tanks in Pakistan's inventory. 
Will you use them to increase the size of its armored divisions by increasing number of armored regiments? 
Or more independent tank brigades will be formed?



monitor said:


> It has been reported that Beijing is about to release 300 'VT-4' tanks in the hands of Pakistani troops. Besides, they will transfer technologies


The deal is on hold as T90MS is also in picture.


----------



## Signalian

GIANTsasquatch said:


> i was referring to the mbt3000 variant not mbt2000


Have a look at structure of BD Army and Bangla terrain. MBT2000 suits the needs really well.


----------



## S.Y.A

Signalian said:


> T-85 is a formidable Tank. T-69 has been handed over to FC.


Can its armour defeat modern anti tank rounds? Also, if the army no longer has the 69, then it needs new tanks.


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> How you will put in 300-360 new modern tanks in Pakistan's inventory.
> Will you use them to increase the size of its armored divisions by increasing number of armored regiments?
> Or more independent tank brigades will be formed?


Armored Divs are under strength, Mech Divs has IABG/IMB assigned to them. Infantry Divs have very less component of armor.

Har jaga hi MBT chiaye hain 



S.Y.A said:


> Can its armour defeat modern anti tank rounds? Also, if the army no longer has the 69, then it needs new tanks.


Depends upon factors like range, angle of shot, area where its hit etc. T-85 has a good gun and suitable engine for desert warfare. Army needs MRAP and light armored vehs more than tanks currently.


----------



## S.Y.A

Signalian said:


> Army needs MRAP and light armored vehs more than tanks currently.


IFVs with good anti tank and anti personnel capabilities?


----------



## Signalian

S.Y.A said:


> IFVs with good anti tank and anti personnel capabilities?


Yes that is required also. Lets see fate of VIPER IFV whether it makes entry into PA formations or not.


----------



## Shabi1

Zapper said:


> Why are all Pakistanis comparing the VT4 acquisition to that of Rafale or S-400 or the likes? Infact, India is locally producing 400+ T-90 Bhishmas in a new deal and this move might be a response to that.
> 
> Also, there have been reports of PA looking at the Ukrainian Oplot until recently and the VT4 might have been selected instead since Thailand also acquired it recently



As per MOD documentation 2017-18.
PA getting both the VT-4 (stop gap induction to give more time to Al-Khalid-2 project) and Oplot.

VT-4 new builds, and the existing T-80UDs being upgraded to Oplot level (pilot project of 5 tanks already complete).
All T-85IIs being upgraded.
Al-Zarrars still being being inducted with no final number.
Al-Khalid-1 in low rate production (16 per year).
Al-Khalid-2 in advanced stages. Revealed that electronics will be made locally.
Viper anti armor infantry vehicle on way to production.

All in all HIT is busy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PakShaheen79

HIT must be expanded on the footsteps of PAC Kamra to increase parallel production.


----------



## HRK

> *Both* leadership's are ready to convert the LOC into International Border...


No Indian have a right to speak on our behalf ....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tipu7

Shabi1 said:


> and the existing T-80UDs being upgraded to Oplot level (pilot project of 5 tanks already complete).


T80UD are receiving some good upgrades, but they cannot transform into Oplot, which is a different tank.


Shabi1 said:


> Viper anti armor infantry vehicle on way to production.


It's acceptance and production status is yet to be known.



Shabi1 said:


> All T-85IIs being *upgraded*.


Overhauled. Likely to complete by 2021.


----------



## Shabi1

Tipu7 said:


> T80UD are receiving some good upgrades, but they cannot transform into Oplot, which is a different tank.
> 
> It's acceptance and production status is yet to be known.
> 
> 
> Overhauled. Likely to complete by 2021.


Oplot is a variant of T-84 which is a version of the T-80UD.


----------



## Tipu7

Shabi1 said:


> Oplot is a variant of T-84 which is a version of the T-80UD.


Though their is difference in Turret layout of both tanks, but many of our UDs got T84 Turret.
From this perspective, yes you can say that Pakistan is upgrading its UD fleet to Oplot standard. (Installation of 1200 HP 6TD02 by replacing 1000HP 6TD01 engines)


----------



## New World

Khafee said:


> What makes you think an MOU for fighter jets wasn't signed?
> 
> @Horus



it means that EFT should be placed in the grave..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khafee

New World said:


> it means that EFT should be placed in the grave..


IT has been.


----------



## New World

Khafee said:


> IT has been.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## denel

Imran Khan said:


> in real world there is no stop gap in tanks sir . once you buy tanks you have to use them next 40 years or more . this news is another joke . specially when AK-1 production is going on as per gov opened docs
> 
> 
> The low-rate production of 20 Al-Khalid I tanks, plus the final-stage development of the Al-Khalid II (featuring an enhanced power pack and fire-control/gun-control system).


Yes, tanks are a very long usage item not a disposable asset like these news are making it out to be; you dont buy them like chewing gum 
Indian media is bad at hyper ventilating hot air and bogus claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

denel said:


> Yes, tanks are a very long usage item not a disposable asset like these news are making it out to be; you dont buy them like chewing gum
> Indian media is bad at hyper ventilating hot air and bogus claims.


Only thing confirmed about VT-4 from Pakistani sources is that it came for retrials and as per some in that retrial it performed satisfactorily to the standards of Pakistan Army 


On the other hand there is no report about the coming of Oplat tank again to Pakistan for retrials which along VT-4 failed during the first trials

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## war&peace

Zarvan said:


> News most likely is true. Yes we are getting VT 4 tanks and we have Al Khalid but we need a new Tank to replace lot of old tanks which we have. Not all old tanks can be upgraded.


Everything cannot be upgraded.. in fact if every system has to be upgraded, then it is often cost effective to buy a newer system which is future proof as well.



denel said:


> Yes, tanks are a very long usage item not a disposable asset like these news are making it out to be; you dont buy them like chewing gum
> Indian media is bad at hyper ventilating hot air and bogus claims.


Old tanks can be used for many other activities like chasis for self propelled guns, air defence system, anti-tank system and even use for 


HRK said:


> Only thing confirmed about VT-4 from Pakistani sources is that it came for retrials and as per some in that retrial it performed satisfactorily to the standards of Pakistan Army
> 
> 
> On the other hand there is no report about the coming of Oplat tank again to Pakistan for retrials which along VT-4 failed during the first trials


I think if VT4 succeeded in trails the second time and performed as per expectations then I think going with Chinese option has some economic reasons as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

war&peace said:


> I think if VT4 succeeded in trails the second time and performed as per expectations then I think going with Chinese option has some economic reasons as well.


Yaap during first trials both Oplet and VT-4 failed, during second trials VT-4 came with improvement which @Dazzler reported at this forum, I think he could mention those here asmgain.

Now I remember only two things
1- Engine which was main issue during the first trial and
2- Some improvement in Fire control system

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## war&peace

HRK said:


> Yaap during first trials both Oplet and VT-4 failed, during second trials VT-4 came with improvement which @Dazzler reported at this forum, I think could mention those here as well,now I remember only two things
> 1- Engine which was main issue during the first trial and
> 2- Some improvement in Fire control system


I think the evaluation process of PA is very rigorous and many good systems fail to meet the very stringent requirements for example the Thar desert is a very harsh for any engine.. It is warm and dry with a lots of sand to traverse on.. and hence engines cease and then on other side we complex terrain of Kashmir.
However, the good aspect of Chinese is that they listen to the feedback and try to improve the product. That was the with SH-15 as well

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Pakistan has a severe critical armour shortage v India which needs to be addressed before anything else. Indian strategy relies on fast armoured strikes and the only thing stopping that are formations opposing them. No way can the PAF deliver enough damage to curb such movement and yet fight off the IAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## maverick1977

khansaheeb said:


> Once you have landed then what? Do you not realise the complexity of maintaining a supply line whilst being bombarded with every the Indians have got?
> 
> 
> I hope so for Pakistan's sake.
> 
> 
> We need to plan for the worst case not fantasise and gloat of the positive possible outcomes. It should be full panic stations , alarm bells ringing and we should be aiming for JF18 or J20s.
> 
> 
> Yes, it's for taking fire power to the enemy at (relatively) close range and at speed.





war&peace said:


> I think the evaluation process of PA is very rigorous and many good systems fail to meet the very stringent requirements for example the Thar desert is a very harsh for any engine.. It is warm and dry with a lots of sand to traverse on.. and hence engines cease and then on other side we complex terrain of Kashmir.
> However, the good aspect of Chinese is that they listen to the feedback and try to improve the product. That was the with SH-15 as well




artillery has SH 15 regiments ?


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> Armored Divs are under strength, Mech Divs has IABG/IMB assigned to them. Infantry Divs have very less component of armor.
> 
> Har jaga hi MBT chiaye hain


Army zoor to lga rhi he ...

1: Al Khalid in production phase
2: Al Zarrar in conversion phase
3: T80UD in up gradation phase
4: T85IIAP in overhauling phase
5: Flying News of purchase of 320-360 New MBTs (VT4/T90MS)

Firing a wish shot,
We could have 2,200 frontline MBTs by 2024 instead of current inventory of some 1,550 MBTs of today.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## killerx

VT4 is already outdated 3rd Gen tank, we should be buying the VT5 instead and in large numbers, at least 500 tanks!


----------



## PakGuns

thats why we have short range missiles 


waz said:


> Pakistan has a severe critical armour shortage v India which needs to be addressed before anything else. India strategy relies on fast armoured strikes and the only thing stopping that are formations opposing them. No way can the PAF deliver enough damage to curb such movement and yet fight off the IAF.


----------



## LKJ86

killerx said:


> VT4 is already outdated 3rd Gen tank, we should be buying the VT5 instead and in large numbers, at least 500 tanks!


I think you are misled by their names.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

PakGuns said:


> thats why we have short range missiles



True but they can be intercepted and we would need to deploy thousands to have such an impact. They're strategic weapons and can't hold off an armoured advance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

war&peace said:


> However, the good aspect of Chinese is that they listen to the feedback and try to improve the product. That was the with SH-15 as well


PA is interested in PCL-181 from PLA Army, and then SH-15 is provided.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## CHI RULES

Can u pls provide specs of VT5?


----------



## monitor

CHI RULES said:


> Can u pls provide specs of VT5?


The VT5, also named Type 15 or ZTQ-15 in the Chinese army, is a lightweight battle tank designed and manufactured by the Chinese defense company NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation). The VT5 was unveiled to the public during the Zhuhai AirShow China in November 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## killerx

https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_heavy_armoured_vehicle_tank_uk/vt5_light_weight_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_11711164.html


CHI RULES said:


> Can u pls provide specs of VT5?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

monitor said:


> The VT5, also named Type 15 or ZTQ-15 in the Chinese army, is a lightweight battle tank designed and manufactured by the Chinese defense company NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation). The VT5 was unveiled to the public during the Zhuhai AirShow China in November 2016.


VT-5 and ZTQ-15 are two different lightweight tanks.

VT-5














--------------------------
ZTQ-15

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## war&peace

LKJ86 said:


> PA is interested in PCL-181 from PLA Army, and then SH-15 is provided.
> View attachment 583944
> View attachment 583945


Please elaborate...I have no idea about PCL-181



monitor said:


> The VT5, also named Type 15 or ZTQ-15 in the Chinese army, is a lightweight battle tank designed and manufactured by the Chinese defense company NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation). The VT5 was unveiled to the public during the Zhuhai AirShow China in November 2016.


So it is a different (lightweight) tank and has nothing to do with being more advanced as some random member was referring to



LKJ86 said:


> VT-5 and ZTQ-15 are two different lightweight tanks.
> 
> VT-5
> View attachment 583949
> View attachment 583950
> View attachment 583951
> View attachment 583952
> 
> 
> --------------------------
> ZTQ-15
> View attachment 583953
> View attachment 583954
> View attachment 583955


Are these designed for high altitude deployments?


----------



## LKJ86

war&peace said:


> Are these designed for high altitude deployments?


Yes, ZTQ-15 is prepared for our Indian friends.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## war&peace

LKJ86 said:


> Yes, ZTQ-15 is prepared for our Indian friends.


Good ... yeah it can be easily deployed in Dokhlam, Tibet, Sikkim and Ladakh areas. I think PA should also consider around 100 for Kashmir 

But what is PCL-181


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

IMO this news piece isn't credible.

First, the PA earmarked about 100 off-the-shelf tanks, and though the VT4 won, the PA didn't sign any deals for it.

It's still a possibility, but 300 is way off base right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

war&peace said:


> But what is PCL-181

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 583970
> View attachment 583971


So what's the difference and specs? 
I didn't find much about it on internet.


----------



## Syed_Adeel

MODP report about weapons production and induction including VT4.


----------



## monitor

LKJ86 said:


> VT-5 and ZTQ-15 are two different lightweight tanks.
> 
> VT-5
> View attachment 583949
> View attachment 583950
> View attachment 583951
> View attachment 583952
> 
> 
> --------------------------
> ZTQ-15
> View attachment 583953
> View attachment 583954
> View attachment 583955


Yes you are right, army recognition made the mistake. Another sites tells the truth 

MILITARY WATCH MAGAZINE




MILITARY WATCH MAGAZINEFORCE COMPARISON

FORCE COMPARISON
Home
Region

Eastern Europe and Central AsiaAsia-PacificMiddle EastSouth AsiaNorth America, Western Europe and OceaniaAfrica and South America

Technology

Aircraft and Anti-AircraftMissile and SpaceNavalGround

Battlefield
Foreign Relations
Editor's Choice
Featured
From Our Contributors


Looking
Asia-Pacific , Naval
*A New Battle Tank for China’s Marine Corps; Induction of the ZTQ-15 Part of a Massive Investment in Amphibious Warfare by the PLA*

August-10th-2018




Chinese ZTQ-15 Light Tank



Anumber of recent reports have indicated that China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) has inducted a new light battle tank for its Marine Corps amid an expansion of the country's amphibious warfare capabilities. With the corps expected to grow fivefold from a force of 20,000 to approximately 100,000 - allowing it to better operate in the increasingly contested Asia-Pacific region where the Western Bloc and its partners have increasingly deployed force to stake their own claim, the Marines have received considerable quantities of cutting edge new hardware to strengthen their fighting capabilities. The induction of a light battle tank, possibly one designed to deploy from the Navy's upcoming 40,000 ton amphibious assault ships, could well go a long way towards strengthening the offensive capabilities of the marines and their ability to conduct beachhead landings and other highly trying operations which are increasingly essential as tensions rise in the Pacific theatre.

Known as the ZTQ-15, the platform appears highly similar to the VT4 - a tank designed by China's Norinco Industries Group specifically for export loosely based on the Russian T-72. While China's ground forces do not operate the VT4 or similar platforms themselves, instead relying on the Type 96 and Type 99, a lighter variant of the Norinco appears to have been deemed the most suitable system from China's amphibious forces. With the VT-4 having been designed exclusively for export, and lacking key export restricted technologies which are key to the effectiveness of platforms serving in the PLA's ground forces, the ZTQ-15 used by the Chinese Marines likely employs a number of cutting technologies developed for the Type 99 - potentially including derivatives of the elite heavy tank's explosive reactive armour and active protection systems. The new tanks are reportedly equipped with relatively small 105 millimeter cannon - though these are likely to be able to fire a variety of specialised munitions including laser guided anti tank missiles and kinetic energy penetrators. Like other Chinese tank designs, the ZTQ-15 is likely to make use of a state of the art fire control system and autoloader. The ZTQ-15 are set to serve in a complementary role alongside the Marines Corps' ZBD05 tracked amphibious infantry fighting vehicles, ZLT05 amphibious assault guns and FHJ-02 rocket artillery systems currently in service - laying down considerable firepower necessary to facilitate beachhead landings in highly contested battlefields.

Deployed to heavily fortified Chinese military facilities in the South China Sea, China's fast expanding and modernising Marines could well extend their reach across much of the Western Pacific - contesting the dominance of the United States and its Western allies which has come to define the regional order ever since the Second World War. China is but one of several pacific powers investing heavily in improving its amphibious warfare capabilities, with Japan inaugurating its Marine Corps in April 2018, the first time the country fielded such a force since 1945, and the United States deploying personnel and amphibious assets to the Pacific in ever growing numbers. Russia too for its part has vastly expanded its investments in its naval infantry, and is planning four amphibious assault ships which will carry a number of new and highly specialised combat vehicles for amphibious landings. At least half of these are likely to be deployed to the Pacific theatre. The ZTQ-15 are likely to serve as an excellent complement to the PLA Marine Corp' new Type 075 amphibious assault ships and the vertical takeoff (VTOL) fighter jets reportedly planned to operate from their decks - providing China's Marines with some of the most advanced assault capabilities in the world.



FHJ-02 Rocket Artillery Launcher


















































Tags
ZTQ-15Chinese MarinesChinese Military ModernisationChinese NavyEast China SeaFHJ-02Japanese MarinesPeople's Liberation ArmyRussian MarinesSino-US ConflictSouth China SeaType 075Type 96Type 99US MarinesVT4ZBD05ZLT05





See Also
December-3rd-2017




Asia-Pacific , Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft ,

© 2018 Copyright www.militarywatchmagazine.co

m

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

monitor said:


> Chinese ZTQ-15 Light Tank


It is the old version of VT-5.

The chief designer of VT-5 is also the one of ZTQ-15, but the design of VT-5 just started when ZTQ-15 was finished basically.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

Shabi1 said:


> Its a stop gap order while Al-Khalid-2 is still in development. As per MOD T-80Us being upgraded and they will get Oplot level modifications. So PA getting all three VT-4, T-84 Oplot and Al-Khalid-2. Besides these the Al-Zarrar program is still progressing and T-85s being modded as well.



I doubt there is such an order at all just hoo haa mostly coming from India and others


----------



## Dazzler

Shabi1 said:


> Its a stop gap order while Al-Khalid-2 is still in development. As per MOD T-80Us being upgraded and they will get Oplot level modifications. So PA getting all three VT-4, T-84 Oplot and Al-Khalid-2. Besides these the Al-Zarrar program is still progressing and T-85s being modded as well.



VT4 costs $5mln a pop, we produce 2 AK-1s for that much money as each costs us around 2.6 mln. Oplot lost in trials so no chance for them. VT4 doesnt offer any significant benefit apart from the fact that it can be procured early. More AZs and t-80ud, 85 UPG will serve PA well for now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## khanmubashir

Shabi1 said:


> Its a stop gap order while Al-Khalid-2 is still in development. As per MOD T-80Us being upgraded and they will get Oplot level modifications. So PA getting all three VT-4, T-84 Oplot and Al-Khalid-2. Besides these the Al-Zarrar program is still progressing and T-85s being modded as well.


the real purpose of tank is to assist group forces in occupying enemy position not anti armor warfare that's gunships atgm job for ground assault in occupying enemy position we need large number of affordable tanks with reasonable armor protection and weaponary with economy of scales ak2 is best for it's better that if we make less capable version now which could be upgraded after few years with availability of technology


----------



## waz

Dazzler said:


> VT4 costs $5mln a pop, we produce 2 AK-1s for that much money as each costs us around 2.6 mln. Oplot lost in trials so no chance for them. VT4 doesnt offer any significant benefit apart from the fact that it can be procured early. More AZs and t-80ud, 85 UPG will serve PA well for now.



V the upgraded T-90's I'm not sure the Al-Khalids are as viable, also the production rate is just so slow.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

The *Al Khalid* figures are low, productivity-wise
I am disappointed in such low figures

We have the knowledge to make it since 90's but *overall production rate* is not Prime in my humble opinion

Considering we have cheap labor force and abundance of young people, I would have imagined we would have ramped up production rate by hiring more local Engineers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## denel

waz said:


> V the upgraded T-90's I'm not sure the Al-Khalids are as viable, also the production rate is just so slow.


Money? or just supply chain issues?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

denel said:


> Money? or just supply chain issues?


In past problem was mostly related to funding of project, there was phase of two consecutive years when not a single Al-Khalid tank was produced, while from 2009-2015 only 24 AK were produced.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## war&peace

Dazzler said:


> VT4 costs $5mln a pop, we produce 2 AK-1s for that much money as each costs us around 2.6 mln. Oplot lost in trials so no chance for them. VT4 doesnt offer any significant benefit apart from the fact that it can be procured early. More AZs and t-80ud, 85 UPG will serve PA well for now.


But how do you rate AK-I and II vis-a-vis VT-4


----------



## waz

denel said:


> Money? or just supply chain issues?



Funding my friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

New VT-4 is equipped with FY-4 ERA:

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Beast

LKJ86 said:


> New VT-4 is equipped with FY-4 ERA:
> View attachment 625568
> View attachment 625569
> View attachment 625570


You sure this one is for Pakistan? The camouflage looks more for Nigeria.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Beast said:


> You sure this one is for Pakistan? The camouflage looks more for Nigeria.


These two VT-4s are sent to a certain country on April 20, 2020, but I don't think it is Nigeria.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Muhammad Omar

LKJ86 said:


> New VT-4 is equipped with FY-4 ERA:
> View attachment 625568
> View attachment 625569
> View attachment 625570


Send to Pakistan for testing??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Muhammad Omar said:


> Send to Pakistan for testing??


No idea.
It is said that the new upgrade of VT-4 is according to the requirements of unspecified countries in the Middle East...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Muhammad Omar

LKJ86 said:


> No idea.
> It is said that the new upgrade of VT-4 is according to the requirements of unspecified countries in the Middle East...



Not Pakistan then

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HRK

Muhammad Omar said:


> Send to Pakistan for testing??





Muhammad Omar said:


> Not Pakistan then



as per last news reports about VT-4 testing in Pakistan, it clear the all the trials but it seems PA has drop the induction of new tank due to shortage of funds .....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ibn Batouta

LKJ86 said:


> No idea.
> It is said that the new upgrade of VT-4 is according to the requirements of unspecified countries in the Middle East...



Middle East are you sure ? Because this camouflage is not very common in ME ... remind me Moroccan VT1A camouflage personally. Can you verify if it is really for ME , or north africa. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ARMalik

Beast said:


> You sure this one is for Pakistan? The camouflage looks more for Nigeria.



Wow, you must have "bionic eyes" installed in your head to be to able to just look at a camouflage and know for sure it is for "nigeria'. What an accomplishment.


----------



## Beast

ARMalik said:


> Wow, you must have "bionic eyes" installed in your head to be to able to just look at a camouflage and know for sure it is for "nigeria'. What an accomplishment.


You didn't know recently a batch of VT-4 has shipped to Nigeria? Nigeria is confirmed the second customer to buy VT-4. This maybe the second batch shipped to them.

Middle East or Pakistan will most likely uses desert sand camouflage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blacklight

HRK said:


> as per last news reports about VT-4 testing in Pakistan, it clear the all the trials but it seems PA has drop the induction of new tank due to shortage of funds .....


Any idea how much one costs?


----------



## IblinI

Blacklight said:


> Any idea how much one costs?


Don't know the price tag for this one with modification, but 5.2 million per piece for Thailand army.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

Blacklight said:


> Any idea how much one costs?


$ 5-6 million, If I am not wrong even the Oplot-P which was tested in Pakistan was also somewhere around 5.5 million ....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

HRK said:


> $ 5-6 million, If I am not wrong even the Oplot-P which was tested in Pakistan was also somewhere around 5.5 million ....



VT4 for $5.8, Oplot P for $5.4

We produce AK-1 for $3.6 million a piece as per the former chairman of TMF. AK-1's export price may vary somewhere between 5.8 - 6 million.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## zhxy

Why Pakistan doesn't care about the Type-15, it is a great tank, compact, flexible, maneuverable and powerful, powerful firepower with the latest armor-piercing ammunition capable of tearing most the main tanks today



Dazzler said:


> VT4 for $5.8, Oplot P for $5.4
> 
> We produce AK-1 for $3.6 million a piece as per the former chairman of TMF. AK-1's export price may vary somewhere between 5.8 - 6 million.



I think the Type-15 is cheaper than VT4, Oplot, AK because it is a light tank. This is another advantage of the Type-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

zhxy said:


> Why Pakistan doesn't care about the Type-15, it is a great tank, compact, flexible, maneuverable and powerful, powerful firepower with the latest armor-piercing ammunition capable of tearing most the main tanks today
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Type-15 is cheaper than VT4, Oplot, AK because it is a light tank. This is another advantage of the Type-15


The armour is not strong compare to MBT. What u expect from 35tons?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zhxy

Beast said:


> The armour is not strong compare to MBT. What u expect from 35tons?



The role of the current tank is heavily focused on maneuverability, compactness, flexibility, playing the role of a guard, clearing the battlefield and slaughtering enemy infantry. We do not throw hundreds and thousands of tanks into a battle like the ww2 era. The 1-1 match is also very rare.
The main threat to modern tanks is homemade explosive devices and ATGM. Thicker armor could not save * Abram tank *in the Middle East.

The task of dealing with enemy tanks is assigned to UAVs, helicopters ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

zhxy said:


> Why Pakistan doesn't care about the Type-15, it is a great tank, compact, flexible, maneuverable and powerful, powerful firepower with the latest armor-piercing ammunition capable of tearing most the main tanks today
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Type-15 is cheaper than VT4, Oplot, AK because it is a light tank. This is another advantage of the Type-15



It was meant for hilly terrain, not suitable for our needs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

zhxy said:


> The role of the current tank is heavily focused on maneuverability, compactness, flexibility, playing the role of a guard, clearing the battlefield and slaughtering enemy infantry. We do not throw hundreds and thousands of tanks into a battle like the ww2 era. The 1-1 match is also very rare.
> The main threat to modern tanks is homemade explosive devices and ATGM. Thicker armor could not save * Abram tank *in the Middle East.
> 
> The task of dealing with enemy tanks is assigned to UAVs, helicopters ....


The thick armour could save u from some situation. VT-4 is a good choice but PA lack money now.

Abram is a 4person manned MBT. Despite weighting heavy doesn't mean it has thicker armour than VT-4. Most weight is to make space for extra man needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

What is the price of the Turkish Altay tank? Pakistan should be prepared to deal with tanks like the T-14 Armata; India is on a shopping spree and we need to plan accordingly.

Any indication how the VT-4 stacks up against the Latest T-90 variant?


----------



## Pakistan Ka Beta

Beast said:


> The thick armour could save u from some situation. VT-4 is a good choice but PA lack money now.
> 
> Abram is a 4person manned MBT. Despite weighting heavy doesn't mean it has thicker armour than VT-4. Most weight is to make space for extra man needed.


Actually Pakistan buys Tanks , Helicopters e.t.c over the order of several years , we may be talking about 5-7 years , so few million dollars a year is not a big issue but if we Prioritize it . We may have other Pressing military needs for now instead of a tank from China .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

FuturePAF said:


> Any indication how the VT-4 stacks up against the Latest T-90 variant?



You shall have keep track of Royal Thai Army MBT tender 2 years ago.



FuturePAF said:


> What is the price of the Turkish Altay tank? Pakistan should be prepared to deal with tanks like the T-14 Armata; India is on a shopping spree and we need to plan accordingly.



Russia will not agitate India as they have a fatter paycheck. Turkish atlay tank need to solve domestic engine problem first which will take some years to tackle.

That left VT-4 as the most possible option. VT-4 is not a cheap tank. Price per piece is higher than T-90. Another reason that keeps delay it's induction for PA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Dazzler said:


> It was meant for hilly terrain,


What about our northern side?


----------



## AUz

Dazzler said:


> VT4 for $5.8, Oplot P for $5.4
> 
> We produce AK-1 for $3.6 million a piece as per the former chairman of TMF. AK-1's export price may vary somewhere between 5.8 - 6 million.



When will Pakistan start producing AK-2s? Have the specs/designed been finalized yet? Indians have fielded their Arjunk 2's.....what is Pakistan waiting for?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> VT4 for $5.8, Oplot P for $5.4
> 
> We produce AK-1 for $3.6 million a piece as per the former chairman of TMF. AK-1's export price may vary somewhere between 5.8 - 6 million.


Why is AK-1's export price so expensive, by comparing with VT-4 and Oplot P?



Beast said:


> You didn't know recently a batch of VT-4 has shipped to Nigeria? Nigeria is confirmed the second customer to buy VT-4. This maybe the second batch shipped to them.
> 
> Middle East or Pakistan will most likely uses desert sand camouflage.


Nigeria just buys the low-cost version.


----------



## PakShaheen79

And here we go.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252641061475880960

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

PakShaheen79 said:


> And here we go.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252641061475880960


Really? Pakistan?


----------



## Blacklight

LKJ86 said:


> Really? Pakistan?


It's just a tweet, not ISPR.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

*Pakistan can also look into the Vast Ukrainian options as well. I also like the modified T80UDs(OPLOT) .






May be look into the bone yard at Kharkiv!!!










Nevertheless With the Chinese options we get soft loans,manufacturing rights and unlimited spare parts etc.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakShaheen79

LKJ86 said:


> Really? Pakistan?



Not sure at all. I was just pointing towards the fact that a new pic emerged on PDF and people start posting them on twitter as truth. I asked this gentleman about source, but no reply so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

*China reportedly begins delivery of modern major VT4 battle tanks to Pakistan – Defense Blog*

*By
Matilda Coleman
-
April 21, 2020
0
15
Share*



Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is reportedly starting to deliver new main VT4 battle tanks to Pakistan.

In mid-April 2020, at the Chinese tank factory located in Baotou, Inner Mongolia province, the ceremony of shipping the first, after the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, the first batch of VT4 main battle tanks equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA) (Option FY-IV) for a foreign customer.

Chinese media reports that Pakistan is a foreign customer for these tanks.

In 2019, the Pakistani Army Armored Corps selected the Chinese VT4 tank, produced by Norinco, to meet the requirements for the acquisition of hundreds of new main battle tanks.

A military analyst, Muzammil Hatami, announced the selection of the Norinco VT4 to increase the Pakistani armored vehicle fleet.

"VT4 has confirmed for the future Pakistan Army tank and the Alkhalid II main battle tank is under development," said Muzammil Hatami during the tenth IDEAS international defense exhibition in Karachi, Pakistan.

The VT4 is a third generation MBT that Norinco offers for export. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the Pakistan Army, although it retains the 125mm primary weapon, the carousel autoloader, and the crew configuration of the oldest vehicle.

Despite the details of the tender for the future tank being kept secret, it was reported that Pakistan could obtain around 100 MBT to satisfy the deficiency of MBT production in the country.






Last week it was also reported that the Nigerian army received a shipment of military vehicles from the North China Industries Corporation (NORINCO).

According to local sources, NORINCO delivered the first of 17 military vehicles that compromised VT4 main battle tanks, SH5 105mm self-propelled howitzer with wheels and destroyed ST1 tanks.

* * If you want to report grammatical or factual errors in our news articles, you can report it to us using the online comment form.

https://upnewsinfo.com/2020/04/21/c...or-vt4-battle-tanks-to-pakistan-defense-blog/
------------
Have no idea about the authenticity of this news.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

Wish Pak would buy T-59s upgraded to Zarrar alongside these bad boys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

PakShaheen79 said:


> *China reportedly begins delivery of modern major VT4 battle tanks to Pakistan – Defense Blog*
> 
> *By*
> * Matilda Coleman*
> * -*
> *April 21, 2020*
> *0*
> *15*
> *Share*
> 
> 
> 
> Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is reportedly starting to deliver new main VT4 battle tanks to Pakistan.
> 
> In mid-April 2020, at the Chinese tank factory located in Baotou, Inner Mongolia province, the ceremony of shipping the first, after the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, the first batch of VT4 main battle tanks equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA) (Option FY-IV) for a foreign customer.
> 
> Chinese media reports that Pakistan is a foreign customer for these tanks.
> 
> In 2019, the Pakistani Army Armored Corps selected the Chinese VT4 tank, produced by Norinco, to meet the requirements for the acquisition of hundreds of new main battle tanks.
> 
> A military analyst, Muzammil Hatami, announced the selection of the Norinco VT4 to increase the Pakistani armored vehicle fleet.
> 
> "VT4 has confirmed for the future Pakistan Army tank and the Alkhalid II main battle tank is under development," said Muzammil Hatami during the tenth IDEAS international defense exhibition in Karachi, Pakistan.
> 
> The VT4 is a third generation MBT that Norinco offers for export. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the Pakistan Army, although it retains the 125mm primary weapon, the carousel autoloader, and the crew configuration of the oldest vehicle.
> 
> Despite the details of the tender for the future tank being kept secret, it was reported that Pakistan could obtain around 100 MBT to satisfy the deficiency of MBT production in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week it was also reported that the Nigerian army received a shipment of military vehicles from the North China Industries Corporation (NORINCO).
> 
> According to local sources, NORINCO delivered the first of 17 military vehicles that compromised VT4 main battle tanks, SH5 105mm self-propelled howitzer with wheels and destroyed ST1 tanks.
> 
> * * If you want to report grammatical or factual errors in our news articles, you can report it to us using the online comment form.
> 
> https://upnewsinfo.com/2020/04/21/c...or-vt4-battle-tanks-to-pakistan-defense-blog/
> ------------
> Have no idea about the authenticity of this news.



For Nigeria not Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI

Dazzler said:


> For Nigeria not Pakistan


A Chinese armor focused vlogger hinting a customer from the Mid East, and he suggests its a big order.


----------



## Beast

IblinI said:


> A Chinese armor focused vlogger hinting a customer from the Mid East, and he suggests its a big order.


Iraq.... They have intention to replace all their M1A1 MBT. But these batch with this camouflage are unlikely going for middle East.



FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> *Pakistan can also look into the Vast Ukrainian options as well. I also like the modified T80UDs(OPLOT) .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May be look into the bone yard at Kharkiv!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless With the Chinese options we get soft loans,manufacturing rights and unlimited spare parts etc.*


I see no different from getting Al Khalid tank if u are going for T-80U. The reason going for VT-4 is a tank that will be a leap generation ahead and bring PA into digital times for army plus with superior mobility and armour.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aliaselin

PakShaheen79 said:


> *China reportedly begins delivery of modern major VT4 battle tanks to Pakistan – Defense Blog*
> 
> *By*
> * Matilda Coleman*
> * -*
> *April 21, 2020*
> *0*
> *15*
> *Share*
> 
> 
> 
> Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is reportedly starting to deliver new main VT4 battle tanks to Pakistan.
> 
> In mid-April 2020, at the Chinese tank factory located in Baotou, Inner Mongolia province, the ceremony of shipping the first, after the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, the first batch of VT4 main battle tanks equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA) (Option FY-IV) for a foreign customer.
> 
> Chinese media reports that Pakistan is a foreign customer for these tanks.
> 
> In 2019, the Pakistani Army Armored Corps selected the Chinese VT4 tank, produced by Norinco, to meet the requirements for the acquisition of hundreds of new main battle tanks.
> 
> A military analyst, Muzammil Hatami, announced the selection of the Norinco VT4 to increase the Pakistani armored vehicle fleet.
> 
> "VT4 has confirmed for the future Pakistan Army tank and the Alkhalid II main battle tank is under development," said Muzammil Hatami during the tenth IDEAS international defense exhibition in Karachi, Pakistan.
> 
> The VT4 is a third generation MBT that Norinco offers for export. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the Pakistan Army, although it retains the 125mm primary weapon, the carousel autoloader, and the crew configuration of the oldest vehicle.
> 
> Despite the details of the tender for the future tank being kept secret, it was reported that Pakistan could obtain around 100 MBT to satisfy the deficiency of MBT production in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week it was also reported that the Nigerian army received a shipment of military vehicles from the North China Industries Corporation (NORINCO).
> 
> According to local sources, NORINCO delivered the first of 17 military vehicles that compromised VT4 main battle tanks, SH5 105mm self-propelled howitzer with wheels and destroyed ST1 tanks.
> 
> * * If you want to report grammatical or factual errors in our news articles, you can report it to us using the online comment form.
> 
> https://upnewsinfo.com/2020/04/21/c...or-vt4-battle-tanks-to-pakistan-defense-blog/
> ------------
> Have no idea about the authenticity of this news.


This is a high-end configuration of VT-4, so it can not be Nigeria or Pakistan.
Possilbe options include:
Malyasia, Brunei (from camouflage)
Iraq, Oman, UAE, Kwuait, Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Algeria(from 707's words)
I personally think it is UAE as VN-50 is designed at their request, so they may use these two to form heavy armored bridage


----------



## StormBreaker

Dazzler said:


> For Nigeria not Pakistan


People are so cringe man...
Someone posted on pdf, then defence blog posted it and then propakistani copied it.

LOL

https://propakistani.pk/2020/04/22/china-starts-shipping-vt4-battle-tanks-to-pakistan-army/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Haris Ali2140

StormBreaker said:


> People are so cringe man...
> Someone posted on pdf, then defence blog posted it and then propakistani copied it.
> 
> LOL
> 
> https://propakistani.pk/2020/04/22/china-starts-shipping-vt4-battle-tanks-to-pakistan-army/


There ain't a single defence analyst who gives some credible analysis with the exception of Quwa.


----------



## StormBreaker

Haris Ali2140 said:


> There ain't a single defence analyst who gives some credible analysis with the exception of Quwa.


Quwa is our own guy, They aren’t...
Besides, @Bilal Khan (Quwa) Is a quality poster, have good knowledge of basics and more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

@Horus @Slav Defence plz close the thread


----------



## Haris Ali2140

StormBreaker said:


> Quwa is our own guy, They aren’t...
> Besides, @Bilal Khan (Quwa) Is a quality poster, have good knowledge of basics and more.


But they should atleast contact the relevant authorities fo info.


----------



## Khanivore

Armchair said:


> Wish Pak would buy T-59s upgraded to Zarrar alongside these bad boys.


The T-59s are ancient relics. There is no need for more of those tanks, but I think PA should look at the lightweight, agile tank, the VT-5 (Type 15) to replace the old tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Aryeih Leib

Why would Nigeria buy same tank with two different camouflage [emoji2369][emoji2369]


----------



## Dazzler

Aryeih Leib said:


> Why would Nigeria buy same tank with two different camouflage [emoji2369][emoji2369]
> 
> View attachment 626199



Not for Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## StormBreaker

Haris Ali2140 said:


> But they should atleast contact the relevant authorities fo info.


They want to sell their shit, while clean people like Quwa do it solely out of their love for writing defense...



Dazzler said:


> Not for Pakistan.


Is that tunisia?


----------



## zhxy

Khanivore said:


> The T-59s are ancient relics. There is no need for more of those tanks, but I think PA should look at the lightweight, agile tank, the VT-5 (Type 15) to replace the old tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHI RULES

StormBreaker said:


> They want to sell their shit, while clean people like Quwa do it solely out of their love for writing defense...
> 
> 
> Is that tunisia?



The soldiers are perhaps from Nigeria as Chinese members have already pointed out some sales to Nigeria.



aliaselin said:


> This is a high-end configuration of VT-4, so it can not be Nigeria or Pakistan.
> Possilbe options include:
> Malyasia, Brunei (from camouflage)
> Iraq, Oman, UAE, Kwuait, Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Algeria(from 707's words)
> I personally think it is UAE as VN-50 is designed at their request, so they may use these two to form heavy armored bridage



Sir considering emerging challenges PA shall go for high end MBT purchase not the downgraded one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## imranyounus

The paint scheme is not same as in Pakistan Army. We use either green with yellow patches no red ever seen in PA. But over all i believe this is probably the best option. VT 4 is based on MTB 2000 Which is AK. we could update our AKs and even T 85 on similar standards. Further it could also serve as base for AK II.


----------



## zhxy

If Type-99a reaches 100 points, VT-4 is about 90-95 points. VT-4 is not as strong as Type-99, but it is not inferior too far, anyway VT-4 is a tank born later, it inherits many advantages of type-99a. The biggest difference between the two tanks is the Type-99's armor is thicker and stronger thanks to the special alloy. The advantage of VT-4 over Type-99 is in electronics and active protection system.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

StormBreaker said:


> They want to sell their shit, while clean people like Quwa do it solely out of their love for writing defense...
> 
> 
> Is that tunisia?



Nigeria



imranyounus said:


> The paint scheme is not same as in Pakistan Army. We use either green with yellow patches no red ever seen in PA. But over all i believe this is probably the best option. VT 4 is based on MTB 2000 Which is AK. we could update our AKs and even T 85 on similar standards. Further it could also serve as base for AK II.



Updated AKs






Updated 85s

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## zhxy

FuturePAF said:


> Any indication how the VT-4 stacks up against the Latest T-90 variant?



India does not yet own the latest version of the T-90.

One-on-one matches are unlikely. The biggest possibility if available is ATGM HJ-12 vs T90

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Dazzler said:


> Nigeria
> 
> 
> 
> Updated AKs
> 
> View attachment 626211
> 
> 
> Updated 85s


Don't wanna be rude but these updated 85's has the worst Camo a tank could have

Just keep it simple

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## zhxy

Beast said:


> Abram is a 4person manned MBT*.* Despite weighting heavy doesn't mean it has thicker armour than VT-4. Most weight is to make space for extra man needed.



abram is very heavy and has very thick frontal armor. VT-4 is more compact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

zhxy said:


> abram is very heavy and has very thick frontal armor. VT-4 is more compact.
> 
> View attachment 626323


I don't think Abram frontal armour is as thick or thicker than VT-4. As I mention, the extra weight is to handle extra space for additional 4th manned crew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

zhxy said:


> abram is very heavy and has very thick frontal armor. VT-4 is more compact.
> 
> View attachment 626323




Not sure but let’s see will believe it when actually reported by Janes or paa not sure why would paa buy when it has local made almost similar with 3g electronics the only difference is era plus composite armor And active protection 


lastly why would paa introduce a new tank in very low quantity
Just 100

time will tell


https://www.armyrecognition.com/chi...a_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_uk.html


----------



## zeeshe100

there is a news that we just started receiving these tank


----------



## Signalian

zeeshe100 said:


> there is a news that we just started receiving these tank


I hope not

PA needs more of these

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## graphican

Signalian said:


> I hope not
> 
> PA needs more of these
> View attachment 626689



These are Al-Khalid's... right?


----------



## Signalian

graphican said:


> These are Al-Khalid's... right?


UpGraded AK.

Point being that although VT-4 is close to Type-90-II and thus close to AK series in many ways, its imperative that Pakistan sticks to local production of AK series and further works ahead on AK-II, bringing AK-II from design board onto trials.

Iran Karrar MBT looks like T-90 and Zulfiqar III looks like Abrams. But looking similar doesnt mean they have similar capabilities. Similarly, VT-4 may seem the best choice looking at AK series, VT-4 and AK are so far, lighter than European and American MBTs. Pakistan should move towards Altay type design for future tanks. I do agree that AK/VT-4 and T-99 have good designs and Pakistan operates T-series of Russian and Chinese origin since 1960s, but its 2020 now and western designs and concepts should be welcomed, not just electronics.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Cookie Monster

Signalian said:


> UpGraded AK.
> 
> Point being that although VT-4 is close to Type-90-II and thus close to AK series in many ways, its imperative that Pakistan sticks to local production of AK series and further works ahead on AK-II, bringing AK-II from design board onto trials.
> 
> Iran Karrar MBT looks like T-90 and Zulfiqar III looks like Abrams. But looking similar doesnt mean they have similar capabilities. Similarly, VT-4 may seem the best choice looking at AK series, VT-4 and AK are so far, lighter than European and American MBTs. Pakistan should move towards Altay type design for future tanks. I do agree that AK/VT-4 and T-99 have good designs and Pakistan operates T-series of Russian and Chinese origin since 1960s, but its 2020 now and western designs and concepts should be welcomed, not just electronics.


I do agree about the local production(the rest of ur post discussing the similarities...I'm not knowledgeable enough so I won't even talk about that)...
PA needs to take the same approach as PAF and PN of in house development and production. Focus on AK 2 while making AK1...so this way in long term all the other types of tanks can be phased out(in due time) and everything can be streamlined to just having 2 types...a high/low mix. It would also keep the much needed money circulating within Pak's own economy rather than flowing out to some foreign country. Pak can engage Ukraine, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey, China, etc. for various technologies that go into making a tank...and make a beast of a tank for its own needs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Khanivore

Without seriously enhanced air superiority, air support, anti-tank helicopter gunship support, anti-aircraft defences, it's kind of pointless to buy these MBTs right now. On a modern battlefield, the air force is of paramount importance. Focus must be in order of Air > Land > Sea > Space.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

Cookie Monster said:


> I do agree about the local production(the rest of ur post discussing the similarities...I'm not knowledgeable enough so I won't even talk about that)...
> PA needs to take the same approach as PAF and PN of in house development and production. Focus on AK 2 while making AK1...so this way in long term all the other types of tanks can be phased out(in due time) and everything can be streamlined to just having 2 types...a high/low mix. It would also keep the much needed money circulating within Pak's own economy rather than flowing out to some foreign country. Pak can engage Ukraine, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey, China, etc. for various technologies that go into making a tank...and make a beast of a tank for its own needs.


Addition of T-80 if possible would have been suitable too, however commonality of MBT type is also important. This could be achieved after AK-II comes in regular service and all else phases out.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## zhxy

The AK-II is great, but it's not in the same league as VT-4 and T-90.
If Pakistan has money, then Leopard 2a7 is the ideal choice


----------



## Armchair

Signalian said:


> Addition of T-80 if possible would have been suitable too, however commonality of MBT type is also important. This could be achieved after AK-II comes in regular service and all else phases out.



There seems to be so little information on the AK-II. And at the rate HIT produces, it will take 2 decades to get any serious numbers of AKIIs... 

Would it not be good to supplement these with T-80Us with replaced diesel engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Trango Towers

We are also buying jf17 bulk 3


khansaheeb said:


> India buys Rafaels and we buy Tanks , something not right here.


----------



## CrazyZ

China has the largest industrial capacity in the world. Why not supplement our own production with purchases from China. We will never be able produce the Al-Khalid series in large enough quantities in a given time frame as China can produce VT-4. This approach would allow us to modernize our forces in the fastest way possible while still preserving our in house ability to produce tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Signalian said:


> UpGraded AK.
> 
> Point being that although VT-4 is close to Type-90-II and thus close to AK series in many ways, its imperative that Pakistan sticks to local production of AK series and further works ahead on AK-II, bringing AK-II from design board onto trials.
> 
> Iran Karrar MBT looks like T-90 and Zulfiqar III looks like Abrams. But looking similar doesnt mean they have similar capabilities. Similarly, VT-4 may seem the best choice looking at AK series, VT-4 and AK are so far, lighter than European and American MBTs. Pakistan should move towards Altay type design for future tanks. I do agree that AK/VT-4 and T-99 have good designs and Pakistan operates T-series of Russian and Chinese origin since 1960s, but its 2020 now and western designs and concepts should be welcomed, not just electronics.


Your analysis and spec are totally off. VT-4 is not another Type90-II. The chassis alone tells you it is totally a different type and not just evolve from Type90-II. 

Chinese type 96 is evolve from Type90-II but Chinese Type 99 is another level. The chassis and engine layout are totally different. It's much bigger. VT-4 are evolve from Type 99 mbt.



zhxy said:


> The AK-II is great, but it's not in the same league as VT-4 and T-90.
> If Pakistan has money, then Leopard 2a7 is the ideal choice


Not necessary. Leopard 2A7 is simply too heavy for Pakistan ground area and bridges. You will be surprised V-4 suit PA requirement even money is not an option.
There is reason why Arjun II is heavily criticised.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair

Chinese tanks are junk. Their engines are terrible. Bangladesh bought MBT-2000 that leaks when it rains. Just to give you an idea of the quality of garbage Norinco produces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Beast said:


> Your analysis and spec are totally off. VT-4 is not another Type90-II. The chassis alone tells you it is totally a different type and not just evolve from Type90-II.
> 
> Chinese type 96 is evolve from Type90-II but Chinese Type 99 is another level. The chassis and engine layout are totally different. It's much bigger. VT-4 are evolve from Type 99 mbt.


Read clearly, before replying. I didn't say "VT-4 is another type of Type-90 II".
Next time, ask, since you didn't understand.



Armchair said:


> There seems to be so little information on the AK-II. And at the rate HIT produces, it will take 2 decades to get any serious numbers of AKIIs...
> 
> Would it not be good to supplement these with T-80Us with replaced diesel engines?


I had this proposition before, but PA seems to have plans of its own

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Armchair said:


> Chinese tanks are junk. Their engines are terrible. Bangladesh bought MBT-2000 that leaks when it rains. Just to give you an idea of the quality of garbage Norinco produces.



Lol.. I am sure your is a fake statement. Sounds like a paid one. BD must be dumb to signed a new deal for VT-5

Same as RTA and Nigeria. They must be too blind , right?



Signalian said:


> I had this proposition before, but PA seems to have plans of its own




This is what u wrote!
" VT-4 is close to Type-90-II "

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PakFactor

Is this confirmed we getting the tanks?


----------



## Signalian

Beast said:


> When did I claim u mention VT-4 is another Type 90II? Next time ask if you didn't understand.
> 
> This is what u wrote!
> " VT-4 is close to Type-90-II "


and you assumed that "close" means a variant ? English ugh. 
well that's why i said, ask ! Don't assume.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Signalian said:


> and you assumed that "close" means a variant ? English ugh.
> well that's why i said, ask ! Don't assume.


This is also what u wrote!

" and thus close to AK series in many ways, its imperative that Pakistan sticks to local production of AK series "

I can assure you, all major components from sensor ,main engine, engine transmission, combat system , main gun and stabilize is nothing similar to Al Khalid. The reason why PA need to buy a new tank is to enhance the capabilities to another level


Armchair said:


> I think the question you want to ask from the universe is "why do people buy cheap chinese cr@p?"


@waz @WebMaster @Slav Defence @Horus

I don't think you have any intention for civilised debate. I hope moderator can step in for the better of this thread. If u can contribute meaningful things and fully back up any of your statement with real facts and account. I am sure your statement will be allowed here. But if you just come here and mess up and stereotype without valid reason. I think moderator shall step in to clear this thread.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/forum-rules-and-regulations-for-users.662937/


RTA order 10 additional VT-4 at USS 5.8 million each. Each price higher than T-90S.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/04/04/thailand-to-buy-more-chinese-tanks-reportedly-for-58m/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aliaselin

Armchair said:


> Chinese tanks are junk. Their engines are terrible. Bangladesh bought MBT-2000 that leaks when it rains. Just to give you an idea of the quality of garbage Norinco produces.


Are you idiot？ MBT-2000 uses Ukraine engine 6TD-2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

aliaselin said:


> Are you idiot？ MBT-2000 uses Ukraine engine 6TD-2



Only Al Khalid version uses Ukraine engine. The rest mbt-2000 export uses Chinese engine of 850hp. The 1200hp use for VT-4 cannot fit inside mbt-2000 as their chassis, engine transmission and layout are different. Peru require a higher HP engine which only Ukraine can provide that time in 2011.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Small 300 tank order ... long way to go

Unsure if it is Pakistan based on our economics which is more focused on Covid-19 pendemic


----------



## Ark_Angel

PakShaheen79 said:


> *China reportedly begins delivery of modern major VT4 battle tanks to Pakistan – Defense Blog*
> 
> *By*
> * Matilda Coleman*
> * -*
> *April 21, 2020*
> *0*
> *15*
> *Share*
> 
> 
> 
> Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is reportedly starting to deliver new main VT4 battle tanks to Pakistan.
> 
> In mid-April 2020, at the Chinese tank factory located in Baotou, Inner Mongolia province, the ceremony of shipping the first, after the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, the first batch of VT4 main battle tanks equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA) (Option FY-IV) for a foreign customer.
> 
> Chinese media reports that Pakistan is a foreign customer for these tanks.
> 
> In 2019, the Pakistani Army Armored Corps selected the Chinese VT4 tank, produced by Norinco, to meet the requirements for the acquisition of hundreds of new main battle tanks.
> 
> A military analyst, Muzammil Hatami, announced the selection of the Norinco VT4 to increase the Pakistani armored vehicle fleet.
> 
> "VT4 has confirmed for the future Pakistan Army tank and the Alkhalid II main battle tank is under development," said Muzammil Hatami during the tenth IDEAS international defense exhibition in Karachi, Pakistan.
> 
> The VT4 is a third generation MBT that Norinco offers for export. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the Pakistan Army, although it retains the 125mm primary weapon, the carousel autoloader, and the crew configuration of the oldest vehicle.
> 
> Despite the details of the tender for the future tank being kept secret, it was reported that Pakistan could obtain around 100 MBT to satisfy the deficiency of MBT production in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week it was also reported that the Nigerian army received a shipment of military vehicles from the North China Industries Corporation (NORINCO).
> 
> According to local sources, NORINCO delivered the first of 17 military vehicles that compromised VT4 main battle tanks, SH5 105mm self-propelled howitzer with wheels and destroyed ST1 tanks.
> 
> * * If you want to report grammatical or factual errors in our news articles, you can report it to us using the online comment form.
> 
> https://upnewsinfo.com/2020/04/21/c...or-vt4-battle-tanks-to-pakistan-defense-blog/
> ------------
> Have no idea about the authenticity of this news.


True. The news is 100% accurate. VT-4s are coming. @Dazzler i wouldn’t want to negate you but sorry this time your information needs updating. PA is in the process of receiving VT-4s. The deal had had been finalised last year. PA is looking at 300 units. 01 x Div Strength will be Re equipped with VT-4s. Delivery of the units to complete in 05 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Ark_Angel said:


> True. The news is 100% accurate. VT-4s are coming. @Dazzler i wouldn’t want to negate you but sorry this time your information needs updating. PA is in the process of receiving VT-4s. The deal had had been finalised last year. PA is looking at 300 units. 01 x Div Strength will be Re equipped with VT-4s. Delivery of the units to complete in 05 years.



Lets see.


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Ark_Angel said:


> True. The news is 100% accurate. VT-4s are coming. @Dazzler i wouldn’t want to negate you but sorry this time your information needs updating. PA is in the process of receiving VT-4s. The deal had had been finalised last year. PA is looking at 300 units. 01 x Div Strength will be Re equipped with VT-4s. Delivery of the units to complete in 05 years.


We don't need VT-4s. We need something like AK-Is and AK-2s above 500 in numbers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ark_Angel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> We don't need VT-4s. We need something like AK-Is and AK-2s above 500 in numbers


VT-4 beats AKs in mobility,electronics,optronics,stability,protection,production capacity.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## IblinI

Ark_Angel said:


> VT-4 beats AKs in mobility,electronics,optronics,stability,protection,production capacity.


but all in all, how reliable is the source, is VT–4 really going to Pakistan, in 300!?


----------



## Affanakad0t.

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> We don't need VT-4s. We need something like AK-Is and AK-2s above 500 in numbers


Vt4 and khalid are almost similar. I guess VT4 is better. Its has type 99 configuration.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zhxy

Pakistan currently does not want to buy VT-4 to save money, they can choose to upgrade AK by integrating GL5 APS system


----------



## bananarepublic

If news is true that VT-4 is being procured by Pakistan ,the paint scheme suggests that those tanks would be used up North with more vegetation. Or those tanks could be for Nigeria and we might get different ones.
Nonetheless if those are the paint scheme Pakistan wants it defiantly means those are to be used in the Northern regions of Punjab .


----------



## Ark_Angel

zhxy said:


> Pakistan currently does not want to buy VT-4 to save money, they can choose to upgrade AK by integrating GL5 APS system


Negative. The deals already been done and dusted.



bananarepublic said:


> If news is true that VT-4 is being procured by Pakistan ,the paint scheme suggests that those tanks would be used up North with more vegetation. Or those tanks could be for Nigeria and we might get different ones.
> Nonetheless if those are the paint scheme Pakistan wants it defiantly means those are to be used in the Northern regions of Punjab .


Wish I could tell you the exact location where it will be based but due to OPSEC can’t.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bananarepublic

Ark_Angel said:


> Negative. The deals already been done and dusted.
> 
> 
> Wish I could tell you the exact location where it will be based but due to OPSEC can’t.



If you can, could answer these question.
1.are the pictures where VT-4 are in Green digital cam the one's we are getting?
2.are the VT-4 being based somewhere very interesting?


----------



## xuxu1457

can find some videos, Thailand bought a lot VT4
Thailand made a lot of videos about this tank.
IN some factors，VT4 is >99tank
Weight: 52 tons
Personnel: 3
Engine:1300 HP，Power system integral hoisting, 40 minutes to complete the replacement.
Transmission system:Integrated hydromechanical automatic transmission,It's like driving an automatic SUV.
Speed: 71km/H
0-32km/h:9s
It is highly informative and can be drove andshot by one person in case of emergency.

https://haokan.baidu.com/v?vid=12568070948786005706&pd=bjh&fr=bjhauthor&type=video&pd=pcshare

https://tv.sohu.com/v/cGwvOTMzNjg2MS8xMDQ5NDkxMjAuc2h0bWw=.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAIDER

*Solid Tank, Solid Price: Will China's VT-4 Outsell America's Abrams Tank?*
The market is heating up.

ey Point: The VT-4 gets the job done and doesn't break the bank. But if a country wants top-of-the-line and doesn't mind spending, then the M1 Abrams is the way to go.

While China’s primary tank is the ZTZ-99, its military industry (in the Western tradition) has also developed completely original designs for export. One of the designs that’s achieved considerable success is the VT-4, which has been recently adopted in significant numbers by the Royal Thai Army. The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine. But how does the VT-4’s technology stack up against Russia’s T-90S, America’s M1 Abrams export models or the Leopard 2?

_This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest._

*The VT-4’s roots are in the Al-Khalid tank developed in the 1990s. The Al-Khalid tank was largely built with mostly Chinese and Pakistani technology, but a sore spot for the Chinese designers was their lack of ability to provide a power plant for the tank. The engines for the tank had to be sourced from Germany or Ukraine. Ukraine ended up providing the production run for the Al-Khalid tank. As a result, the VT-4 program’s primary objective when it began in 2009 was to build an indigenous power plant for future domestic and export tanks. Due to the success of this engine development program, many VT-4 marketing materials tout the reliability and performance of its engine.*
The Thai decision to acquire the VT-4 was a result of Ukraine’s failure to deliver T-84 Oplots on schedule. Originally, the decision was between the T-90S and the T-84 Oplot, but American diplomatic pressure resulted in the selection of the T-84 over the T-90S. However, due to various problems and the war in Ukraine, Ukraine has delivered the ordered T-84s at a slow rate. Thus, a program was initiated in 2016 to select another modern tank to take the place of the T-84. The new contenders were the Chinese VT-4 and the Russian T-90MS. Again, the post-coup Thai government’s pivot towards China and waning Russian influence in the region resulted in the selection of the VT-4 over the T-90, despite the T-90’s greater export success and the VT-4 being an unproven design. The Thai contract is the first adoption of the VT-4.

The VT-4 uses 125-millimeter Chinese BT-4 ammunition. BT-4 is the export designation for the DTW125 round, a last-generation Chinese APFSDS round with a tungsten penetrator, which is rated at seven hundred millimeters of RHA penetration at two kilometers. A new round is also in development for the export market based on technology from the current generation DTC125 round (which is rumored to penetrate 750 millimeters at the same range). While 125 millimeters is the standard caliber, the VT-4 may also be exported with a 120-millimeter gun upon a customer’s request. A 140-millimeter cannon was once considered for the VT-4 and future Chinese domestic tanks, but it is currently shelved in favor of research into better ammunition or ETC technology. The VT-4’s autoloader is also practically identical to those found in the T-72 series of tanks, with horizontal ammo stowage around the turret floor (this can be seen as the autoloader uses a hoist system in the picture, similar to the hoist system of the T-72, illustrated here). The VT-4 in Thai service is also compatible with Ukrainian ammunition, including the gun-launched ATGMs. While the original designer of the VT-4 didn’t see the need for GLATGM on the VT-4, stating that the capability given by kinetic penetrators is enough for developing countries, the feature was added to Thai VT-4s in order to make use of delivered GLATGMs that came with the T-84s. The hull armor of the VT-4 is estimated to be around five to six hundred millimeters’ RHA protection without ERA, and seven to eight hundred with the ERA package. Turret armor statistics remain restricted to potential clients. Other features on the VT-4 include laser warning receivers and a fully stabilized, independent, thermal commander sight (a feature still lacking on some modern Russian tanks).
In practice, Thai tankers have complained about the ERA on the VT-4 being thinner than that of the Oplot. The Oplot’s soft-kill active-protection system design has been proven in combat (as the Ukrainian Varta system is a close clone of the Shtora system, which has proven effective in Syria), whereas the VT4’s system has not been tested at all. However, in firing drills, the VT-4’s fire control system has proven to be more accurate than the Oplot’s.

While the capabilities of the VT-4 are not revolutionary in any way (unlike some claims from Norinco), it is a solid tank for its price, that will likely have good support from the manufacturing base in China. Survivability wise, it has the same potential issues of the T-72 and T-90 series due to the same ammo layout. While the gun performance is unlikely to be on the same level as the latest American, Chinese or Russian guns, due to being based on last-generation round technology, it should be enough to counter most armored threats that aren’t top tier. As such, the VT-4 is likely to be a popular export to nations without the budget or political connections to Russia, Europe or the United States, as a “good enough” tank. Then again, similar things were said about the Stingray light tank, for which the Royal Thai Army is also the only user.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAIDER

*Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition*


According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) *VT4* is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.







The *VT4 MBT* (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).

The VT4 MBT was unveiled by the Chinese defense industry in November 2019 during the China International Aviation & Aerospace or Zhuhai AirShow. The layout of this tank is very similar to the Russian tank with a crew of three including driver, commander and gunner and the use of an automatic loading system for the main armament.

The main armament of the VT4 / MBT-3000 consists of a 125 mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader that holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. One 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun is mounted to the right of the main armament, while on the commander's cupola is mounted a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun that can be used to engage ground and aerial targets.

The hull and turret of the *VT4* are of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. The first version of the tank was fitted with additional ERA (Explosive Reactive armor) Level FY-2 providing protection against HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammunition. According to the latest pictures released on the Internet, the latest variant of the VT4 is now fitted at the front of the hull with ERA armor Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead.

*




Close view of the ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the VT4 main battle tank (Picture source China Defense Blog)*

Currently, China produces four Level of ERA armour including the FY-I with protection against HEAT ammunition, the FY-II with protection against HEAT, APFSDS ammunition, the FY-III with protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition and the FY-IV providing protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition but with 85 mm thick armour blocks for the FY-IV and only 75 mm for Level III. The ERA armour consists of steel blocks with C4 explosives inside.

Reactive armour is a type of vehicle armour that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened kinetic energy penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour.

A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of kinetic energy penetrator ammunition used to attack modern vehicle armour. As an armament for main battle tanks, it succeeds armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition, which is still used in small or medium caliber weapon systems.

Tandem warheads are effective against reactive armour, which is designed to protect an armoured vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank ammunition, missiles and rocket. The first stage of the weapon is typically a weak charge that either pierces the reactive armour of the target without detonating it leaving a channel through the reactive armour so that the second warhead may pass unimpeded, or simply detonating the armour plates causing the timing of the counter-explosion to fail. The second detonation from the same projectile attacks the same location as the first detonation where the reactive armour has been compromised. Since the regular armour plating is often the only defence remaining, the main charge (second detonation) has an increased likelihood of penetrating the armour.

*China Starts Delivering VT4 Battle Tanks to Pak Army*
2 days ago Darakhshan Anjum





China has begun delivering new VT4 main battle tanks (MBTs) to Pakistan. A subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co. Ltd. held a shipment ceremony in a tank factory located in Baotou, Mongolia for a foreign customer
The first batch of VT4 MBTs which is equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA) (Option FY-IV) is in the process of being delivered to the Pak Army.
*Pakistan Army Armored Corps decided to acquire almost 1000 VT4 tanks from NORINCO to meet its needs.*
The VT4 MBT is an upgraded version of Al-Khalid MBT which is also known as MBT-2000. It is offered for export by NORINCO with the same 125 mm main gun, carousel auto-loader, and crew configuration.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that the company also delivered the first shipment of 17 military vehicles to the Nigerian Army. It also included ST1 tank, SH5 105mm wheeled self-propelled howitzers and VT4 MBTs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xuxu1457

Evolution and Development of Chinese Tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

HAIDER said:


> The *VT4 MBT* (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand.


............


----------



## Affanakad0t.

LKJ86 said:


> ............


China not using VT4 right?


----------



## LKJ86

Affanakad0t. said:


> China not using VT4 right?


VT-4, VT-5, and so on are developed according to the export demands.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pandora

HAIDER said:


> *Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition*
> 
> 
> According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) *VT4* is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *VT4 MBT* (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).
> 
> The VT4 MBT was unveiled by the Chinese defense industry in November 2019 during the China International Aviation & Aerospace or Zhuhai AirShow. The layout of this tank is very similar to the Russian tank with a crew of three including driver, commander and gunner and the use of an automatic loading system for the main armament.
> 
> The main armament of the VT4 / MBT-3000 consists of a 125 mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader that holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. One 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun is mounted to the right of the main armament, while on the commander's cupola is mounted a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun that can be used to engage ground and aerial targets.
> 
> The hull and turret of the *VT4* are of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. The first version of the tank was fitted with additional ERA (Explosive Reactive armor) Level FY-2 providing protection against HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammunition. According to the latest pictures released on the Internet, the latest variant of the VT4 is now fitted at the front of the hull with ERA armor Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close view of the ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the VT4 main battle tank (Picture source China Defense Blog)*
> 
> Currently, China produces four Level of ERA armour including the FY-I with protection against HEAT ammunition, the FY-II with protection against HEAT, APFSDS ammunition, the FY-III with protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition and the FY-IV providing protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition but with 85 mm thick armour blocks for the FY-IV and only 75 mm for Level III. The ERA armour consists of steel blocks with C4 explosives inside.
> 
> Reactive armour is a type of vehicle armour that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened kinetic energy penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour.
> 
> A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of kinetic energy penetrator ammunition used to attack modern vehicle armour. As an armament for main battle tanks, it succeeds armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition, which is still used in small or medium caliber weapon systems.
> 
> Tandem warheads are effective against reactive armour, which is designed to protect an armoured vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank ammunition, missiles and rocket. The first stage of the weapon is typically a weak charge that either pierces the reactive armour of the target without detonating it leaving a channel through the reactive armour so that the second warhead may pass unimpeded, or simply detonating the armour plates causing the timing of the counter-explosion to fail. The second detonation from the same projectile attacks the same location as the first detonation where the reactive armour has been compromised. Since the regular armour plating is often the only defence remaining, the main charge (second detonation) has an increased likelihood of penetrating the armour.
> 
> *China Starts Delivering VT4 Battle Tanks to Pak Army*
> 2 days ago Darakhshan Anjum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China has begun delivering new VT4 main battle tanks (MBTs) to Pakistan. A subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co. Ltd. held a shipment ceremony in a tank factory located in Baotou, Mongolia for a foreign customer
> The first batch of VT4 MBTs which is equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA) (Option FY-IV) is in the process of being delivered to the Pak Army.
> *Pakistan Army Armored Corps decided to acquire almost 1000 VT4 tanks from NORINCO to meet its needs.*
> The VT4 MBT is an upgraded version of Al-Khalid MBT which is also known as MBT-2000. It is offered for export by NORINCO with the same 125 mm main gun, carousel auto-loader, and crew configuration.
> 
> Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that the company also delivered the first shipment of 17 military vehicles to the Nigerian Army. It also included ST1 tank, SH5 105mm wheeled self-propelled howitzers and VT4 MBTs.



Would this come as Alkhalid 2 or Al haider series.


----------



## Beast

Affanakad0t. said:


> Vt4 and khalid are almost similar. I guess VT4 is better. Its has type 99 configuration.


They are not the same. Engine, engine transmission, , fire control. Gears.. Even gun. All those are not interchange nor about to fix swap in. PA pick VT-4 becos it really gives PA another level up compare to AK 1.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IblinI

Beast said:


> PA pick VT-4 becos it really gives PA another level up compare to AK 1


It's still not confirmed yet, we will have to wait and see.


----------



## ARMalik

Beast said:


> They are not the same. Engine, engine transmission, , fire control. Gears.. Even gun. All those are not interchange nor about to fix swap in. PA pick VT-4 becos it really gives PA another level up compare to AK 1.



You know very well that there are plenty of knowledgeable members here would disagree with your statement of VT-4 being better than AK 1. In fact, there is lots of opposition against VT-4 as it does not bring anything substantially better than AK except 'numbers'.


----------



## Beast

ARMalik said:


> You know very well that there are plenty of knowledgeable members here would disagree with your statement of VT-4 being better than AK 1. In fact, there is lots of opposition against VT-4 as it does not bring anything substantially better than AK except 'numbers'.


Knowledgeable members? Like how bragging how they have insider information , they know what PA will procure but end up is nothing but lies. Now u are the one telling me, they know VT-4 better than me? I know my source from China. And VT-4 is made by China. So you think who is more reliable regards to spec and what VT-4 can do?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ARMalik

Signalian said:


> UpGraded AK.
> 
> Point being that although VT-4 is close to Type-90-II and thus close to AK series in many ways, its imperative that Pakistan sticks to local production of AK series and further works ahead on AK-II, bringing AK-II from design board onto trials.
> 
> Iran Karrar MBT looks like T-90 and Zulfiqar III looks like Abrams. But looking similar doesnt mean they have similar capabilities. Similarly, VT-4 may seem the best choice looking at AK series, VT-4 and AK are so far, lighter than European and American MBTs. Pakistan should move towards Altay type design for future tanks. I do agree that AK/VT-4 and T-99 have good designs and Pakistan operates T-series of Russian and Chinese origin since 1960s, but its 2020 now and western designs and concepts should be welcomed, not just electronics.



Other than money, do you see any reason why PA didn't go for Altay?


----------



## Beast

ARMalik said:


> Other than money, do you see any reason why PA didn't go for Altay?


Engine and overweight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ARMalik

Beast said:


> Knowledge? Like how bragging how they have insider information , they know what PA will procure but end up is nothing but lies. Now u are the one telling me, they know VT-4 better than me? I know my source from China. And VT-4 is made by China. So you think who is more reliable regards to spec and what VT-4 can do?



I would say You probably know more about VT-4 then anyone else here. But then those guys know more about AK then anyone else here. It's a never ending argument as to what is better. 
Anyways, are you confident that the issues in VT-4 during the desert trials have been taken care of? Also, How does VT-4 compare with Altay?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ARMalik said:


> I would say You probably know more about VT-4 then anyone else here. But then those guys know more about AK then anyone else here. It's a never ending argument as to what is better.
> Anyways, are you confident that the issues in VT-4 during the desert trials have been taken care of? Also, How does VT-4 compare with Altay?


I am not sure of Altay but I do know the program is now halt due to engine issue again. Germany ban export of the tank engine to turkey and domestic engine of meeting 1500HP is still far away. The weight is also another big issue. At 65 tons, it is grossly overweight for Pakistan terrain. And being heavier do not mean it has thicker armour than VT-4. It is heavier becos of extra space needed for the 4th crew.
VT-4 with autoloader will reduces fatigue and extra weight needed. This means the mobility of VT-4 is very good despite having a 1300hp engine only.
Fire control stability is also excellent. There are many demonstration of VT-4 gun stabilizer even on the off road move. I will say far better than western MBT.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## xuxu1457

It should be seen from the time line, such as Chinese destroyers, 051B destroyers in 1998, and then 052C in 2003.2014 Launching 052Destroyer，Launch of destroyer 055 in 2017，Each of them can be seen as completely different, with four generations of progress in 20 years from 051B to 055.
Then we look at tanks, 1999 Type 99 tank, 2007 Type 99A tank, 2014 99A2 tank

90II in the 1990s, VT1 in 2000, VT1A in 2007 and VT4 in 2015.

at the same time
051B to 055
99 to 99A2
VT1 to VT4
99 tank and VT4 can be regarded as twins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

HAIDER said:


> *Solid Tank, Solid Price: Will China's VT-4 Outsell America's Abrams Tank?*
> The market is heating up.
> 
> ey Point: The VT-4 gets the job done and doesn't break the bank. But if a country wants top-of-the-line and doesn't mind spending, then the M1 Abrams is the way to go.
> 
> While China’s primary tank is the ZTZ-99, its military industry (in the Western tradition) has also developed completely original designs for export. One of the designs that’s achieved considerable success is the VT-4, which has been recently adopted in significant numbers by the Royal Thai Army. The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine. But how does the VT-4’s technology stack up against Russia’s T-90S, America’s M1 Abrams export models or the Leopard 2?
> 
> _This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest._
> 
> *The VT-4’s roots are in the Al-Khalid tank developed in the 1990s. The Al-Khalid tank was largely built with mostly Chinese and Pakistani technology, but a sore spot for the Chinese designers was their lack of ability to provide a power plant for the tank. The engines for the tank had to be sourced from Germany or Ukraine. Ukraine ended up providing the production run for the Al-Khalid tank. As a result, the VT-4 program’s primary objective when it began in 2009 was to build an indigenous power plant for future domestic and export tanks. Due to the success of this engine development program, many VT-4 marketing materials tout the reliability and performance of its engine.*
> The Thai decision to acquire the VT-4 was a result of Ukraine’s failure to deliver T-84 Oplots on schedule. Originally, the decision was between the T-90S and the T-84 Oplot, but American diplomatic pressure resulted in the selection of the T-84 over the T-90S. However, due to various problems and the war in Ukraine, Ukraine has delivered the ordered T-84s at a slow rate. Thus, a program was initiated in 2016 to select another modern tank to take the place of the T-84. The new contenders were the Chinese VT-4 and the Russian T-90MS. Again, the post-coup Thai government’s pivot towards China and waning Russian influence in the region resulted in the selection of the VT-4 over the T-90, despite the T-90’s greater export success and the VT-4 being an unproven design. The Thai contract is the first adoption of the VT-4.
> 
> The VT-4 uses 125-millimeter Chinese BT-4 ammunition. BT-4 is the export designation for the DTW125 round, a last-generation Chinese APFSDS round with a tungsten penetrator, which is rated at seven hundred millimeters of RHA penetration at two kilometers. A new round is also in development for the export market based on technology from the current generation DTC125 round (which is rumored to penetrate 750 millimeters at the same range). While 125 millimeters is the standard caliber, the VT-4 may also be exported with a 120-millimeter gun upon a customer’s request. A 140-millimeter cannon was once considered for the VT-4 and future Chinese domestic tanks, but it is currently shelved in favor of research into better ammunition or ETC technology. The VT-4’s autoloader is also practically identical to those found in the T-72 series of tanks, with horizontal ammo stowage around the turret floor (this can be seen as the autoloader uses a hoist system in the picture, similar to the hoist system of the T-72, illustrated here). The VT-4 in Thai service is also compatible with Ukrainian ammunition, including the gun-launched ATGMs. While the original designer of the VT-4 didn’t see the need for GLATGM on the VT-4, stating that the capability given by kinetic penetrators is enough for developing countries, the feature was added to Thai VT-4s in order to make use of delivered GLATGMs that came with the T-84s. The hull armor of the VT-4 is estimated to be around five to six hundred millimeters’ RHA protection without ERA, and seven to eight hundred with the ERA package. Turret armor statistics remain restricted to potential clients. Other features on the VT-4 include laser warning receivers and a fully stabilized, independent, thermal commander sight (a feature still lacking on some modern Russian tanks).
> In practice, Thai tankers have complained about the ERA on the VT-4 being thinner than that of the Oplot. The Oplot’s soft-kill active-protection system design has been proven in combat (as the Ukrainian Varta system is a close clone of the Shtora system, which has proven effective in Syria), whereas the VT4’s system has not been tested at all. However, in firing drills, the VT-4’s fire control system has proven to be more accurate than the Oplot’s.
> 
> While the capabilities of the VT-4 are not revolutionary in any way (unlike some claims from Norinco), it is a solid tank for its price, that will likely have good support from the manufacturing base in China. Survivability wise, it has the same potential issues of the T-72 and T-90 series due to the same ammo layout. While the gun performance is unlikely to be on the same level as the latest American, Chinese or Russian guns, due to being based on last-generation round technology, it should be enough to counter most armored threats that aren’t top tier. As such, the VT-4 is likely to be a popular export to nations without the budget or political connections to Russia, Europe or the United States, as a “good enough” tank. Then again, similar things were said about the Stingray light tank, for which the Royal Thai Army is also the only user.


Haider, this article is fill with many errors and assumption. VT-4 do not root from Al Khalid tank. VT-4 is derived from Type99A. China in the past do not wish to export the Type99A tank and as a result, NORINCO can capture only low end and cheap MBT market.

VT-4 is a Type99A model approved for export. It is a water down version but not by a large percentage. Still retain many strong capabilities compare to any western modern tank. Western modern tank improvement has stagnant while Chinese still places emphasize on MBT tank development.

The engine of VT-4 cannot fit into Al Khalid and even the size are different. Type99 MBT engine is 100% Chinese indigenous with no german input. But China lack a powerful engine design for Type85 II and Type90-II since the priority design is for Type99 which is why they ask Ukraine for support of engine. But it is a wake up call when China is denial re export engine for Peru MBT tender. In order to gain more market share and hasten the export. Instead of designing a more powerful engine for Type85 II and Type90-II. VT-4 , an export oriented version of Type99A is approved for export to facilitate export deal. Engine is there, system is there and just need to redesign some area and it will be good to go.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ARMalik

Beast said:


> Haider, this article is fill with many errors and assumption. VT-4 do not root from Al Khalid tank. VT-4 is derived from Type99A. China in the past do not wish to export the Type99A tank and as a result, NORINCO can capture only low end and cheap MBT market.
> 
> VT-4 is a Type99A model approved for export. It is a water down version but not by a large percentage. Still retain many strong capabilities compare to any western modern tank. Western modern tank improvement has stagnant while Chinese still places emphasize on MBT tank development.
> 
> The engine of VT-4 cannot fit into Al Khalid and even the size are different. Type99 MBT engine is 100% Chinese indigenous with no german input. But China lack a powerful engine design for Type85 II and Type90-II since the priority design is for Type99 which is why they ask Ukraine for support of engine. But it is a wake up call when China is denial re export engine for Peru MBT tender. In order to gain more market share and hasten the export. Instead of designing a more powerful engine for Type85 II and Type90-II. VT-4 , an export oriented version of Type99A is approved for export to facilitate export deal. Engine is there, system is there and just need to redesign some area and it will be good to go.



Technically, can a 1500 HP Ukranian engine be fitted to VT-4?


----------



## khanasifm

HAIDER said:


> *Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition*
> 
> 
> According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) *VT4* is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *VT4 MBT* (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).
> 
> The VT4 MBT was unveiled by the Chinese defense industry in November 2019 during the China International Aviation & Aerospace or Zhuhai AirShow. The layout of this tank is very similar to the Russian tank with a crew of three including driver, commander and gunner and the use of an automatic loading system for the main armament.
> 
> The main armament of the VT4 / MBT-3000 consists of a 125 mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader that holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. One 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun is mounted to the right of the main armament, while on the commander's cupola is mounted a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun that can be used to engage ground and aerial targets.
> 
> The hull and turret of the *VT4* are of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. The first version of the tank was fitted with additional ERA (Explosive Reactive armor) Level FY-2 providing protection against HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammunition. According to the latest pictures released on the Internet, the latest variant of the VT4 is now fitted at the front of the hull with ERA armor Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close view of the ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the VT4 main battle tank (Picture source China Defense Blog)*
> 
> Currently, China produces four Level of ERA armour including the FY-I with protection against HEAT ammunition, the FY-II with protection against HEAT, APFSDS ammunition, the FY-III with protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition and the FY-IV providing protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition but with 85 mm thick armour blocks for the FY-IV and only 75 mm for Level III. The ERA armour consists of steel blocks with C4 explosives inside.
> 
> Reactive armour is a type of vehicle armour that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened kinetic energy penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour.
> 
> A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of kinetic energy penetrator ammunition used to attack modern vehicle armour. As an armament for main battle tanks, it succeeds armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition, which is still used in small or medium caliber weapon systems.
> 
> Tandem warheads are effective against reactive armour, which is designed to protect an armoured vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank ammunition, missiles and rocket. The first stage of the weapon is typically a weak charge that either pierces the reactive armour of the target without detonating it leaving a channel through the reactive armour so that the second warhead may pass unimpeded, or simply detonating the armour plates causing the timing of the counter-explosion to fail. The second detonation from the same projectile attacks the same location as the first detonation where the reactive armour has been compromised. Since the regular armour plating is often the only defence remaining, the main charge (second detonation) has an increased likelihood of penetrating the armour.
> 
> *China Starts Delivering VT4 Battle Tanks to Pak Army*
> 2 days ago Darakhshan Anjum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China has begun delivering new VT4 main battle tanks (MBTs) to Pakistan. A subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co. Ltd. held a shipment ceremony in a tank factory located in Baotou, Mongolia for a foreign customer
> The first batch of VT4 MBTs which is equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA) (Option FY-IV) is in the process of being delivered to the Pak Army.
> *Pakistan Army Armored Corps decided to acquire almost 1000 VT4 tanks from NORINCO to meet its needs.*
> The VT4 MBT is an upgraded version of Al-Khalid MBT which is also known as MBT-2000. It is offered for export by NORINCO with the same 125 mm main gun, carousel auto-loader, and crew configuration.
> 
> Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that the company also delivered the first shipment of 17 military vehicles to the Nigerian Army. It also included ST1 tank, SH5 105mm wheeled self-propelled howitzers and VT4 MBTs.




Does not make sense why buy when pak can add the same upgrades to it’s ak with Chinese assistance and then there is ak2 
Unless ak2 is also mbt3000 /vt4 and first few sets will come ready from China and rest rolled out from HIT

anyway time will tell and 900 number way ...


----------



## zhxy

1. China can learn from the way the Russians and Americans export poor quality versions of the weapons they are using. For example, Abrams tanks do not have "depleted uranium ammunition." T-72 tanks lack sophisticated firing control systems. But instead of exporting poor quality Type-99, they decided to create a new tank (VT-4) for export.

2. The Type-99 armor is more protective than VT-4 due to the use of special materials
VT-4 is a tank born later, it inherits many advantages of Type-99. The advantage of VT-4 over Type-99 is in electronics and active protection systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

ARMalik said:


> Technically, can a 1500 HP Ukranian engine be fitted to VT-4?


No, Chinese VT-4 engine is packed with automatic transmission gear into it. Totally different from Ukraine engine concept. The bad is , it is more complicated. The good is, you just need to replace the whole powepack engine, if damage, in just 45mims and u are good to go.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

ARMalik said:


> Technically, can a 1500 HP Ukranian engine be fitted to VT-4?


What is the 1500 HP Ukranian engine?

Does Ukraine have a 1500 HP engine?


----------



## ARMalik

LKJ86 said:


> What is the 1500 HP Ukranian engine?



1500 HP version of the GTD-1250 turbine developed by Klimov Plant State Unitary Enterprise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

ARMalik said:


> 1500 HP version of the GTD-1250 turbine developed by Klimov Plant State Unitary Enterprise.


I just mean diesel engines.

Besides, GTD-1250 is 1250 HP.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ARMalik

LKJ86 said:


> I just mean diesel engines.
> 
> Besides, GTD-1250 is 1250 HP.
> View attachment 627115



As I indicated in my post, there is now a 1500HP version of GTD-1250. Anyways, as for the Diesel engine, it is the 1500HP version developed by Enterprise Malyshev Plant. See the Link from Quwa.

https://quwa.org/2016/05/24/ukraine-introduces-new-1500hp-diesel-engine-tanks/


@Quwa ... Hey Bilal, whatever happened to the $600 Million tank contract between Pakistan and Ukraine? A customised VT-4 with Ukrainian engines - is that even possible keeping in view what Beast said above?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

ARMalik said:


> Technically, can a 1500 HP Ukranian engine be fitted to VT-4?


Do you mean this one?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Affanakad0t.

LKJ86 said:


> What is the 1500 HP Ukranian engine?
> 
> Does Ukraine have a 1500 HP engine?






Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (KMDB)’s 1,500 hp 6TD-3 diesel engine, which it revealed in May 2016, is cited as an option for the Altay MBT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ARMalik

LKJ86 said:


> Do you mean this one?
> View attachment 627118



Yes I think that's the one.


----------



## LKJ86

ARMalik said:


> Yes I think that's the one.


Is it put in service already now? Or still in test?


----------



## Affanakad0t.

LKJ86 said:


> Is it put in service already now? Or still in test?


I think new oplot will have this engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ARMalik

LKJ86 said:


> Is it put in service already now? Or still in test?



Honestly, I have not heard of this engine being used anywhere. As mentioned by @*Affanakad0t *, maybe Oplot will get this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Affanakad0t. said:


> I think new oplot will have this engine.


Isn't the engine too big to the "new oplot"?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Gentelman

VT-4 only means we had problems with Oplot delivery timeframe and AK2 is still in trials.
Moreover we also need numbers. Because VT4 is bringing not something considerable in terms of capability. In modern warfare its not Tank vs Tank but tank vs anti-tank and arieal threats and the raise in capabilities of VT4 (5-10%) vs AK1 isn't that significant to make a differance in battlefield neither worth the investment on support, ammunition etc.
But its clear that PA is vary of Apaches and other attack helis deployment on the eastern front.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ark_Angel

ARMalik said:


> Other than money, do you see any reason why PA didn't go for Altay?


Reason being Turks didn’t respond to RFI. When DGDP dropped pursuance of Altay as it has not yet been commissioned in Any Army World Over. That was one of the pre requisite for qualification into next step.



Gentelman said:


> VT-4 only means we had problems with Oplot delivery timeframe and AK2 is still in trials.
> Moreover we also need numbers. Because VT4 is bringing not something considerable in terms of capability. In modern warfare its not Tank vs Tank but tank vs anti-tank and arieal threats and the raise in capabilities of VT4 (5-10%) vs AK1 isn't that significant to make a differance in battlefield neither worth the investment on support, ammunition etc.
> But its clear that PA is vary of Apaches and other attack helis deployment on the eastern front.


Oplot was dropped as Ukrainians we’re told to bring the Oplot back again for trials with improvements after some major short comings were observed during the Field Trials. The Ukrainians didn’t respond back again while Vt-4 came back again for trials with the improvements desired and in the field surpassed all benchmarks.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Cookie Monster

Ark_Angel said:


> True. The news is 100% accurate. VT-4s are coming. @Dazzler i wouldn’t want to negate you but sorry this time your information needs updating. PA is in the process of receiving VT-4s. The deal had had been finalised last year. PA is looking at 300 units. 01 x Div Strength will be Re equipped with VT-4s. Delivery of the units to complete in 05 years.


Any reason as to why PA has all these different types of tanks...and now has added VT4 to the mix?


----------



## LKJ86

Cookie Monster said:


> Any reason as to why PA has all these different types of tanks...and now has added VT4 to the mix?


IMHO, all these different types of tanks that PA has can't be upgraded to the VT-4 standard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

LKJ86 said:


> IMHO, all these different types of tanks that PA has can't be upgraded to the VT-4 standard.


Right...I don't think anybody is expecting that tanks like the T59 can be upgraded to the VT4 standard...
...I'm asking in the sense..."is there a long term plan to streamline to just let's say two types(a high/low) of tanks?"


----------



## LKJ86

Cookie Monster said:


> Right...I don't think anybody is expecting that tanks like the T59 can be upgraded to the VT4 standard...
> ...I'm asking in the sense..."is there a long term plan to streamline to just let's say two types(a high/low) of tanks?"


In PLA Army, there would be only ZTZ-99A and ZTQ-15 in the future, and other tanks would be eliminated.
Maybe PA would do something similar...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Cookie Monster

LKJ86 said:


> In PLA Army, there would be only ZTZ-99A and ZTQ-15 in the future, and other tanks would be eliminated.
> Maybe PA would do something simliar...


Yeah that's why I'm asking...bcuz acquiring 300 VT4 seems odd(if PA is trying to streamline to just two types)...considering that there's AK1 being produced and AK2 in development. Perhaps this was a stop gap procurement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Gentelman said:


> VT-4 only means we had problems with Oplot delivery timeframe and AK2 is still in trials.
> Moreover we also need numbers. Because VT4 is bringing not something considerable in terms of capability. In modern warfare its not Tank vs Tank but tank vs anti-tank and arieal threats and the raise in capabilities of VT4 (5-10%) vs AK1 isn't that significant to make a differance in battlefield neither worth the investment on support, ammunition etc.
> But its clear that PA is vary of Apaches and other attack helis deployment on the eastern front.


I suggest you not to make any conclusion without really understand VT-4. A widely misconception is VT-4 is based on T-72 chasis or shared similarity with Type85-II chasis.

Let me make another statement again.
Type99A is totally a new tank, bigger in dimension, new engine layout in terms of autotransmission, gear box.
Type96 is based more closely with Type85-II which shares many similarity in dimension and design with T-72 chasis.

VT-4 do have taken into consideration the threat of flying gunship and equipped with capabilities to deal with it. The ATGM fired by VT-4 can take out slow low flying threat and varies means available to detect and deal with it. The net work capabilities of VT-4 are very higher. Data sharing with many other units to enable multiple means to locate enemies unit.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xuxu1457

Affanakad0t. said:


> View attachment 627119
> Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (KMDB)’s 1,500 hp 6TD-3 diesel engine, which it revealed in May 2016, is cited as an option for the Altay MBT.


6TD-3 Is on the wrong path,A two-stroke engine is not a good choice

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ARMalik

Pakistan has $600 Million dollar deal with Ukraine for the upgrade of T-80UD to Oplot standard. And also to buy 200 x 6TD-2 engines. So this means works on AK and AK2 might continue. What I don't understand is that why not buy Altay tanks and fit them with Ukranian engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ARMalik said:


> Pakistan has $600 Million dollar deal with Ukraine for the upgrade of T-80UD to Oplot standard. And also to buy 200 x 6TD-2 engines. So this means works on AK and AK2 might continue. What I don't understand is that why not buy Altay tanks and fit them with Ukranian engines?


LOL.. Its not as easy as you think. Altay design is based on German engine. German engine powerpack consists of autotransmission gear, gearbox build into it. Is a very fine art. Its not just a matter of swap into it and it will work. A major redesign is needed. VT-4 engine is on the same route as Geman engine powerpack.



xuxu1457 said:


> 6TD-3 Is on the wrong path,A two-stroke engine is not a good choice


Not only that, it still rely on old design of just a propulsion system. Gearbox, transmission gear are still separated and independently.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ziaulislam

Cookie Monster said:


> Yeah that's why I'm asking...bcuz acquiring 300 VT4 seems odd(if PA is trying to streamline to just two types)...considering that there's AK1 being produced and AK2 in development. Perhaps this was a stop gap procurement.


Stop gap to counter what..the t90?
I dont see why PA is worried about t90 when it has alkhalid second iteration in production


----------



## Cookie Monster

ziaulislam said:


> Stop gap to counter what..the t90?
> I dont see why PA is worried about t90 when it has alkhalid second iteration in production


Yeah that's why this purchase doesn't make sense to me either...but perhaps they know something we don't.


----------



## ARMalik

Beast said:


> LOL.. Its not as easy as you think. Altay design is based on German engine. German engine powerpack consists of autotransmission gear, gearbox build into it. Is a very fine art. Its not just a matter of swap into it and it will work. A major redesign is needed. VT-4 engine is on the same route as Geman engine powerpack.



EDITED
I think you did't understand my post. What I mean if that If Pakistan already has good relationship with Ukraine, then why not get Ukrainian tank engines for Altay? It is called 6TD-3 engine but there maybe other options with Ukraine in engine development if 6TD-3 is not good.


----------



## Beast

ARMalik said:


> EDITED
> I think you did't understand my post. What I mean if that If Pakistan already has good relationship with Ukraine, then why not get Ukrainian tank engines for Altay? It is called 6TD-3 engine but there maybe other options with Ukraine in engine development if 6TD-3 is not good.


I think you still didnt understand my previous post. Ukraine engine is not same as German. They are major differences which basically you cannot just drop in with minor redesign and it will work.

Checkout 2017 article talkin of using Ukraine engine or tech.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...ainian-preference-for-altay-tank-engine-tech/

But right until early 2020, Altay tank still do not have any progress and the project is almost dead if the engine problem couldnt be solved.
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-first-indigenous-battle-tank-production-delayed-150706

If the Ukraine engine is really as you touted swap in for Altay tank that easy. The tank wouldnt face delay until now.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ark_Angel

ARMalik said:


> EDITED
> I think you did't understand my post. What I mean if that If Pakistan already has good relationship with Ukraine, then why not get Ukrainian tank engines for Altay? It is called 6TD-3 engine but there maybe other options with Ukraine in engine development if 6TD-3 is not good.


The Army has a certain induction process and criteria. Altay does not fit into that criteria due to the fact that it is not currently in use by any of the worlds army not even turkish. However A lot of sub systems from Altay are already being incorporated into the AK-2. AK-2 can be denoted as a Pakistani Altay. Why VT-4? Because of the shortfall in production capacity and the urgent requirement in the field and of course the Delays in AK-II

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## xuxu1457

ARMalik said:


> EDITED
> I think you did't understand my post. What I mean if that If Pakistan already has good relationship with Ukraine, then why not get Ukrainian tank engines for Altay? It is called 6TD-3 engine but there maybe other options with Ukraine in engine development if 6TD-3 is not good.


Let's go back to Power and Transmission System VT4,Its power system is nerely the same as the latest 99 tank power pack. The same all-in-one power pack, but the VT4 is tuned to 1300 horsepower. 150HB Series Engine and CH1000 Gearing





the same power pack in 99A2

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vi-va

LKJ86 said:


> Do you mean this one?
> View attachment 627118


This is two stroke engine, not good imo. According to my engine developer and engineers I heard of, VT4 engine is base on 150HB, and 150HB technology can trace back to Germany MB873.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroPowerPack

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHI RULES

Beast said:


> I don't think Abram frontal armour is as thick or thicker than VT-4. As I mention, the extra weight is to handle extra space for additional 4th manned crew.



Sir depleted uranium is reportedly used in Abrams frontal amour which can defeat all modern ATGMs/Threats perhaps missing in export version.

In another forum a credible member has confirmed that supply of VT4 has already started to Pakistan. It is perhaps the best option to counter even an upgraded T90 or Arjun of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

CHI RULES said:


> Sir depleted uranium is reportedly used in Abrams frontal amour which can defeat all modern ATGMs/Threats perhaps missing in export version.
> 
> In another forum a credible member has confirmed that supply of VT4 has already started to Pakistan. It is perhaps the best option to counter even an upgraded T90 or Arjun of India.


A lot of countries are slowly phasing out Uranium depleted ammo as their hazardous effect are well known. Ammo is important but same as the gun which can gives extra muzzle velocity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHI RULES

Beast said:


> A lot of countries are slowly phasing out Uranium depleted ammo as their hazardous effect are well known. Ammo is important but same as the gun which can gives extra muzzle velocity.


Sir USA still using it as well as perhaps they used nuclear shells in last phase of Iraq war in Baghdad.

On other hand can u pls comment on muzzle velocity of VT4 as well as it's ammunition.
It looks quite good with GL-5 APS and FY4 era.



Beast said:


> A lot of countries are slowly phasing out Uranium depleted ammo as their hazardous effect are well known. Ammo is important but same as the gun which can gives extra muzzle velocity.



As you have knowledge can u pls share your own write up for Chinese MBTs capabilities against Abrams.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## razgriz19

Active anti tank protection system testing video at 11:30 mark

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI

CHI RULES said:


> In another forum a credible member has confirmed that supply of VT4 has already started to Pakistan. It is perhaps the best option to counter even an upgraded T90 or Arjun of India.


Any idea of in what numbers?


----------



## aliaselin

ARMalik said:


> It is called 6TD-3 engine


It is called 6TD-5. As I have said here many years ago, it is a “fishing” program - Pakistan should pay for the research money and then wait several years it can become mature. But childrens here can not understand it. 5 years has passed, there is nothing come out because Pakistan do not want to pay.
Ukraine has many this kind of projects as 6TD-5， AI-32，An-418，et al， but nobody want to pay the research money the they will stay on blueprint forever, but kids here took these blueprint as something which really exist.
I do not even to mention that it is also possilbe even you pay the reasearch money they will fail because scientific problem does not neccessarily to be worked out even though you have worked hard on it. If you get a PhD and do some research on some serious problem you can fully understand what I mean.



CHI RULES said:


> In another forum a credible member has confirmed that supply of VT4 has already started to Pakistan


On our side, a credible person hints it is for some 大户 which means rich men. Generally it refers to middle east member in our linguistic context.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

aliaselin said:


> On our side, a credible person hints it is for some 大户 which means rich men. Generally it refers to middle east member in our linguistic context.



That is another potential middle east customer but for this 2 tanks shipped from inner Mongolia. Its seems the destination is confirmed Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aliaselin

Beast said:


> That is another potential middle east customer but for this 2 tanks shipped from inner Mongolia. Its seems the destination is confirmed Pakistan.


No


----------



## Beast

aliaselin said:


> No


Middle east tank are all using sand camouflage. This camouflage confirmed it cannot be designate to middle east .


----------



## PanzerKiel

Camo doesnt take much time to change. Hardly a day's job. In this case, camo is no indicator of its destination. Lets see what comes up....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

Some will be dissappointed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blacklight

Dazzler said:


> Some will be dissappointed.


That no VT-4 is coming?


----------



## LKJ86

Blacklight said:


> That no VT-4 is coming?


The buyer is Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Blacklight

LKJ86 said:


> The buyer is Pakistan.
> View attachment 627617


Brother, how many?


----------



## StormBreaker

LKJ86 said:


> The buyer is Pakistan.
> View attachment 627617


I think this whatever you website article you pasted, They in turn might have heard this rumor and then posted it as they saw many others posting the same thing without verifying. So still, This doesn’t prove



Blacklight said:


> That no VT-4 is coming?


Maybe he means that VT-4 is coming and those not in favor will be disappointed.

Be optimistic bro

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IblinI

StormBreaker said:


> I think this whatever you website article you pasted, They in turn might have heard this rumor and then posted it as they saw many others posting the same thing without verifying. So still, This doesn’t prove
> 
> 
> Maybe he means that VT-4 is coming and those not in favor will be disappointed.
> 
> Be optimistic bro


You can trust this guy as he is working in the industry, he is also the most renown guy on armor related topics in Chinese social media.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

StormBreaker said:


> I think this whatever you website article you pasted, They in turn might have heard this rumor and then posted it as they saw many others posting the same thing without verifying. So still, This doesn’t prove
> 
> 
> Maybe he means that VT-4 is coming and those not in favor will be disappointed.
> 
> Be optimistic bro


Why not make a bet! If the buyer of the tanks is Pakistan, you cease your account. If the tank is not for Pakistan. I cease mine! How?



Dazzler said:


> Some will be dissappointed.


I told you long ago (2-3years) VT-4 will won. The spec of VT-4 beats T-84 Oplot , T-90S or whatever.

Its a tank PA cannot refuse. But then some told me they have insider info, very reliable... Blah Blah Blah. PA will not pick VT-4 becos its no good. lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## syed_yusuf

how is VT4 matched upto South korean, german or russian fourth gen tanks?

Note: t-90 is not a fourth gen tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

First it were Upgraded T55s and than VT-4. LOL

We need AK-1s and AK-2s in numbers plz. Upgrade all T69s to AZ

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

syed_yusuf said:


> how is VT4 matched upto South korean, german or russian fourth gen tanks?
> 
> Note: t-90 is not a fourth gen tank.


It beats them all. 

First shot hit probability, armour penetration, mobility, armour protection, data info sharing and ease of handling it.



Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> First it were Upgraded T55s and than VT-4. LOL
> 
> We need AK-1s and AK-2s in numbers plz. Upgrade all T69s to AZ


No matter how u upgrade a T-55, it still a T-55. PA needs something revolution to counter India.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Blacklight

Beast said:


> It beats them all.
> 
> First shot hit probability, armour penetration, mobility, armour protection, data info sharing and ease of handling it.
> 
> 
> No matter how u upgrade a T-55, it still a T-55. PA needs something revolution to counter India.


T-55 news if true, were meant for FC, on our western / afghan border.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Beast said:


> No matter how u upgrade a T-55, it still a T-55. PA needs something revolution to counter India.


I think T55s were meant for FC not Army


----------



## Beast

Blacklight said:


> T-55 news if true, were meant for FC, on our western / afghan border.


Those rugged army on western front, all u need with even basic T-55, you still can beat them easily.


----------



## StormBreaker

IblinI said:


> You can trust this guy as he is working in the industry, he is also the most renown guy on armor related topics in Chinese social media.


Thanks for the info, However, He might be right, Or could be wrong as well. Usually people like them are specialized into specific sorts of info, Sometimes they add variety to their posts and content by adding others pieces as well, What if this one is someone else’s but just for variety. Although you might be right as well.


Beast said:


> Why not make a bet! If the buyer of the tanks is Pakistan, you cease your account. If the tank is not for Pakistan. I cease mine! How?
> 
> 
> I told you long ago (2-3years) VT-4 will won. The spec of VT-4 beats T-84 Oplot , T-90S or whatever.
> 
> Its a tank PA cannot refuse. But then some told me they have insider info, very reliable... Blah Blah Blah. PA will not pick VT-4 becos its no good. lol.


I wouldn’t cease my account but can try to make your account pink, How about that  ?


----------



## PanzerKiel

Beast said:


> It beats them all.
> 
> First shot hit probability, armour penetration, mobility, armour protection, data info sharing and



Am sure you don't what happened to VT4 engine during its trial in the desert. You'll be surprised.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

PanzerKiel said:


> Am sure you don't what happened to VT4 engine during its trial in the desert. You'll be surprised.


Like the insider info you all brag? 

I have 100% trust for my Chinese scientist and project manager for VT-4 project.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1


----------



## Beast

StormBreaker said:


> Are you stupid ? Coz i believe you are.
> 
> Where in the hell did i write China as some backward country ? This is a Tank thread, We are talking of procurement.
> 
> Why always you think of everyone as offensive?
> 
> I admire China and I need not to prove that to you kid. Take some time off to give yourself inner peace coz you have lost yourself.
> 
> I am simply doubting this procurement.
> 
> If this was J-20, I would be hell mad to hear of this news even if it was a rumor.


My comment is not targeting you if you didnt think this way. I apologise but if you have time, flip back much earlier of this thread and see what is the stigma I talk about when regards to Chinese tank development. It is a trend which exist even now. Just the disappointment display by some, more or less confirmed what I mention.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

Beast said:


> Like the insider info you all brag?
> 
> I have 100% trust for my Chinese scientist and project manager for VT-4 project.



Hold your horses dear. There are people here who do have first hand knowledge AND who are first hand witnesses as well.

No one is doubting Chinese personal or technology. If we were having doubt, Pakistan would not have been testing VT4 in the first place.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## StormBreaker

Beast said:


> My comment is not targeting you if you didnt think this way. I apologise but if you have time, flip back much earlier of this thread and see what is the stigma I talk about when regards to Chinese tank development. It is a trend which exist even now. Just the disappointment display by some, more or less confirmed what I mention.


Just to let you know,

Chinese weapons industry is local requirements oriented. Hence why China doesn’t promote its stuff at the required level to sell them as they know that their terrain/weather/mission requirements are quite different to many possible customers.

What happened to VT-4, Was maybe a result if this orientation. Off course, There is always a room for improvement. You should instead feel proud to see your weapons failed in testing than at battlefield.
Coz the experience of testing gives you the exact knowledge you need to avoid accidents during war.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Waterboy

Beast said:


> Why not make a bet! If the buyer of the tanks is Pakistan, you cease your account. If the tank is not for Pakistan. I cease mine! How?
> 
> 
> I told you long ago (2-3years) VT-4 will won. The spec of VT-4 beats T-84 Oplot , T-90S or whatever.
> 
> Its a tank PA cannot refuse. But then some told me they have insider info, very reliable... Blah Blah Blah. PA will not pick VT-4 becos its no good. lol.


VT-4 was chosen because of the economics. T-84 outperformed VT-4 in all aspects.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Waterboy said:


> VT-4 was chosen because of the economics. T-84 outperformed VT-4 in all aspects.


 See! I told you. Purely emotional outburst.

To your surprised VT-4 cost more than T-90S and T-84 oplot. You can check with Royal Thai Army.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## StormBreaker

PanzerKiel said:


> Hold your horses dear. There are people here who do have first hand knowledge AND who are first hand witnesses as well.
> 
> No one is doubting Chinese personal or technology. If we were having doubt, Pakistan would not have been testing VT4 in the first place.


Hazrat,

He used to be a good contributor, but fell victim to Anti China trolls from elsewhere and hence his overall approach to anyone is to feel offensive even the smallest statements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Waterboy said:


> VT-4 was chosen because of the economics. T-84 outperformed VT-4 in all aspects.



A clear fact.



Beast said:


> See! I told you. Purely emotional outburst.
> 
> To your surprised VT-4 cost more than T-90S and T-84 oplot. You can check with Royal Thai Army.



No dear, nothing emotional in that. But that's the way it happened.



Beast said:


> To your surprised VT-4 cost more than T-90S and T-84 oplot. You can check with Royal Thai Army.



It's not just cost of the task itself. We have to look at other things as well, such as ease of getting spares, near vicinity of support bases and factories, output capacity of Chinese factories etc.

As a whole, with all these considerations, and economic as well, VT4 suits us.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## El Observer

Manstien speaks well. Someone is high on their nationalist horse.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

PanzerKiel said:


> A clear fact.
> 
> 
> 
> No dear, nothing emotional in that. But that's the way it happened.


Really? Prove it.

https://dsm.forecastinternational.c...rmy-seeking-additional-vt-4-tanks-from-china/

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...aines-t-84m-or-the-russian-t-90s-tank.576435/


----------



## Waterboy

PanzerKiel said:


> Hold your horses dear. There are people here who do have first hand knowledge AND who are first hand witnesses as well.
> 
> No one is doubting Chinese personal or technology. If we were having doubt, Pakistan would not have been testing VT4 in the first place.


Exactly Sir. Key board warriors get emotional and start throwing fits on PDF. We can go on lengths discussing fancy toys but the reality on ground is really different.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

El Observer said:


> Manstien speaks well. Someone is high on their nationalist horse.


Why insult a tank your arm forces going to get? Are you insulting your owned armed forces wisdom too?

Nothing to do with nationalist but fact. See how many members try to downplay the purchase and claim non sophistication of this tank. The reason to buy is purely economical with not spec merit....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Beast said:


> Really? Prove it.



I wish I could post here the pics I have , showing the VT4, with its engine being pulled out by a Chinese team which was specially flown in once this thing happened. But of course, it all went well after that.

As @StormBreaker said, you should be proud of it. It might have given VT4 more immunity against our desert conditions since it was really tested there.

But then, not everyone here carries a hyperlink to prove whatever he's saying. I'm sure you also understand that since we do have real professionals here on this forum, it's already a great thing that they are giving the REAL info here. But they cannot be expected to reveal the source.

Rest, it's your own choice. No one is forcing you to believe anything.

Let's move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Beast

Waterboy said:


> Exactly Sir. Key board warriors get emotional and start throwing fits on PDF. We can go on lengths discussing fancy toys but the reality on ground is really different.


Emotional? I see more emotional display by you all when the news broke out with continue denial of the selection of this tank and its merit.


----------



## PanzerKiel

Beast said:


> Why insult a tank your arm forces going to get? Are you insulting your owned armed forces wisdom too? ..



*As a whole, with all these considerations, and economic as well, VT4 suits us.*
This is what I wrote dear.

@Beast

Brother, let's move on with the topic. We are here to discuss VT4 tank , not the members, their sources, their character or their beliefs.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## StormBreaker

Beast said:


> Emotional? I see more emotional display by you all when the news broke out with continue denial of the selection of this tank and its merit.


It is tiring to argue with you.

You have any idea how BIG this news is if it is true ? Given the numbers, It is almost unbelievable for any of us so that is why Sources and sources are required, The quotations, How to prove this news right and wrong.

You just don’t simply eat up any news that gets thrown at ones face, Idiots do that.

Intellectuals dig in and try to verify it first.

You have no idea how media works, I have.



Joe Shearer said:


> The man perhaps means a Maoist revolution. Who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> Red.
> 
> Their preferred colour is red.


Red is for TTA Vice Chairman like Slav Defence, Like I said, About time he recieved a Pink stamp

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

PanzerKiel said:


> Am sure you don't what happened to VT4 engine during its trial in the desert. You'll be surprised.



I don't comment on your posts, Sir, but the same thing, I suspect, as happened to Russian tanks on trials in the desert in India. They just couldn't handle the dust; there was no effect filtration, and engine life was unpredictable. Sorry for butting in.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
8


----------



## StormBreaker

Joe Shearer said:


> The man perhaps means a Maoist revolution. Who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> Red.
> 
> Their preferred colour is red.


Bit off topic, How are you holding up now ? Post surgery? All right?


----------



## Joe Shearer

StormBreaker said:


> Bit off topic, How are you holding up now ? Post surgery? All right?



Recovering rapidly. I was depressed the first month, but the second month has been very encouraging. Thank you so much for asking.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Waterboy said:


> VT-4 was chosen because of the economics. T-84 outperformed VT-4 in all aspects.


VT-4 is more expensive than T-84.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## StormBreaker

Joe Shearer said:


> Recovering rapidly. I was depressed the first month, but the second month has been very encouraging. Thank you so much for asking.


Mind is the ultimate tool of a human, Use it positively and You can fight through anything, Yea, The prescribed rests do bother a lot, But then, Optimism plays the better part at curing oneself

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

LKJ86 said:


> VT-4 is more expensive than T-84.



I suspect the Pakistanis are looking at total cost of ownership, as well as strategic issues such as availability of spares, possibility of indigenising production of frequently used spares, possibility of major life-cycle overhaul, replacement of engine or ordnance at a future date, addition of sensors, addition of protective armour, and such things as well as the one-time purchase price. 

Consider also that the subsequent purchases will cost less (to the buyer's accountants) than the first; the first purchase also has to set up infrastructure for maintenance and spares storage, logistics, re-training technicians, re-training operators, and the like.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PDF

Too much arrogance and lack of respect for others. Disappointing!

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## maverick1977

Joe Shearer said:


> I suspect the Pakistanis are looking at total cost of ownership, as well as strategic issues such as availability of spares, possibility of indigenising production of frequently used spares, possibility of major life-cycle overhaul, replacement of engine or ordnance at a future date, addition of sensors, addition of protective armour, and such things as well as the one-time purchase price.
> 
> Consider also that the subsequent purchases will cost less (to the buyer's accountants) than the first; the first purchase also has to set up infrastructure for maintenance and spares storage, logistics, re-training technicians, re-training operators, and the like.


Nope pakistan is looking for total time to procure. Time to procure VT4 is faster than T80s.. the electronics on the harware is going to br hybrid

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

StormBreaker said:


> Red is for TTA Vice Chairman


And Mods too like @waz

@PanzerKiel Sir is VT-4 selected? If yes than what about the TOT? Also which tanks would it replace?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

PanzerKiel said:


> Am sure you don't what happened to VT4 engine during its trial in the desert. You'll be surprised.





Ark_Angel said:


> Oplot was dropped as Ukrainians we’re told to bring the Oplot back again for trials with improvements after some major short comings were observed during the Field Trials. The Ukrainians didn’t respond back again while Vt-4 came back again for trials with the improvements desired and in the field surpassed all benchmarks.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## StormBreaker

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> And Mods too like @waz
> 
> @PanzerKiel Sir is VT-4 selected? If yes than what about the TOT? Also which tanks would it replace?


That is ethically wrong to ask him such questions on basis of news that isn’t verified officially. Professionals have to stick to a code, Don’t ask them such...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## doorstar

Waterboy said:


> Exactly Sir. Key board warriors get emotional and start throwing fits on PDF. We can go on lengths discussing fancy toys but the reality on ground is really different.


.. and you are actually an insider, right? you'll probably need more than one ID here in order to keep your super insider status secret


----------



## PanzerKiel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> @PanzerKiel Sir is VT-4 selected? If yes than what about the TOT? Also which tanks would it replace?



Dear, lets wait for the news to come out. I dont have any sources but only first hand experience of trials of Oplot and VT4.....and their problems as well. Cant hyperlink my eyes(what they saw) and my brain (what i know). Best choice for me is then to wait myself.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## waz

I hope the news to be true. The army faces a precarious position with force numbers against the IA who have integrated the improved T-90M well and built up sizeable force numbers, I haven't even gone into the T-90S orders.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> I hope the news to be true. The army faces a precarious position with force numbers against the IA who have integrated the improved T-90M well and built up sizeable force numbers, I haven't even gone into the T-90S orders.


It is Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## HRK

PanzerKiel said:


> Hold your horses dear. There are people here who do have first hand knowledge AND who are first hand witnesses as well.


and understandably don't speak .... as its against their professional ethics ....

BUT they should at least call a fake news/ propaganda as false which will reduce the fake news .... its OK not to release any news or inside info but those false news reports create negative impact so must be countered ....

only few around 3-4 member of the forum who where ex-servicemen had this approche but nowaday none of them is active anymore ....

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Daniel808

Pakistan is the buyer.





Credit to @LKJ86 from Chinese Defence Forum Section


*Latest VT4 battle tanks delivered to foreign buyer: report*
Source:Globaltimes.cn Published: 2020/4/27 2:24:48





*A Thai army's newly purchased Chinese-manufactured VT4 main battle tank deploys during a simulated warfare exercise at the Royal Thai Army Cavalry Center in Saraburi Province, Thailand, in 2018. File Photo: IC*


China is delivering two customized VT4 main battle tanks to an undisclosed foreign buyer.

Transported by trucks, two VT4 tanks left for their destination following a launch ceremony, Weihutang, military affairs column affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Friday, citing a video released by the Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group under the state-owned China North Industries Group (NORINCO).

The tanks are not the standard VT4 version and instead are equipped with a different turret boost design. The front design features a new explosive reactive armor, Weihutang said.

This upgraded VT4 offers enhancements with extra protection capabilities, the report said, citing military experts.

Further details on the deal have not been released, such as the purchase amount, overall value, and client name.

Also known as the MBT3000, the VT4 is a new generation of made-for-export combat tank designed for the international market, Weihutang said, noting that it is one of the most popular Chinese weapons available and has been sold to Thailand and Nigeria.

The VT4 is equipped with a 125-millimeter smoothbore gun, can fire armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS), high explosive anti-tank cartridges, and missiles with a 5-kilometer range.

Equipped with a China-made 1,200-horsepower diesel-fueled engine and a hydromechanical drive system, the VT4 can travel at a maximum speed of 70 kph and a maximum cross-country speed of 50 kph.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1186834.shtml


Congrats for Pakistan, they get the most latest version of VT-4 MBT 



*Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition*
POSTED ON FRIDAY, 24 APRIL 2020 15:41


According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) *VT4* is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.





*Chinese VT4 main battle tank with ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the hull. (Picture source China Defense Blog)*

The *VT4 MBT* (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).

The VT4 MBT was unveiled by the Chinese defense industry in November 2019 during the China International Aviation & Aerospace or Zhuhai AirShow. The layout of this tank is very similar to the Russian tank with a crew of three including driver, commander and gunner and the use of an automatic loading system for the main armament.

The main armament of the VT4 / MBT-3000 consists of a 125 mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader that holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. One 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun is mounted to the right of the main armament, while on the commander's cupola is mounted a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun that can be used to engage ground and aerial targets.

The hull and turret of the *VT4* are of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. The first version of the tank was fitted with additional ERA (Explosive Reactive armor) Level FY-2 providing protection against HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammunition. According to the latest pictures released on the Internet, the latest variant of the VT4 is now fitted at the front of the hull with ERA armor Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead.

*




Close view of the ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the VT4 main battle tank (Picture source China Defense Blog)*

Currently, China produces four Level of ERA armour including the FY-I with protection against HEAT ammunition, the FY-II with protection against HEAT, APFSDS ammunition, the FY-III with protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition and the FY-IV providing protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition but with 85 mm thick armour blocks for the FY-IV and only 75 mm for Level III. The ERA armour consists of steel blocks with C4 explosives inside.

Reactive armour is a type of vehicle armour that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened kinetic energy penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour.

A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of kinetic energy penetrator ammunition used to attack modern vehicle armour. As an armament for main battle tanks, it succeeds armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition, which is still used in small or medium caliber weapon systems.

Tandem warheads are effective against reactive armour, which is designed to protect an armoured vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank ammunition, missiles and rocket. The first stage of the weapon is typically a weak charge that either pierces the reactive armour of the target without detonating it leaving a channel through the reactive armour so that the second warhead may pass unimpeded, or simply detonating the armour plates causing the timing of the counter-explosion to fail. The second detonation from the same projectile attacks the same location as the first detonation where the reactive armour has been compromised. Since the regular armour plating is often the only defence remaining, the main charge (second detonation) has an increased likelihood of penetrating the armour.

*




Chinese-made ERA armour level (Picture source Twitter)*

https://www.armyrecognition.com/wea...armour_against_tandem_warhead_ammunition.html

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PanzerKiel

HRK said:


> BUT they should at least call a fake news/ propaganda as false which will reduce the fake news .... its OK not to release any news or inside info but those false news reports create negative impact so must be countered ....



That can always be done, but then it also has to potential to de-rail a topic as well. Banda karey tau kia karey. Personally, in the greater interest of the thread and forum, i keep quiet. Truth always comes out anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Daniel808

VT-4
April 20, 2020













Via @魅力一机 from Weixin



On the way to Pakistan from Northern China

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

maverick1977 said:


> Nope pakistan is looking for total time to procure. Time to procure VT4 is faster than T80s.. the electronics on the harware is going to br hybrid



Point taken.



Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> And Mods too like @waz
> 
> @PanzerKiel Sir is VT-4 selected? If yes than what about the TOT? Also which tanks would it replace?



FWIW.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-buy-latest-version-of-vt-4-main-battle-tanks.663378/


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

@Dazzler @HRK can we have the comparisons of VT-4 with other tanks of Pakistan and India?


----------



## ARMalik

Daniel808 said:


> VT-4
> April 20, 2020
> 
> View attachment 627671
> 
> View attachment 627672
> 
> View attachment 627673
> 
> Via @魅力一机 from Weixin
> 
> 
> 
> On the way to Pakistan from Northern China



Sorry dude, you are already 61 pages late.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zhxy

China develops VT-4 because it wants to export VT-4 to Saudi Arabia and many other countries in the Middle East.

1. Middle east countries in recent years have imported a lot of weapons . They are potential customers
2. VT-4 is equipped with air conditioning and APS system. (suitable for climate and war in the Middle East)
3. Pakistan has manufactured many AK tanks. Most likely, Pakistan will choose to upgrade and modernize MBT. They do not want to buy new tanks to save money, in case they want to buy a new one, the quantity is very small.


----------



## Beast

From the description from Chinese side. Rich Arabs countries are footing the bill but tank is send to PA...

Something like Egypt Mistral class. It also mention PA is in urgent need of new tank. Sounds like something big is brewing. It seems like front line is very tense and they are sensing something big may broke out if nothing is done to remedy the balance.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## PanzerKiel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> And Mods too like @waz
> 
> @PanzerKiel Also which tanks would it replace?



You'll be surprised.....a whole formation is being renewed!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Beast said:


> From the description from Chinese side. Rich Arabs countries are footing the bill but tank is send to PA...
> 
> Something like Egypt Mistral class. It also mention PA is in urgent need of new tank. Sounds like something big is brewing. It seems like front line is very tense and they are sensing something big may broke out if nothing is done to remedy the balance.


So Pakistan has gotten all 300 Tanks?


----------



## Daniel808

I wonder about the price.
Thailand first batch have $5.5 Million price tag for each unit

Meanwhile, this Pakistan version is more deadly than Thailand and Nigerian version.




ARMalik said:


> Sorry dude, you are already 61 pages late.



That thread discuss VT-4 trial/test in Pakistan, meanwhile this time we got confimed news

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> So Pakistan has gotten all 300 Tanks?


I am not sure but we need to fulfill Nigeria army order too so it will not be that fast.


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Daniel808 said:


> this Pakistan version is more deadly than Thailand and Nigerian version


Comparisons of them plz

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Comparisons of them plz


PA version has lvl 4 reactive armor version. The best of the 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Beast said:


> PA version has lvl 4 reactive armor version. The best of the 3.


So order is of 300?


----------



## Daniel808

Daniel808 said:


> Pakistan is the buyer.
> View attachment 627667
> 
> Credit to @LKJ86 from Chinese Defence Forum Section
> 
> 
> *Latest VT4 battle tanks delivered to foreign buyer: report*
> Source:Globaltimes.cn Published: 2020/4/27 2:24:48
> 
> View attachment 627669
> 
> *A Thai army's newly purchased Chinese-manufactured VT4 main battle tank deploys during a simulated warfare exercise at the Royal Thai Army Cavalry Center in Saraburi Province, Thailand, in 2018. File Photo: IC*
> 
> 
> China is delivering two customized VT4 main battle tanks to an undisclosed foreign buyer.
> 
> Transported by trucks, two VT4 tanks left for their destination following a launch ceremony, Weihutang, military affairs column affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Friday, citing a video released by the Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group under the state-owned China North Industries Group (NORINCO).
> 
> The tanks are not the standard VT4 version and instead are equipped with a different turret boost design. The front design features a new explosive reactive armor, Weihutang said.
> 
> This upgraded VT4 offers enhancements with extra protection capabilities, the report said, citing military experts.
> 
> Further details on the deal have not been released, such as the purchase amount, overall value, and client name.
> 
> Also known as the MBT3000, the VT4 is a new generation of made-for-export combat tank designed for the international market, Weihutang said, noting that it is one of the most popular Chinese weapons available and has been sold to Thailand and Nigeria.
> 
> The VT4 is equipped with a 125-millimeter smoothbore gun, can fire armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS), high explosive anti-tank cartridges, and missiles with a 5-kilometer range.
> 
> Equipped with a China-made 1,200-horsepower diesel-fueled engine and a hydromechanical drive system, the VT4 can travel at a maximum speed of 70 kph and a maximum cross-country speed of 50 kph.
> 
> http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1186834.shtml
> 
> 
> Congrats for Pakistan, they get the most latest version of VT-4 MBT
> 
> 
> 
> *Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition*
> POSTED ON FRIDAY, 24 APRIL 2020 15:41
> 
> 
> According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) *VT4* is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chinese VT4 main battle tank with ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the hull. (Picture source China Defense Blog)*
> 
> The *VT4 MBT* (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).
> 
> The VT4 MBT was unveiled by the Chinese defense industry in November 2019 during the China International Aviation & Aerospace or Zhuhai AirShow. The layout of this tank is very similar to the Russian tank with a crew of three including driver, commander and gunner and the use of an automatic loading system for the main armament.
> 
> The main armament of the VT4 / MBT-3000 consists of a 125 mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader that holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. One 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun is mounted to the right of the main armament, while on the commander's cupola is mounted a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun that can be used to engage ground and aerial targets.
> 
> The hull and turret of the *VT4* are of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. The first version of the tank was fitted with additional ERA (Explosive Reactive armor) Level FY-2 providing protection against HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammunition. According to the latest pictures released on the Internet, the latest variant of the VT4 is now fitted at the front of the hull with ERA armor Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close view of the ERA armor Level FY-IV mounted at the front of the VT4 main battle tank (Picture source China Defense Blog)*
> 
> Currently, China produces four Level of ERA armour including the FY-I with protection against HEAT ammunition, the FY-II with protection against HEAT, APFSDS ammunition, the FY-III with protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition and the FY-IV providing protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition but with 85 mm thick armour blocks for the FY-IV and only 75 mm for Level III. The ERA armour consists of steel blocks with C4 explosives inside.
> 
> Reactive armour is a type of vehicle armour that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened kinetic energy penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour.
> 
> A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of kinetic energy penetrator ammunition used to attack modern vehicle armour. As an armament for main battle tanks, it succeeds armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition, which is still used in small or medium caliber weapon systems.
> 
> Tandem warheads are effective against reactive armour, which is designed to protect an armoured vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank ammunition, missiles and rocket. The first stage of the weapon is typically a weak charge that either pierces the reactive armour of the target without detonating it leaving a channel through the reactive armour so that the second warhead may pass unimpeded, or simply detonating the armour plates causing the timing of the counter-explosion to fail. The second detonation from the same projectile attacks the same location as the first detonation where the reactive armour has been compromised. Since the regular armour plating is often the only defence remaining, the main charge (second detonation) has an increased likelihood of penetrating the armour.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese-made ERA armour level (Picture source Twitter)*
> 
> https://www.armyrecognition.com/wea...armour_against_tandem_warhead_ammunition.html



@Syed Hammad Ahmed
You guys get Level FY-4 ERA, meanwhile Thailand and Nigeria buy Level FY-2 ERA version.

That's obvious from the outside, don't know about the inside

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> So order is of 300?


Rumour is this quantity but nothing confirmed yet. Another description is this initial order is also trying to convince and open up middle east client market. PA maybe will have a share tank fleet with Arabs coalition.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

PanzerKiel said:


> You'll be surprised.....a whole formation is being renewed!!!



@Syed Hammad Ahmed



Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> So order is of 300?



A bit less, a small bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## zhxy

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> So order is of 300?



I think Pakistan will buy 300 GL-5 APS systems, the number of 300 VT-4s is too big

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StormBreaker

Beast said:


> Rumour is this quantity but nothing confirmed yet. Another description is this initial order is also trying to convince and open up middle east client market. PA maybe will have a share tank fleet with Arabs coalition.


Could you shed some light on the Nigeria order ?

When was it ordered, Quantity and How many have been delivered and when was first delivery ?


----------



## Ark_Angel

PanzerKiel said:


> Am sure you don't what happened to VT4 engine during its trial in the desert. You'll be surprised.


Captain Saab, don’t try to jump the gun and please don’t mislead the young new members here. I am sure you weren’t the one who was doing the trials of VT-4 at KPT. You are just narrating or pointing to an incident that happened in the first set of field trials. And the Engine Seizure happened with Oplot. The second set of field trials proved VT-4 to be an extremely durable machine. 
And for the rest of the members here who have been tagged as Think Tanks, Professionals etc: Don’t argue without getting an up to date information from your sources in the concerned quarters. Verify and then argue it will help your reputation and the reputation of the forum as well. 
These VT-4s are coming along with 296 more. Period. 
If people don’t believe me here, no worries but time will prove it correct and then I hope to see all these professionals and Think Tanks on the forum demoted to just being normal,regular members and fix a criteria for awarding such titles in order to maintain the credibility of the forum and its professionals.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

StormBreaker said:


> Could you shed some light on the Nigeria order ?
> 
> When was it ordered, Quantity and How many have been delivered and when was first delivery ?


Nigeria order so far we know is the first batch of 17 armour/tank has delivered. There will be subsequent 2nd batch and third batch. I suspect all depend Nigeria whether they release the fund first.


----------



## StormBreaker

Beast said:


> Nigeria order so far we know is the first batch has delivered. There will be subsequent 2nd batch and third batch. I suspect all depend Nigeria whether they release the fund first.


Quantity?


----------



## Beast

StormBreaker said:


> Quantity?


@LKJ86 For this , I think he will have a better idea for Nigeria order.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Ark_Angel said:


> Captain Saab, don’t try to jump the gun and please don’t mislead the young new members here. I am sure you weren’t the one who was doing the trials of VT-4 at KPT. You are just narrating or pointing to an incident that happened in the first set of field trials. And the Engine Seizure happened with Oplot. The second set of field trials proved VT-4 to be an extremely durable machine.
> And for the rest of the members here who have been tagged as Think Tanks, Professionals etc: Don’t argue without getting an up to date information from your sources in the concerned quarters. Verify and then argue it will help your reputation and the reputation of the forum as well.



Atleast am not a Captain. Try not to jump the gun yourself either.

Glad to know you are able to read my intentions of misleading others.

One of the officers of that particular unit which conducted the trial is also sitting with me right now. We, as a unit, have seen the trials of the KPT ourselves as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

zhxy said:


> 300 GL-5 APS systems


I need this type of systems atleast in AKs and Upgraded T80s of PA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Ark_Angel said:


> If people don’t believe me here, no worries but time will prove it correct and then I hope to see all these professionals and Think Tanks on the forum demoted to just being normal,regular members and fix a criteria for awarding such titles in order to maintain the credibility of the forum and its professionals.



Good luck to you then. God speed.



Ark_Angel said:


> Captain Saab



Lolz. I was not even a Captain once you joined this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

PanzerKiel said:


> That can always be done, but then it also has to potential to de-rail a topic as well. Banda karey tau kia karey. Personally, in the greater interest of the thread and forum, i keep quiet. Truth always comes out anyway.


@Bilal Khan 777 approche is fine in this case he give rebuttal and then go silence on posts countering his info .... sensible readers could then themselves decide which POV should be consider more authentic .... 

@messiach is also one such member who have fine tuned this approach further ....

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ark_Angel

PanzerKiel said:


> Good luck to you then. God speed.
> 
> 
> 
> Lolz. I was not even a Captain once you joined this forum.


BOQs ki Gup forum p na charhao Kaka. Humble advice. 
I barely comment, I have been following Pakistani Defence while you weren’t even born. Using it these days as this forum has become Langar Gup Forum instead of a professional forum. A lot of things here need correction the first one being Providing Credible info. 
Hope u had a Good Iftaar, and now enjoy your Cup of tea and Langar Gup in your BOQ.


----------



## PanzerKiel

Ark_Angel said:


> BOQs ki Gup forum p na charhao Kaka.
> Hope u had a Good Iftaar, and now enjoy your Cup of tea and Langar Gup in your BOQ.



BOQ days are long gone dear, long gone.



Ark_Angel said:


> BOQs ki Gup forum p na charhao Kaka. .



You can keep your kaka-ship with you. Take care of your own kakas, they need your attention more than this forum.



Ark_Angel said:


> I barely comment, I have been following Pakistani Defence while you weren’t even born.


'
Really, i didnt know that PDF is something from the early 80s.



Ark_Angel said:


> Hope u had a Good Iftaar, and now enjoy your Cup of tea and Langar Gup in your BOQ.



Good luck with your iftaar as well. Hope you enjoy your cup of tea as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

What a “crowning” contest!



PanzerKiel said:


> BOQ days are long gone dear, long gone.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep your kaka-ship with you. Take care of your own kakas, they need your attention more than this forum.
> 
> 
> '
> Really, i didnt know that PDF is something from the early 80s.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with your iftaar as well. Hope you enjoy your cup of tea as well.


After drivin 8 hours straight from Rahwali to panu aqil.. thought why not connect with PDF OG’s.

And this is what I witness..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Joe Shearer

PanzerKiel said:


> BOQ days are long gone dear, long gone.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep your kaka-ship with you. Take care of your own kakas, they need your attention more than this forum.
> 
> 
> '
> Really, i didnt know that PDF is something from the early 80s.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with your iftaar as well. Hope you enjoy your cup of tea as well.



<gasp!>

Aren't you scared to talk back to him? Judging from his tone, he is at least a retired Corps commander. 

It is a little hurtful that he leaves out advice for those who are non-young non-new members; what are we to do? 3 mile hikes? a 100 push-ups? Some direction is required. With a daughter born in 1980, it feels so discriminatory to be excluded from all the exemplary guidelines being suggested.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> What a “crowning” contest!
> 
> 
> After drivin 8 hours straight from Rahwali and reachin panu aqil.. thought why not connect with PDF OG’s.
> 
> And this is what I witness..



I always dread Panu Pagal.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

PanzerKiel said:


> I always dread Panu Pagal.



Sir ji, still better than Sibbi... could be worse yet..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Sir ji, still better than Sibbi... could be worse yet..



I hope Div arty there didnt give you a tough time. I stopped over in Sibbi while going to Qta in July. Cant describe the hot conditions there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ark_Angel

PanzerKiel said:


> I hope Div arty there didnt give you a tough time. I stopped over in Sibbi while going to Qta in July. Cant describe the hot conditions there.


Don’t divulge too much here. *408*. Best regards

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Ark_Angel said:


> Don’t divulge too much here. *408*. Best regards



Thanks for the advice.



Ark_Angel said:


> These VT-4s are coming along with 296 more. Period.



On a lighter note, lets hope 408 doesnt look at this figure you gave as well.

Lets move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ark_Angel

PanzerKiel said:


> Thanks for the advice.
> 
> 
> 
> On a lighter note, lets hope 408 doesnt look at this figure you gave as well.


I am way past that stage. You youngsters guys better be careful.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## doorstar

Daniel808 said:


> I wonder about the price.
> Thailand first batch have $5.5 Million price tag for each unit
> 
> Meanwhile, this Pakistan version is more deadly than Thailand and Nigerian version.


somebody said that a well-wisher of Pakistan has already paid Norinco $0.9 billion for 300
0.9 billion / 300 = three million each. so is it just a part payment or a discounted price?

edit:
0.9 billion / 296 = 3 million 40 thousands 5 hundred and 40 dollars 55 cents

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

*The latest version of the VT4 MBT is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition.*

https://www.armyrecognition.com/chi...a_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_uk.html

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## zhxy

doorstar said:


> somebody said that a well-wisher of Pakistan has already paid Norinco $0.9 billion for 300
> 0.9 billion / 300 = three million each. so is it just a part payment or a discounted price?



The more you order, the lower the price of each unit

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> *The latest version of the VT4 MBT is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition.*
> 
> https://www.armyrecognition.com/chi...a_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_uk.html


FY-4 ERA was "not for sale" once, just installed on ZTZ-99 tank...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

PanzerKiel said:


> @Syed Hammad Ahmed
> 
> 
> 
> A bit less, a small bit.



Panzerkiel is either being ironic or the order, like usual for tank orders, is about 290 units : )
Personally I don't see Pakistan buying VT-4s, not from the quality issues that I personally know of with Norinco built tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

It's hard to find but does anyone have an idea of ammunition storage and layout within the VT4? Is it stored in protected compartments?


----------



## PanzerKiel

Armchair said:


> Panzerkiel is either being ironic or the order, like usual for tank orders, is about 290 units : )
> Personally I don't see Pakistan buying VT-4s, not from the quality issues that I personally know of with Norinco built tanks.



As already pointed out by @Ark_Angel , order is for 296 units.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

PanzerKiel said:


> As already pointed out by @Ark_Angel , order is for 296 units.



Thanks!

I'm happy this is real! More new tanks. I hope a thousand more are ordered but that will probably not happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Ark_Angel said:


> Don’t divulge too much here. *408*. Best regards


You look like you work for ISI or MI

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


>


The VT-4 in the pic is just equipped with FY-2 ERA, and the evaluations of VT-4's armor protection we know are also based on FY-2 ERA.

China once wanted to export ZTZ-99 tank without FY-4 ERA...

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## zhxy

Personally, I think VT-4 is very good. But many Pakistanis do not trust it. The reasonable alternatives are K-2 and T-90 tanks


----------



## Areesh

Armchair said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I'm happy this is real! More new tanks. I hope a thousand more are ordered but that will probably not happen.



Sorry to say but you have a very offensive signature

Kindly change it

@waz @AgNoStiC MuSliM

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

zhxy said:


> Personally, I think VT-4 is very good. But many Pakistanis do not trust it. The reasonable alternatives are K-2 and T-90 tanks


I would want PA to get hundreds of AK-1s and than AK-2s


----------



## doorstar

zhxy said:


> Personally, I think VT-4 is very good. But many Pakistanis do not trust it. The reasonable alternatives are K-2 and T-90 tanks


 where did you meet them? do you know many?



Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> I would want PA to get hundreds of AK-1


 AK-1 is VT-1 (jointly made by norinco and Pakistan)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

doorstar said:


> AK-1 is VT-1


AK is VT-1 I think. AK-1 is its upgrade


----------



## waz

zhxy said:


> Personally, I think VT-4 is very good. But many Pakistanis do not trust it. The reasonable alternatives are K-2 and T-90 tanks



It is good as per Western writers as well. The K2 is too expensive and the VT-4 is better than the T-90S, or at the very least doesn't offer anything groundbreaking.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zulfiqar

@Dazzler @LKJ86 which areas will be covered by the FY-4 ERA.

@Dazzler

Any good upgrades relative to AK-1.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ark_Angel

zhxy said:


> Personally, I think VT-4 is very good. But many Pakistanis do not trust it. The reasonable alternatives are K-2 and T-90 tanks


K-2 extremely expensive. T-90(also one of the contenders for this project) was trialed by PA, metallurgy was found to be the best amongst all three, but was found wanting in optronics and Battlefield management systems, ease of maintenance and most importantly line of credit. Russians only deal in Hard Cold Cash. VT-4 version that we are getting I can claim on record here is much better than T-84 Oplot, T-90AM and T-90S.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
27


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Ark_Angel said:


> K-2 extremely expensive. T-90(also one of the contenders for this project) was trialed by PA, metallurgy was found to be the best amongst all three, but was found wanting in optronics and Battlefield management systems, ease of maintenance and most importantly line of credit. Russians only deal in Hard Cold Cash. VT-4 version that we are getting I can claim on record here is much better than T-84 Oplot, T-90AM and T-90S.


Where does that leave AK II project?


----------



## Ark_Angel

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Where does that leave AK II project?


With Chairman HIT

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## StormBreaker

Armchair said:


> Panzerkiel is either being ironic or the order, like usual for tank orders, is about 290 units : )
> Personally I don't see Pakistan buying VT-4s, not from the quality issues that I personally know of with Norinco built tanks.


If Norinco was overall a sh*t then all of our AKs and AK-1s don’t deserve to be in PA...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Gryphon

Ark_Angel said:


> K-2 extremely expensive. T-90(also one of the contenders for this project) was trialed by PA, metallurgy was found to be the best amongst all three, but was found wanting in optronics and Battlefield management systems, ease of maintenance and most importantly line of credit. Russians only deal in Hard Cold Cash. VT-4 version that we are getting I can claim on record here is much better than T-84 Oplot, T-90AM and T-90S.



I have always felt the no. of AK/AK-1 regiments is higher than estimated. These MBTs are everywhere in south & central Pakistan. How many AK/AK-1 regts presently exist?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## truthseeker2010

PanzerKiel said:


> You'll be surprised.....a whole formation is being renewed!!!



1st AD?


----------



## JPMM

PanzerKiel said:


> A clear fact.
> 
> 
> 
> No dear, nothing emotional in that. But that's the way it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just cost of the task itself. We have to look at other things as well, such as ease of getting spares, near vicinity of support bases and factories, output capacity of Chinese factories etc.
> 
> As a whole, with all these considerations, and economic as well, VT4 suits us.



I gave here the same answer when Portugal choose the Vamtac ST5 instead of a Turkish vehicle, I told them that the factory was few Kms from the border.
And after all, if you need to change any equipment, the Chinese are the ideal partner.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Ark_Angel said:


> K-2 extremely expensive. T-90(also one of the contenders for this project) was trialed by PA, metallurgy was found to be the best amongst all three, but was found wanting in optronics and Battlefield management systems, ease of maintenance and most importantly line of credit. Russians only deal in Hard Cold Cash. VT-4 version that we are getting I can claim on record here is much better than T-84 Oplot, T-90AM and T-90S.


Are we only going to get about 300 tanks? Also are they going to replace our existing tanks?


----------



## DrWatson775

Beast said:


> From the description from Chinese side. Rich Arabs countries are footing the bill but tank is send to PA...
> 
> Something like Egypt Mistral class. It also mention PA is in urgent need of new tank. Sounds like something big is brewing. It seems like front line is very tense and they are sensing something big may broke out if nothing is done to remedy the balance.



I might be completely wrong here but recent criticism of India coming from the middle east and some possible cash flow assistance to Pakistan may be pointing towards something in the works to wrap up the Yemen chapter. Since Pak was not getting involved directly, something under the UN umbrella may be in the works with Pak forces. Long shot though. Wars are started quickly but the ending is always unpredictable.


----------



## GumNaam

Gryphon said:


> I have always felt the no. of AK/AK-1 regiments is higher than estimated. These MBTs are everywhere in south & central Pakistan. How many AK/AK-1 regts presently exist?


Pakistan Armed Forces like to keep their true numbers close to their chest...I've always maintained that Pakistan Army is not 700,000 in strength, its probably a million or more. It's impossible to conduct such massive operations against terrorist while keeping the indian army im check on the loc & ib...but the official army size has always been stated as 700,000.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Where does that leave AK II project?


In my opinion AK II will be 55 tonne version of Altay or pretty much K 2 Black Panther only thing will be it would be made us with help of Turkey


----------



## OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ

Zarvan said:


> In my opinion AK II will be 55 tonne version of Altay or pretty much K 2 Black Panther only thing will be it would be made us with help of Turkey


Well Turkey still hasn't resolved the engine issue... tank is great but can you fit a Chinese engine? The indigenous 1800hp engine is still a couple of years away. The program itself is great with an unmanned nextgen in pipeline.


----------



## kongn

Interesting development.This might provoke an indian reaction with armata or proryv-3 unless armoured corps decides the existing T-90s are enough.
Curious though why PA maintains so many tank types,must be a logistical strain.


----------



## Irfan Baloch

why people are necroposting a two year old thread?



Ark_Angel said:


> BOQs ki Gup forum p na charhao Kaka. Humble advice.
> I barely comment, I have been following Pakistani Defence while you weren’t even born. Using it these days as this forum has become Langar Gup Forum instead of a professional forum. A lot of things here need correction the first one being Providing Credible info.
> Hope u had a Good Iftaar, and now enjoy your Cup of tea and Langar Gup in your BOQ.


kindly cool down and don't take it personal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

kongn said:


> Interesting development.This might provoke an indian reaction with armata or proryv-3 unless armoured corps decides the existing T-90s are enough.
> Curious though why PA maintains so many tank types,must be a logistical strain.



They had to deal with obsolescence of a large number of units all together. So they bought what they could, modified some others, and made sure they had a force in existence. At every opportunity, they try to improve their capabilities. It is prohibitive for them to replace everything at one go.



kongn said:


> Interesting development.This might provoke an indian reaction with armata or proryv-3 unless armoured corps decides the existing T-90s are enough.
> Curious though why PA maintains so many tank types,must be a logistical strain.



Very unlikely. This purchase hardly affects the balance of power. It is not just a fresh intake, the PA will be retiring a number of older models over time.


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Why not make a bet! If the buyer of the tanks is Pakistan, you cease your account. If the tank is not for Pakistan. I cease mine! How?
> 
> Calm down kid. You might get a seizure.
> 
> I told you long ago (2-3years) VT-4 will won. The spec of VT-4 beats T-84 Oplot , T-90S or whatever.
> 
> Its a tank PA cannot refuse. But then some told me they have insider info, very reliable... Blah Blah Blah. PA will not pick VT-4 becos its no good. lol.



It's engine is a laughing stock as it's based on the dreaded condor Perkins. Works well in cold climate but totalled in khairpur region. I hope they addressed the issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## JPMM

truthseeker2010 said:


> 1st AD?


Looking for the Cammo works, I would say 6th AD replacing AZ (7 new Regiments with AZ bourne)
This employment North/Central would explain a Tank with less agility (engine isue) and better armour (terrain more difficult to fight Infantry)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GumNaam

kongn said:


> Interesting development.This might provoke an indian reaction with armata or proryv-3 unless armoured corps decides the existing T-90s are enough.
> Curious though why PA maintains so many tank types,must be a logistical strain.



india can buy whatever her little heart desires...she rest assured that she'll be outgunned no matter what.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gryphon

JPMM said:


> Looking for the Cammo works, I would say 6th AD replacing AZ (7 new Regiments with AZ bourne)



This is a 52t tank with 1300hp engine. Heavies have historically operated in the desert.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

PanzerKiel said:


> Am sure you don't what happened to VT4 engine during its trial in the desert. You'll be surprised.


He is delusional kid. Let him ride his fantasies.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## GumNaam

Joe Shearer said:


> They had to deal with obsolescence of a large number of units all together. So they bought what they could, modified some others, and made sure they had a force in existence. At every opportunity, they try to improve their capabilities. It is prohibitive for them to replace everything at one go.
> 
> 
> 
> Very unlikely. This purchase hardly affects the balance of power. It is not just a fresh intake, the PA will be retiring a number of older models over time.


Highly unlikely...FC has started developing its own armored units. The older tanks will refurbished & handed over to FC for service along the afghan & iranian border. The upgraded T59s proved destructive against terrorist targets & decisive in victory, imagine what the refurbished ones would do.



PanzerKiel said:


> Am sure you don't what happened to VT4 engine during its trial in the desert. You'll be surprised.


Can you share what happened? Or classified?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## doorstar

Irfan Baloch said:


> why people are necroposting a two year old thread?


may be because mr horus deleted a new one and locked another alleging them to be speculations



Beast said:


> Like the insider info you all brag?


 by the looks of it, well over 90% here claim insider status of one sort or or *another*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Ark_Angel said:


> K-2 extremely expensive. T-90(also one of the contenders for this project) was trialed by PA, metallurgy was found to be the best amongst all three, but was found wanting in optronics and Battlefield management systems, ease of maintenance and most importantly line of credit. Russians only deal in Hard Cold Cash. VT-4 version that we are getting I can claim on record here is much better than T-84 Oplot, T-90AM and T-90S.



It stands out in optics,Fcs/gcs, and netcentric ability. Very digital.



Zulfiqar said:


> @Dazzler @LKJ86 which areas will be covered by the FY-4 ERA.
> 
> @Dazzler
> 
> Any good upgrades relative to AK-1.



The good thing is AKs are not going anywhere. Hit will keep improving and churning in bits.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## JPMM

Dazzler said:


> Gl-5
> 
> 
> 
> Oplot is also coming so fingers crossed. Engine should be enhanced or changed


Hey Daz, you allready knew it back then, so what abaut part-2 of your post? Is it related to T80 modernization?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Gryphon said:


> I have always felt the no. of AK/AK-1 regiments is higher than estimated. These MBTs are everywhere in south & central Pakistan. How many AK/AK-1 regts presently exist?



I second that. Even modp report numbers are false.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Dazzler said:


> It's engine is a laughing stock as it's based on the dreaded condor Perkins. Works well in cold climate but totalled in khairpur region. I hope they addressed the issue.



Happened first time round with the second set of trials it performed very well, hence the buy.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Blacklight

Dazzler said:


> I second that. Even modp report numbers are false.


MODP is an open book, like an open forum, hence the smoke screen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

waz said:


> Happened first time round with the second set of trials it performed very well, hence the buy.



Funny, they just tweaked it and viola. Hope it doesn't repeat the same problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Dazzler said:


> Funny, they just tweaked it and viola. Hope it doesn't repeat the same problems.



Not sure, hearsay says they hit the engine hard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

JPMM said:


> Hey Daz, you allready knew it back then, so what abaut part-2 of your post? Is it related to T80 modernization?



If we had money. The UDs were to be on par or at least as capable as oplot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakFactor

waz said:


> Not sure, hearsay says they hit the engine hard.



Brother what exactly happened to the engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

PakFactor said:


> Brother what exactly happened to the engine?



Not sure bro exactly but their engineers worked to overcome problems occurring at high temperatures.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JPMM

Dazzler said:


> I second that. Even modp report numbers are false.


You allways talked about some 450 AK+50 AK-I backthen, when everyone said they were 315.
By some information allready released here in PDF, both 25th & 26th MD emply some 514 AK/AK-I (10 Armoured Regs + 2 Armoured Recce Regs)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AsianLion

For those who say VT-4 is better than Al- Khalid Tank need to change their thoughts again:

The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-selling-its-new-ztz-99-tank-anyone-buying-84876

The VT-4’s roots are in the Al-Khalid tank developed in the 1990s. The Al-Khalid tank was largely built with mostly Chinese and Pakistani technology, but a sore spot for the Chinese designers was their lack of ability to provide a power plant for the tank. The engines for the tank had to be sourced from Germany or Ukraine. Ukraine ended up providing the production run for the Al-Khalid tank. As a result, the VT-4 program’s primary objective when it began in 2009 was to build an indigenous power plant for future domestic and export tanks. Due to the success of this engine development program, many VT-4 marketing materials tout the reliability and performance of its engine.

While the capabilities of the VT-4 are not revolutionary in any way (unlike some claims from Norinco), it is a solid tank for its price, that will likely have good support from the manufacturing base in China. Survivability wise, it has the same potential issues of the T-72 and T-90 series due to the same ammo layout. While the gun performance is unlikely to be on the same level as the latest American, Chinese or Russian guns, due to being based on last-generation round technology, it should be enough to counter most armored threats that aren’t top tier. As such, the VT-4 is likely to be a popular export to nations without the budget or political connections to Russia, Europe or the United States, as a “good enough” tank. Then again, similar things were said about the Stingray light tank, for which the Royal Thai Army is also the only user.


----------



## JPMM

Dazzler said:


> If we had money. The UDs were to be on par or at least as capable as oplot.


Yes, changing electronics, the ERA on the hull and adapting the turret to receive Oplot type ERA (remember that T80UD/T84 turret its diferente from Oplot)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

JPMM said:


> You allways talked about some 450 AK+50 AK-I backthen, when everyone said they were 315.
> By some information allready released here in PDF, both 25th & 26th MD emply some 514 AK/AK-I (10 Armoured Regs + 2 Armoured Recce Regs)



And I stick to that claim 



JPMM said:


> Yes, changing electronics, the ERA on the hull and adapting the turret to receive Oplot type ERA (remember that T80UD/T84 turret its diferente from Oplot)



Yep, we wanted the duplet in place of k5s that our UDs have.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

AsianLion said:


> For those who say VT-4 is better than Al- Khalid Tank need to change their thoughts again:
> 
> The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine


The project of VT-4 began after 2010.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

JPMM said:


> You allways talked about some 450 AK+50 AK-I backthen, when everyone said they were 315.
> By some information allready released here in PDF, both 25th & 26th MD emply some 514 AK/AK-I (10 Armoured Regs + 2 Armoured Recce Regs)


Dazzler is probably Right MODP Books from Year 2008 to 2012 all say 300 AK have been produced till date even though they kept making them between those years. They are most probably involved in spreading this misinformation on Purpose whatever the reason may be. Numbers of AZ also show the same Pattern.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Dazzler is probably Right MODP Books from Year 2008 to 2012 all say 300 AK have been produced till date even though they kept making them between those years. They are most probably involved in spreading this misinformation on Purpose whatever the reason may be. Numbers of AZ also show the same Pattern.


Understandable in our context.



LKJ86 said:


> The project of VT-4 began after 2010.



After the debacle of Peruvian deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthseeker2010

JPMM said:


> Looking for the Cammo works, I would say 6th AD replacing AZ (7 new Regiments with AZ bourne)
> This employment North/Central would explain a Tank with less agility (engine isue) and better armour (terrain more difficult to fight Infantry)



6th AD's AOR is shakargarh bulge, isnt AK fits there? Vt-4 will be for desert warfare for center and south.


----------



## Beast

AsianLion said:


> For those who say VT-4 is better than Al- Khalid Tank need to change their thoughts again:
> 
> The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine
> 
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-selling-its-new-ztz-99-tank-anyone-buying-84876
> 
> The VT-4’s roots are in the Al-Khalid tank developed in the 1990s. The Al-Khalid tank was largely built with mostly Chinese and Pakistani technology, but a sore spot for the Chinese designers was their lack of ability to provide a power plant for the tank. The engines for the tank had to be sourced from Germany or Ukraine. Ukraine ended up providing the production run for the Al-Khalid tank. As a result, the VT-4 program’s primary objective when it began in 2009 was to build an indigenous power plant for future domestic and export tanks. Due to the success of this engine development program, many VT-4 marketing materials tout the reliability and performance of its engine.
> 
> While the capabilities of the VT-4 are not revolutionary in any way (unlike some claims from Norinco), it is a solid tank for its price, that will likely have good support from the manufacturing base in China. Survivability wise, it has the same potential issues of the T-72 and T-90 series due to the same ammo layout. While the gun performance is unlikely to be on the same level as the latest American, Chinese or Russian guns, due to being based on last-generation round technology, it should be enough to counter most armored threats that aren’t top tier. As such, the VT-4 is likely to be a popular export to nations without the budget or political connections to Russia, Europe or the United States, as a “good enough” tank. Then again, similar things were said about the Stingray light tank, for which the Royal Thai Army is also the only user.


Another misinfo. Worst is trying to use a nationalist website as source. This website spread alot of mis info about Chinese military tech. Just eat the humble and accept VT-4 is better than Al Khalid and PA needs it. I am sure the top brass at PA knows better than you.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Armchair

Gryphon said:


> This is a 52t tank with 1300hp engine. Heavies have historically operated in the desert.



The wisdom learned from WW2 is the opposite. Heavies do better in hills and mountains, desert is for lighter and more mobile tanks. But somehow the opposite seems to hold true in Pak. There may be some reason for this.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

truthseeker2010 said:


> 6th AD's AOR is shakargarh bulge, isnt AK fits there? Vt-4 will be for desert warfare for center and south.



You may have observed that you hardly find any AK in 6 AD or even in north Pakistan despite the proximity to the factories and base workshops . It will remain like that for some time.

6 AD AOO is much larger, starts from where the mountains end till the land of the rivers.

VT4 goes north.



Gryphon said:


> This is a 52t tank with 1300hp engine. Heavies have historically operated in the desert.



Ours is coming with 1500 hp engine, as far as I know.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Zulfiqar

Armchair said:


> The wisdom learned from WW2 is the opposite. Heavies do better in hills and mountains, desert is for lighter and more mobile tanks. But somehow the opposite seems to hold true in Pak. There may be some reason for this.



One thing that I would like to add that not every part of punjab or sindh is tankable.

I don't know the present setup but in the early eighties my father(from a sapper unit) was assigned the duty of checking the soil conditions(by collecting soil samples) of some sectors of punjab in order to update data w.r.t which area can be used for tank warfare and which can't, especially during the monsoon rain season. I am sure the data has been updated every once in a while.



PanzerKiel said:


> VT4 goes north.



North? Of what?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Armchair

Zulfiqar said:


> One thing that I would like to add that not every part of punjab or sindh is tankable.
> 
> I don't know the present setup but in the early eighties my father(from a sapper unit) was assigned the duty of checking the soil conditions(by collecting soil samples) of some sectors of punjab in order to update data w.r.t which area can be used for tank warfare and which can't, especially during the monsoon rain season. I am sure the data has been updated every once in a while.
> 
> 
> 
> North? Of what?



Most of Sindh isn't tankable as the desert there has very fine grain sand that doesn't allow meaningful mobility. I learned this from @PanzerKiel back in 2012

This is why I want to see Rooikat types in PA. At least test them in the desert! See if this works. Has anyone tried hovercrafts in Siachin? That's another pet peeve of mine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## truthseeker2010

PanzerKiel said:


> You may have observed that you hardly find any AK in 6 AD or even in north Pakistan despite the proximity to the factories and base workshops . It will remain like that for some time.
> 
> 6 AD AOO is much larger, starts from where the mountains end till the land of the rivers.
> 
> VT4 goes north.
> 
> 
> 
> Ours is coming with 1500 hp engine, as far as I know.



Will it augment the force or replacement?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

truthseeker2010 said:


> Will it augment the force or replacement?



Both, old tanks replaced, but the older ones will be put to good use.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## doorstar

Beast said:


> Another misinfo. Worst is trying to use a nationalist website as source. This website spread alot of mis info about Chinese military tech. Just eat the humble and accept VT-4 is better than Al Khalid and PA needs it. I am sure the top brass at PA knows better than you.


these people -- who cite nationalinterest.org -- are either the dumbest Pakistanis or are not Pakistanis at all. that website has been trying to get America to fight WOT in Pakistan instead of in Afghanistan ever since I can remember.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## PakFactor

PanzerKiel said:


> Both, old tanks replaced, but the older ones will be put to good use.



Old tanks shifted to FC Corps?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

PakFactor said:


> Old tanks shifted to FC Corps?



Not this early. These tanks will be augmenting our newly expanded armored forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## maverick1977

VT-4 is confirmed 300 plus tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Zulfiqar

Armchair said:


> Most of Sindh isn't tankable as the desert there has very fine grain sand that doesn't allow meaningful mobility. I learned this from @PanzerKiel back in 2012 when our Major was still a Lieutenant
> 
> This is why I want to see Rooikat types in PA. At least test them in the desert! See if this works. Has anyone tried hovercrafts in Siachin? That's another pet peeve of mine.



I am not sure if you are serious about the siachen thing.

PA uses mules mainly in that area (at least till my father was there in mid 90s) for resupply. As you need to travel while minimizing unnecessary noise because otherwise you will attract attention of OP which may direct artillery fire (that happened once as well, my father got lucky as he was on the post on a reverse slope but the mules didn't as they were near the base of the hill).

Moreover, hovercraft may not be of much use in hilly narrow paths and they won't be of much use either when you are scaling up to the posts which are usually on heights.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

Zulfiqar said:


> I am not sure if you are serious about the siachen thing.
> 
> PA uses mules mainly in that area (at least till my father was there in mid 90s) for resupply. As you need to travel while minimizing unnecessary noise because otherwise you will attract attention of OP which may direct artillery fire (that happened once as well, my father got lucky as he was on the post on a reverse slope but the mules didn't as they were near the base of the hill).
> 
> Moreover, hovercraft may not be of much use in hilly narrow paths and they won't be of much use either when you are scaling up to the posts which are usually on heights.



There are sections of the Siachen where the terrain is open but impassable as the huge amount of ice is difficult to navigate. Also, one never knows where one is putting ones foot, if there is an abyss below. In this kind of Siachen terrain, hovercrafts would be incredibly good as they would glide over them and at speed. Artillery would never be a problem for hovercrafts at all - they are only a problem for slow moving infantry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthseeker2010

PanzerKiel said:


> Both, old tanks replaced, but the older ones will be put to good use.



Can we expect new AD or conversion of Infantry Div into Mech Divs?


----------



## PanzerKiel

truthseeker2010 said:


> Can we expect new AD or conversion of Infantry Div into Mech Divs?



Not in the near future. That would be asking for too much.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## truthseeker2010

PanzerKiel said:


> Not in the near future. That would be asking for too much.



So the expansion of armoured force will go into new IABGs?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zulfiqar

Armchair said:


> There are sections of the Siachen where the terrain is open but impassable as the huge amount of ice is difficult to navigate. Also, one never knows where one is putting ones foot, if there is an abyss below. In this kind of Siachen terrain, hovercrafts would be incredibly good as they would glide over them and at speed. Artillery would never be a problem for hovercrafts at all - they are only a problem for slow moving infantry.



I would like to differ but don't want to derail the thread here. Let's concentrate on VT-4.

Artillery is very much a problem because it is used in greater concentration in mountain warfare relative to in the plains.

Moreover, a direct hit is also not necessary as many types of shells are available with air burst fuses e.t.c



https://imgur.com/id%3DgIjCo%3Btype%3Dalbum

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

Zulfiqar said:


> Artillery is very much a problem because it is used in greater concentration in mountain warfare relative to in the plains.
> 
> Moreover, a direct hit is also not necessary as many types of shells are available with air burst fuses e.t.c



Exactly
But SiAchen is a different case,. You have to use the minimum amount of Artillery there. Avalanches can and do occur due to Artillery fire. That's why.



Zulfiqar said:


> I would like to differ but don't want to derail the thread here. Let's concentrate on VT-4.
> 
> Artillery is very much a problem because it is used in greater concentration in mountain warfare relative to in the plains.
> 
> Moreover, a direct hit is also not necessary as many types of shells are available with air burst fuses e.t.c
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/id%3DgIjCo%3Btype%3Dalbum



Moreover just to support your point, air burst or even a near miss, though may not destroy a tank, can seriously damage the optics outside the tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

One department where vt-4 doesnt disappoint - the eye candy!!

























PS: I see a few "specific" changes in the interior compared to the Thai versions. The stabilizer, BMS, looks different, so does that monstrous FCS screen (first pic).

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## IblinI

wh


Dazzler said:


> One department where vt-4 doesnt disappoint - the eye candy!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: I see a few "specific" changes in the interior compared to the Thai versions. The stabilizer, BMS, looks different, so does that monstrous FCS screen (first pic).


What is it in the screen of first pic?


----------



## Gryphon

JPMM said:


> You allways talked about some 450 AK+50 AK-I backthen, when everyone said they were 315.
> By some information allready released here in PDF, both 25th & 26th MD emply some 514 AK/AK-I (10 Armoured Regs + 2 Armoured Recce Regs)



AK/AK-1 are also employed by the mechanized brigade (of an inf div) and 10 IABG (31 Corps).



Armchair said:


> The wisdom learned from WW2 is the opposite. Heavies do better in hills and mountains, desert is for lighter and more mobile tanks. But somehow the opposite seems to hold true in Pak. There may be some reason for this.



What works good around the paddy fields - from May-Sep?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Armchair

Interesting review by Tank Nut Dave:
https://tanknutdave.com/the-chinese-mbt-3000-main-battle-tank/








Look at that, seems to look similar at least superficially to the M1 abrams tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

IblinI said:


> wh
> 
> What is it in the screen of first pic?



Digital fire control computer screen. It seems like in auto targeting mode (SFCS).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Armchair

Gryphon said:


> AK/AK-1 are also employed by the mechanized brigade (of an inf div) and 10 IABG (31 Corps).
> 
> 
> 
> What works good around the paddy fields - from May-Sep?



nothing works good : ) your best bet is M113 but even that... but I'm no expert. The expert can tell you : )

Being from Bangladesh, paddy fields and rainy seasons are something I think of a bit more. Best bet is to stay on the road network, which again means wheeled tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ali_raza

Armchair said:


> nothing works good : ) your best bet is M113 but even that... but I'm no expert. The expert can tell you : )
> 
> Being from Bangladesh, paddy fields and rainy seasons are something I think of a bit more. Best bet is to stay on the road network, which again means wheeled tanks.


wht u think of movie extraction
seems like thor and that indian ex special force guy killed half bangla army 
lol

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

ali_raza said:


> wht u think of movie extraction
> seems like thor and that indian ex special force guy killed half bangla army
> lol



I don't watch dumb bollywood cr@p lol 

Bangladesh is losing its army. Indians are everywhere. They have infiltrated our army. They send our army officers to India and some come back and started a swinger's club. It's not the fighting force it once was but there is always hope. 

You'll never see me participate in the BD section of defence.pk. I actually work sometimes in defense contracting here and know the ugly side. _I've been an arms dealer _

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ali_raza

Armchair said:


> I don't watch dumb bollywood cr@p lol
> 
> Bangladesh is losing its army. Indians are everywhere. They have infiltrated our army. They send our army officers to India and some come back and started a swinger's club. It's not the fighting force it once was but there is always hope.
> 
> You'll never see me participate in the BD section of defence.pk. I actually work sometimes in defense contracting here and know the ugly side. _I've been an arms dealer _


that is great 
atleast u have the vision to sew the reality unlike many people who r high on indian propoganda
i always feel a connect with bangladesh.
i wish one day we would atleast be back together on very friendly terms.
we born together after all.
india is a curse

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Armchair said:


> Consider it a protest why I cannot criticize this man. His supporters gave me an incredible number of negative ratings and got me banned. What an evil man and they compare him to Jinnah. PDF cannot accept such a comparison. If you do accept him as a Jinnah equivalent, then you should be okay with such a quote.
> 
> If not - then allow us to criticize him! He hated Muslims and Islam. How can we turn him into a holy cow that is above criticism!


The signature isn’t acceptable and I’ve sent you a PM asking you to remove it, which you’ve ignored apparently.



Armchair said:


> They send our army officers to India and some come back and started a swinger's club.


Interesting you mention that. I’m familiar with at least one account from a few years ago when the Defence attaché (or maybe it was a visiting military official, my memory is hazy on it now) at the Bangladesh embassy in Islamabad approached the wife of a Pakistani individual he was friends with a ‘swinger’ proposal.

Anyway, back to the subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Armchair

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> The signature isn’t acceptable and I’ve sent you a PM asking you to remove it, which you’ve ignored apparently.
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention that. I’m familiar with at least one account from a few years ago when the Defence attaché (or maybe it was a visiting military official, my memory is hazy on it now) at the Bangladesh embassy in Islamabad approached the wife of a Pakistani individual he was friends with a ‘swinger’ proposal.
> 
> Anyway, back to the subject.



Interesting. Perhaps not the right thread for a discussion about it. I think you'll find the signature now to your requirements. I've a few more stories to share but don't want to hijack this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

@PanzerKiel @Dazzler
As far as I remember, there was once noise of Al Haider tank project within Army. Should we call Pakistan specific version of VT4 - with 1500HP engine, FY4 ERA, latest FCS - as Al Haider tank?
Honestly, I see VT4 going into 6th AD and the AZs will be put into use further to replace T59/69.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Tipu7 said:


> @PanzerKiel @Dazzler
> As far as I remember, there was once noise of Al Haider tank project within Army. Should we call Pakistan specific version of VT4 - with 1500HP engine, FY4 ERA, latest FCS - as Al Haider tank?
> Honestly, I see VT4 going into 6th AD and the AZs will be put into use further to replace T59/69.



I would wait for confirmation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair

So now we have a number of different tiers of capabilities:

Tier 1: VT-4 "Al Haider"
Tier 2: Al Khalid / Al Khalid I / T-80UD
Tier 3: Type 85 / Al Zarrar
Tier 4: Type 59 / Type 69

Ultimately this will become:

Tier 1: VT-4 "Al Haider" / Al Khalid II
Tier 2: Al Khalid / Al Khalid I / T-80UD
Tier 3: Type 85 / Al Zarrar

If the engine and thermals on the VT-4 are good enough, this is great news for the AK II program - they will be better and yet cheaper as Chinese thermals are surely cheaper than French ones, while the engine is 1500cc and yet would be cheaper than a Ukrainian one.

This also opens the gates to all kinds of sub-components of the VT-4 to be installed in the AK II. Like the ERA which, from the PDF Chinese posters, are not the ones given to Thailand but the ones from the T-99 program. The engine is also probably from the T-99 program.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI

Armchair said:


> So now we have a number of different tiers of capabilities:
> 
> Tier 1: VT-4 "Al Haider"
> Tier 2: Al Khalid / Al Khalid I / T-80UD
> Tier 3: Type 85 / Al Zarrar
> Tier 4: Type 59 / Type 69
> 
> Ultimately this will become:
> 
> Tier 1: VT-4 "Al Haider" / Al Khalid II
> Tier 2: Al Khalid / Al Khalid I / T-80UD
> Tier 3: Type 85 / Al Zarrar
> 
> If the engine and thermals on the VT-4 are good enough, this is great news for the AK II program - they will be better and yet cheaper as Chinese thermals are surely cheaper than French ones, while the engine is 1500cc and yet would be cheaper than a Ukrainian one.
> 
> This also opens the gates to all kinds of sub-components of the VT-4 to be installed in the AK II. Like the ERA which, from the PDF Chinese posters, are not the ones given to Thailand but the ones from the T-99 program. The engine is also probably from the T-99 program.


Type 99A is equipped with FY5 ERA.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

JPMM said:


> You allways talked about some 450 AK+50 AK-I backthen


Whats your estimate now @Dazzler?



PanzerKiel said:


> Not this early. These tanks will be augmenting our newly expanded armored forces.


Are T69s going to be converted to Al Zarrars?


----------



## Armchair

If rumor is true, Pakistan stole a march on the Indians. While people like myself were busy screaming there is not enough tanks, etc, PA quietly built more AKs than advertised, while now we see VT-4s coming in. Pakistani armor is back in the game.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Armchair said:


> If rumor is true, Pakistan stole a march on the Indians. While people like myself were busy screaming there is not enough tanks, etc, PA quietly built more AKs than advertised, while now we see VT-4s coming in. Pakistani armor is back in the game.


Well maybe Indians are hiding too

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Well maybe Indians are hiding too


Indian don't hide, they love to brag.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## IblinI

Beast said:


> Indian don't hide, they love to brag.


----------



## bananarepublic

Armchair said:


> Most of Sindh isn't tankable as the desert there has very fine grain sand that doesn't allow meaningful mobility. I learned this from @PanzerKiel back in 2012
> 
> This is why I want to see Rooikat types in PA. At least test them in the desert! See if this works. Has anyone tried hovercrafts in Siachin? That's another pet peeve of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Consider it a protest why I cannot criticize this man. His supporters gave me an incredible number of negative ratings and got me banned. What an evil man and they compare him to Jinnah. PDF cannot accept such a comparison. If you do accept him as a Jinnah equivalent, then you should be okay with such a quote.
> 
> If not - then allow us to criticize him! He hated Muslims and Islam. How can we turn him into a holy cow that is above criticism!



Hovercrafts ins siachin??
What are they gonna do jump over crevices, glaciers aren't plain as you think but are very rough in terrain with huge "ice hills"


----------



## Inception-06

Gryphon said:


> What works good around the paddy fields - from May-Sep?



Al-Zarrar Tanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick1977

Dazzler said:


> One department where vt-4 doesnt disappoint - the eye candy!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: I see a few "specific" changes in the interior compared to the Thai versions. The stabilizer, BMS, looks different, so does that monstrous FCS screen (first pic).



looks much more advanced than T80UD FCS.. and BMS seems much much better than T80UDs as well ... is this what Pakistan is testing.. 
between i love T80uds, rode in them couple of times within the Unit of pakistan army .. got lucky as my brother was the CO of the unit

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ziaulislam

GumNaam said:


> Pakistan Armed Forces like to keep their true numbers close to their chest...I've always maintained that Pakistan Army is not 700,000 in strength, its probably a million or more. It's impossible to conduct such massive operations against terrorist while keeping the indian army im check on the loc & ib...but the official army size has always been stated as 700,000.


You counting 300,000+ para military force which did the bulk of ops and had most losses..


----------



## GumNaam

ziaulislam said:


> You counting 300,000+ para military force which did the bulk of ops and had most losses..


I'm well aware of 300,000 paramilitary forces & I did NOT include them in the 1 million *ARMY* size. If I wanted to include the paramilitary forces, I would've said so, I said *ARMY* ONLY for a reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

maverick1977 said:


> is this what Pakistan is testing..


Maybe Thailand..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Daniel808

waz said:


> It's hard to find but does anyone have an idea of ammunition storage and layout within the VT4? Is it stored in protected compartments?



For Chinese PLAGF latest tanks (ZTZ15 Light Tanks and ZTZ99A MBT) their ammo are stored in Protected Turret Bustle located in their Rear Turret.

Because VT-4 MBT developed from 2010 onwards, I bet they will have same Auto-loader System.

*ZTZ15 Light Tanks*













*ZTZ99A MBT












*
This is the footage video of their Auto-loader System in Action (with their Ammo come from Protected Turret Bustle located in Rear part of their Turret)

copy link below (delete '*')
https://gfy*cat.com/fatwar*mgangesdolphin

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

ZTZ-99A tank

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## waz

AsianLion said:


> For those who say VT-4 is better than Al- Khalid Tank need to change their thoughts again:
> 
> The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine
> 
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-selling-its-new-ztz-99-tank-anyone-buying-84876
> 
> The VT-4’s roots are in the Al-Khalid tank developed in the 1990s. The Al-Khalid tank was largely built with mostly Chinese and Pakistani technology, but a sore spot for the Chinese designers was their lack of ability to provide a power plant for the tank. The engines for the tank had to be sourced from Germany or Ukraine. Ukraine ended up providing the production run for the Al-Khalid tank. As a result, the VT-4 program’s primary objective when it began in 2009 was to build an indigenous power plant for future domestic and export tanks. Due to the success of this engine development program, many VT-4 marketing materials tout the reliability and performance of its engine.
> 
> While the capabilities of the VT-4 are not revolutionary in any way (unlike some claims from Norinco), it is a solid tank for its price, that will likely have good support from the manufacturing base in China. Survivability wise, it has the same potential issues of the T-72 and T-90 series due to the same ammo layout. While the gun performance is unlikely to be on the same level as the latest American, Chinese or Russian guns, due to being based on last-generation round technology, it should be enough to counter most armored threats that aren’t top tier. As such, the VT-4 is likely to be a popular export to nations without the budget or political connections to Russia, Europe or the United States, as a “good enough” tank. Then again, similar things were said about the Stingray light tank, for which the Royal Thai Army is also the only user.



These issues have all been solved and the article is old. Most of it is conjecture and the version Pakistan will be getting is far superior in terms of armour and battlefield management systems than the current export model. The VT-4 is superior to anything the army fields.



Beast said:


> Another misinfo. Worst is trying to use a nationalist website as source. This website spread alot of mis info about Chinese military tech. Just eat the humble and accept VT-4 is better than Al Khalid and PA needs it. I am sure the top brass at PA knows better than you.



The site is complete utter rubbish. A fair few neutral writers have said the tank is excellent and Pakistan's model is better than the version for export.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## LKJ86

Daniel808 said:


> Type 99A2 MBT


There are ZTZ-99 and ZTZ-99A, but no so-called "Type 99A2 MBT".
And ZTZ-99 and ZTZ-99A are two completely different tanks, just like KLJ-7 and KLJ-7A.

ZTZ-99

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

waz said:


> VT-4 is superior to anything the army fields.


superior than AK-1?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> superior than AK-1?


Why would PA buy new tanks that are not superior than AK-1?

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## waz

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> superior than AK-1?



Yes, it’s the latest generation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

From 06.31 the VT4.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## GumNaam

@PanzerKiel bro, I gotta ask since you implied that the VT4 engine either malfunctioned or broke down during trials in the deserts...HOW HARD DID YOU GUYS PUSH THIS BEAST???


----------



## Zarvan

As we are discussing a Tank I must mention a new Major General has been made head of HIT

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## syed_yusuf

LKJ86 said:


> ZTZ-99A tank
> View attachment 627960
> View attachment 627961
> View attachment 627962
> View attachment 627963
> View attachment 627964
> View attachment 627965


can VT5 have 125MM instead of 105MM. other than that this is a solid tank best for mountain warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

GumNaam said:


> @PanzerKiel bro, I gotta ask since you implied that the VT4 engine either malfunctioned or broke down during trials in the deserts...HOW HARD DID YOU GUYS PUSH THIS BEAST???



Minor problems in the initiative phase, but as @Ark_Angel pointed out, it performed well once the initiative problems were rectified....
It was pushed pretty hard, both in hot and cold weathe , all sort of maneuvers, firing from static positions and while moving as well. If I remember correctly, tests spanned over several months. There were some issues regarding its fire on the move, regarding gun stabilization, but again, Chinese were good enough to rectify ALL things that were pointed out.
One special thing in this tank, which no other tank of ours has of now, is that there is a mechanism in it whereby the tank does boresighting itself, meaning auto boresighting.

Oplot had a bad start, once it arrived, it broke its sprocket on arrival ,... Bad first impression.... And Oplot was constantly plagued by engine problems. It also had some extra pounds of weight with its performance not corresponding.

Once it starts arriving, the whole batch is supposed to be completed by 5 years.. Only problem which is stopping its delivery is the deal... We are asking for complete TOT, Chinese are pressing for partial TOT.... Let's see...



Zarvan said:


> As we are discussing a Tank I must mention a new Major General has been made head of HIT
> View attachment 627988
> 
> View attachment 627989



Oh, Gen Dogar goes then. FYI, Gen Aamer's unit conducted the trials of VT4. Of course, he wasn't in the unit at the time. But just a point.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## waz

syed_yusuf said:


> can VT5 have 125MM instead of 105MM. other than that this is a solid tank best for mountain warfare.



Chassis and stabilisers won't be able to take the additional weight and gun firing. 
At this point in time there is nothing suggesting the PA is looking at the VT5, even for forces in around the LOC. 
There's too much to do elsewhere with the tank fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tipu7

PanzerKiel said:


> It also had some extra pounds of weight with its performance not corresponding.


Perhaps that's the reason in Oplot-P, the side armor was removed to reduce overall weight.






PanzerKiel said:


> And Oplot was constantly plagued by *engine* problems


6TD-02?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## GumNaam

PanzerKiel said:


> Minor problems in the initiative phase, but as @Ark_Angel pointed out, it performed well once the initiative problems were rectified....
> It was pushed pretty hard, both in hot and cold weathe , all sort of maneuvers, firing from static positions and while moving as well. If I remember correctly, tests spanned over several months. There were some issues regarding its fire on the move, regarding gun stabilization, but again, Chinese were good enough to rectify ALL things that were pointed out.
> One special thing in this tank, which no other tank of ours has of now, is that there is a mechanism in it whereby the tank does boresighting itself, meaning auto boresighting.
> 
> Oplot had a bad start, once it arrived, it broke its sprocket on arrival ,... Bad first impression.... And Oplot was constantly plagued by engine problems. It also had some extra pounds of weight with its performance not corresponding.
> 
> Once it starts arriving, the whole batch is supposed to be completed by 5 years.. Only problem which is stopping its delivery is the deal... We are asking for complete TOT, Chinese are pressing for partial TOT.... Let's see...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Gen Dogar goes then. FYI, Gen Aamer's unit conducted the trials of VT4. Of course, he wasn't in the unit at the time. But just a point.


So basically boils down to picking between AK1 & VT4, yes? Or has the decision been made?


----------



## PanzerKiel

GumNaam said:


> So basically boils down to picking between AK1 & VT4, yes? Or has the decision been made?



Decision was made, the TOT thing is the last remaining hitch.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## maverick1977

GumNaam said:


> So basically boils down to picking between AK1 & VT4, yes? Or has the decision been made?




its been made, 300 plus tanks.. does anyone know the difference between the alkhalid 1, and Vt-4

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## GumNaam

PanzerKiel said:


> Decision was made, the TOT thing is the last remaining hitch.


Ab yaar Chinese sari technology to nahi dein gey na, kuch to ab humay bhi khud research kar kay bana ni parray gi...itna to amreeka isreal kay liyay bhi nahi karta!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dazzler

maverick1977 said:


> its been made, 300 plus tanks.. does anyone know the difference between the alkhalid 1, and Vt-4



Several differences from FCS to ERA plates, engine transmission and so on. AK-1 is systems improvement of the baseline Alkhalid, still capable and suitable for terrain. VT4 is heavier and has much higher degree of automation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## maverick1977

Dazzler said:


> Several differences from FCS to ERA plates, engine transmission and so on. AK-1 is systems improvement of the baseline Alkhalid, still capable and suitable for terrain. VT4 is heavier and has much higher degree of automation.



how about RHAe comparison between the two when HE or KE rounds are used ? can we say it can get RHAe of 1.2m against TOW 2 or hellfire 2 plus ?

PS: i am novice in this area ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair

would love to see some kind of a comparison (perhaps Tank Nut Dave style) of the AK vs the VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gryphon

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Are T69s going to be converted to Al Zarrars?



There are plenty of T-59M's available for conversion; T-59MII's and remaining T-69IIMP's with TI capability will be the last to go.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

I'm confused, the thread started with pictures of VT-4 allegedly being transported from Chinese factory to Pakistan. Now we are hearing that the ToT is being negotiated. Which of these is true as both cannot be?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

He will also sip coolaid and do afsari....as usual.



Zarvan said:


> As we are discussing a Tank I must mention a new Major General has been made head of HIT
> View attachment 627988
> 
> View attachment 627989

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fieldmarshal

Zarvan said:


> As we are discussing a Tank I must mention a new Major General has been made head of HIT
> View attachment 627988
> 
> View attachment 627989



The news seems bs
As chairman HIT is always a LT. Gen. from the armored corps. N not a maj gen.


----------



## Dazzler

maverick1977 said:


> how about RHAe comparison between the two when HE or KE rounds are used ? can we say it can get RHAe of 1.2m against TOW 2 or hellfire 2 plus ?
> 
> PS: i am novice in this area ?



During tests, AK took an hj8 head on at the turret with no penetration. No ERA tiles mounted.

With fy4 era, it should have better armour.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## PanzerKiel

Armchair said:


> I'm confused, the thread started with pictures of VT-4 allegedly being transported from Chinese factory to Pakistan. Now we are hearing that the ToT is being negotiated. Which of these is true as both cannot be?



I take it as a minor hitch. Otherwise ToT would have been the first thing to be negotiated.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

GumNaam said:


> Ab yaar Chinese sari technology to nahi dein gey na, kuch to ab humay bhi khud research kar kay bana ni parray gi...itna to amreeka isreal kay liyay bhi nahi karta!


Afsar Syndrome hai bhai.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

waz said:


> Chassis and stabilisers won't be able to take the additional weight and gun firing.
> At this point in time there is nothing suggesting the PA is looking at the VT5, even for forces in around the LOC.
> There's too much to do elsewhere with the tank fleet.



True, the recoil of 125mm alone would wreck the stabilizer.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fieldmarshal

The best thing about vt4 is the engine n initially PA just wanted the engine.
Guess the Chinese made an offer they couldn't refuse.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Beast

Anybody know how Al khalid tank is being steer? Does it have automatic gearbox and car steering wheel panel?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

PanzerKiel said:


> One special thing in this tank, which no other tank of ours has of now, is that there is a mechanism in it whereby the tank does boresighting itself, meaning auto boresighting.


In Russia's Tank Biathlon, ZTZ-96B also can do boresighting itself. But Russia insisted that it was unfair to T-72, and then ZTZ-96B had to shut it down.
What a pity...

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Anybody know how Al khalid tank is being steer? Does it have automatic gearbox and car steering wheel panel?


Semi auto with tillers

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> Semi auto with tillers


So with VT-4 automatic transmission gear and car steering panel. It will be a leap, right?

2.00mins onwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CHI RULES

Beast said:


> Why not make a bet! If the buyer of the tanks is Pakistan, you cease your account. If the tank is not for Pakistan. I cease mine! How?
> 
> 
> I told you long ago (2-3years) VT-4 will won. The spec of VT-4 beats T-84 Oplot , T-90S or whatever.
> 
> Its a tank PA cannot refuse. But then some told me they have insider info, very reliable... Blah Blah Blah. PA will not pick VT-4 becos its no good. lol.



Sir have got info from a credible member who was probably a pro that payment has been made and deliveries started, initially hundred shall come. The info is not so sensitive to be hidden.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

CHI RULES said:


> Sir have got info from a credible member who was probably a pro that payment has been made and deliveries started, initially hundred shall come. The info is not so sensitive to be hidden.


Yes, now is open story and everybody knows. PA need VT-4 urgently. Norinco is trying all means to meet PA production number.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## CHI RULES

Beast said:


> Yes, now is open story and everybody knows. PA need VT-4 urgently. Norinco is trying all means to meet PA production number.


Sir any serving person cannot risk to leak such induction until and unless announced officially however a retired pro has no such obligation so he mentioned the news few days back.


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> So with VT-4 automatic transmission gear and car steering panel. It will be a leap, right?
> 
> 2.00mins onwards.


Ak1 has steering wheel.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHI RULES

CHI RULES said:


> Sir any serving person cannot risk to leak such induction until and unless announced officially however a retired pro has no such obligation so he mentioned the news few days back.


In addition I am really happy that first true third generation is either inducted or going to induct which can challenge any latest MBT especially with better rumored ERA and GL-5 APS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> Ak1 has steering wheel.


So how does the tilers come in?


----------



## Char

CHI RULES said:


> Sir any serving person cannot risk to leak such induction until and unless announced officially however a retired pro has no such obligation so he mentioned the news few days back.



It's said that some will be produced in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

I want VT-5. I don’t like last years models. Izzat b koi cheez hy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHI RULES

Char said:


> It's said that some will be produced in Pakistan.


It shall be usual practice like past.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

Beast said:


> So with VT-4 automatic transmission gear and car steering panel. It will be a leap, right?
> 
> 2.00mins onwards.


baseline AK steering wheel

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## JamD

PanzerKiel said:


> Only problem which is stopping its delivery is the deal... We are asking for complete TOT, Chinese are pressing for partial TOT.... Let's see...


What exactly do we mean by "complete TOT"? Do we want a second production line at HIT to increase induction speed or are we really asking localization of everything??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ark_Angel

PanzerKiel said:


> Minor problems in the initiative phase, but as @Ark_Angel pointed out, it performed well once the initiative problems were rectified....
> It was pushed pretty hard, both in hot and cold weathe , all sort of maneuvers, firing from static positions and while moving as well. If I remember correctly, tests spanned over several months. There were some issues regarding its fire on the move, regarding gun stabilization, but again, Chinese were good enough to rectify ALL things that were pointed out.
> One special thing in this tank, which no other tank of ours has of now, is that there is a mechanism in it whereby the tank does boresighting itself, meaning auto boresighting.
> 
> Oplot had a bad start, once it arrived, it broke its sprocket on arrival ,... Bad first impression.... And Oplot was constantly plagued by engine problems. It also had some extra pounds of weight with its performance not corresponding.
> 
> Once it starts arriving, the whole batch is supposed to be completed by 5 years.. Only problem which is stopping its delivery is the deal... We are asking for complete TOT, Chinese are pressing for partial TOT.... Let's see...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Gen Dogar goes then. FYI, Gen Aamer's unit conducted the trials of VT4. Of course, he wasn't in the unit at the time. But just a point.



ToT point was dropped last year. These tanks will be only overhauled in Pakistan when their Maintenance/First Overhaul Cycle is due. All Tanks to be manufactured at Full Capacity by Norinco and provided to PA as per the timeline set by PA. Contract was signed last year. It’s delivery time now.

Reactions: Like Like:
22


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> So how does the tilers come in?



Baseline version had tillers, improved one has steering wheel.



HRK said:


> baseline AK steering wheel
> View attachment 628035



Here comes my mate to the rescue. 



Ark_Angel said:


> ToT point was dropped last year. These tanks will be only overhauled in Pakistan when their Maintenance/First Overhaul Cycle is due. All Tanks to be manufactured at Full Capacity by Norinco and provided to PA as per the timeline set by PA. Contract was signed last year. It’s delivery time now.



We got nearly complete TOT for the baseline Alkhalid. Strange if true.



LKJ86 said:


> In Russia's Tank Biathlon, ZTZ-96B also can do boresighting itself. But Russia insisted that it was unfair to T-72, and then ZTZ-96B had to shut it down.
> What a pity...
> View attachment 628010
> View attachment 628011



Interesting, auto boresight is indeed a handy option.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Dazzler said:


> Baseline version had tillers, improved one has steering wheel.
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes my mate to the rescue.
> 
> 
> 
> We got nearly complete TOT for the baseline Alkhalid. Strange if true.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, auto boresight is indeed a handy option.


A small off topic but are Upgraded T55s coming too?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

For me, the worst part about the VT4 is lack of a reversible transmission, unless Chinese did something about it, i hope they did. Man that gave the Alkhalid such mobility! 

No 6td-2, no high speed maneuvering in reverse. 

Damn.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

Genghis khan1 said:


> I want VT-5. I don’t like last years models. Izzat b koi cheez hy.



Bro they are totally different tanks....The VT5 is 32% lighter, can be transported by heavy lift craft and is designed to operate in China's high altitude border areas.
The VT4 is a frontline battle tank designed to meet the enemy head on.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dazzler

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> A small off topic but are Upgraded T55s coming too?



i will confirm with FC. May be there are already there?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> We got nearly complete TOT for the baseline Alkhalid. Strange if true.


It means that VT-4 and Alkhalid don't share in common, and it is also impossible for PA to maintain two different production lines.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

JamD said:


> What exactly do we mean by "complete TOT"? Do we want a second production line at HIT to increase induction speed or are we really asking localization of everything??


IIRC the Haider MBT was meant to be off-the-shelf. If anything, I guess the biggest thing of interest to the PA is the VT4's armour technology. It's something HIT could absorb and scale across AK2 and AK1, AK, etc upgrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## syed_yusuf

What is pa requirements for new tank (,numbers)

Is new tank be called Al Haider , will it be produced in Pakistan also after initial 100

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> IIRC the Haider MBT was meant to be off-the-shelf. If anything, I guess the biggest thing of interest to the PA is the VT4's armour technology. It's something HIT could absorb and scale across AK2 and AK1, AK, etc upgrades.



That will help, but i hope they look into the ERA and come up with something similar, or better.

As for composites and alloys, we are doing a good job at it but if a better tech comes, why not.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakFactor

Dazzler said:


> That will help, but i hope they look into the ERA and come up with something similar, or better.
> 
> As for composites and alloys, we are doing a good job at it but if a better tech comes, why not.



Bro,

Have a general question and excuse me if it’s stupid. But do ERA placed on tanks have a shelf life and needs to be replaced after a certain amount of years?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Fieldmarshal said:


> The news seems bs
> As chairman HIT is always a LT. Gen. from the armored corps. N not a maj gen.


The news is true although I myself is surpurised


----------



## GumNaam

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Afsar Syndrome hai bhai.


na bro, he's a good, competant officer AND a veteran, I've known him since he was a 2nd lieutenant. And he's seen plenty of frontline combat, he posted pics in the old PDF. He deserves the most respect & gratitude out of everyone on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Sine Nomine

Just check number of guests on this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## JPMM

PanzerKiel said:


> You may have observed that you hardly find any AK in 6 AD or even in north Pakistan despite the proximity to the factories and base workshops . It will remain like that for some time.
> 
> 6 AD AOO is much larger, starts from where the mountains end till the land of the rivers.
> 
> VT4 goes north.
> 
> 
> 
> Ours is coming with 1500 hp engine, as far as I know.


Bingo (Part 3)



Sine Nomine said:


> View attachment 628045
> 
> Just check number of guests on this thread.


2 Pakistanis + 1 Portuguese + 22 Indians

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Gryphon

After few years:

Tier 1:

VT-4 - 7 regts (ongoing program)
AK-1 - 5 regts (ongoing program)
AK - 7 regts
T-80UD - 7 regts

Tier 2:

T-85UG - 6 regts
AZ - 11 regts

Tier 3:

T-59MI/MII/T-69IIMP

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

@PAR 5 it's starting to seem that the PA ordered a package: VT4 and SH15. But in 2018, NORINCO said it won tests for the 8x8 AFV and mobile SAM too, but the mobile SAM went elsewhere. So, did the PA only shelve the AFV?



ARMalik said:


> @Quwa ... Hey Bilal, whatever happened to the $600 Million tank contract between Pakistan and Ukraine? A customised VT-4 with Ukrainian engines - is that even possible keeping in view what Beast said above?


IIRC it was a maintenance/rebuild/upgrade contract for the T-80UDs and additional 1,200 hp engines for the AK1.

No need to re-engine the VT4. It's a tight and integrated package, so swapping the engine out would be a chore. The PA wouldn't have ordered it if the VT4 as-is didn't make the cut, so it ordered exactly what NORINCO brought to the tests.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## maverick1977

IblinI said:


> wh
> 
> What is it in the screen of first pic?



Fire control system. FCS. who works multiple target acquitision either in auto mode to select the most advance threat or manual to find threats yourself and click on targets while the auto loader loads and fires at targets.



Dazzler said:


> One department where vt-4 doesnt disappoint - the eye candy!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: I see a few "specific" changes in the interior compared to the Thai versions. The stabilizer, BMS, looks different, so does that monstrous FCS screen (first pic).



How much has been cramped into this small area. kudos to fighters, i used to get claustrophobic in this confined space of T80UDs. But i can tell you Al Zarrars are no less a beast too with FCS in it. i dont recall if it has BMS.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## truthfollower

HRK said:


> baseline AK steering wheel
> View attachment 628035


Please share if you can pictures of AK gun and gunner controls

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Gryphon said:


> After few years:
> 
> Tier 1:
> 
> VT-4 - 7 regts (ongoing program)
> AK-1 - 5 regts (ongoing program)
> AK - 7 regts
> T-80UD - 7 regts
> 
> Tier 2:
> 
> T-85UG - 6 regts
> AZ - 11 regts
> 
> Tier 3:
> 
> T-59MI/MII/T-69IIMP


Means AK-2 not coming in few years


----------



## PakFactor

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Means AK-2 not coming in few years



I feel the AKII is dead; could be we repackage VT-4 as AKII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> SH15


Any news about it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

truthfollower said:


> Please share if you can pictures of AK gun and gunner controls


already shared by Dazzler in AK thread and new thread about armour modernization, just visit those thread ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Means AK-2 not coming in few years



Will come after testing. Subsystems are being readied.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

PakFactor said:


> I feel the AKII is dead


AK-2 will be put in production in 2022-2023 as per expected schedule .... till then HIT will produce AK-I

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## waz

Gryphon said:


> After few years:
> 
> Tier 1:
> 
> VT-4 - 7 regts (ongoing program)
> AK-1 - 5 regts (ongoing program)
> AK - 7 regts
> T-80UD - 7 regts
> 
> Tier 2:
> 
> T-85UG - 6 regts
> AZ - 11 regts
> 
> Tier 3:
> 
> T-59MI/MII/T-69IIMP



I would think the lower tiers (asidie T-85) will be cosigned to paramilitary or reserves. I wouldn't be confident fielding such tanks in a theatre of war where even the most modern tanks have been taken out by ATGMS (Syria theatre).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Means AK-2 not coming in few years





PakFactor said:


> I feel the AKII is dead; could be we repackage VT-4 as AKII.


AK-2s Will come once the Production Run of Ak-1 is over. Last time it was Reported it was having Cost Related Issues But its Development was proceeding well. They have probably Rectified that Problem by now.

Unlike VT-4 which is an off the Shelf Procurement AK-2 will offer us the same Freedom we have with AKs. We will have to Start Replacing AZs and T85s at some point in the Future Off the shelf solutions will not work for Replacements at this Scale. We need a System that can be Updated over the next Decades to Keep up with the recent Advances that will only come in the shape of 2s.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## waz

*According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) VT4 is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.

The VT4 MBT (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).

The VT4 MBT was unveiled by the Chinese defense industry in November 2019 during the China International Aviation & Aerospace or Zhuhai AirShow. The layout of this tank is very similar to the Russian tank with a crew of three including driver, commander and gunner and the use of an automatic loading system for the main armament.

The main armament of the VT4 / MBT-3000 consists of a 125 mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader that holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. One 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun is mounted to the right of the main armament, while on the commander's cupola is mounted a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun that can be used to engage ground and aerial targets.

The hull and turret of the VT4 are of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. The first version of the tank was fitted with additional ERA (Explosive Reactive armor) Level FY-2 providing protection against HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammunition. According to the latest pictures released on the Internet, the latest variant of the VT4 is now fitted at the front of the hull with ERA armor Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead.

Currently, China produces four Level of ERA armour including the FY-I with protection against HEAT ammunition, the FY-II with protection against HEAT, APFSDS ammunition, the FY-III with protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition and the FY-IV providing protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition but with 85 mm thick armour blocks for the FY-IV and only 75 mm for Level III. The ERA armour consists of steel blocks with C4 explosives inside.*

Reactive armour is a type of vehicle armour that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened kinetic energy penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour.

A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of kinetic energy penetrator ammunition used to attack modern vehicle armour. As an armament for main battle tanks, it succeeds armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition, which is still used in small or medium caliber weapon systems.

Tandem warheads are effective against reactive armour, which is designed to protect an armoured vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank ammunition, missiles and rocket. The first stage of the weapon is typically a weak charge that either pierces the reactive armour of the target without detonating it leaving a channel through the reactive armour so that the second warhead may pass unimpeded, or simply detonating the armour plates causing the timing of the counter-explosion to fail. The second detonation from the same projectile attacks the same location as the first detonation where the reactive armour has been compromised. Since the regular armour plating is often the only defence remaining, the main charge (second detonation) has an increased likelihood of penetrating the armour.













https://www.armyrecognition.com/wea...armour_against_tandem_warhead_ammunition.html

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

waz said:


> I would think the lower tiers (asidie T-85) will be cosigned to paramilitary or reserves. I wouldn't be confident fielding such tanks in a theatre of war where even the most modern tanks have been taken out by ATGMS (Syria theatre).


We wont have much choice in this Regard Indians are Procuring Tanks at a Speed we cant Match. T-85 will stay for at least for the Next decade and Half. PA right now has a Modernization Program going on for T-85s Slated to be finished by 2022-2023.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## waz

Dr. Strangelove said:


> We wont have much choice in this Regard Indians are Procuring Tanks at a Speed we cant Match. T-85 will stay for at least for the Next decade and Half. PA right now has a Modernization Program going on for T-85s Slated to be finished by 2022-2023.



There's been been delays to their T-90 acquisitions so it's a similar situation for them, although they still field more modern tanks.
The T-85 is a great tank agreed.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Inception-06

Ark_Angel said:


> ToT point was dropped last year. These tanks will be only overhauled in Pakistan when their Maintenance/First Overhaul Cycle is due. All Tanks to be manufactured at Full Capacity by Norinco and provided to PA as per the timeline set by PA. Contract was signed last year. It’s delivery time now.



Really sad, why is the transfer of technology not necessary?


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Inception-06 said:


> Really sad, why is the transfer of technology not necessary?


Likely because the Army isn't buying nearly enough tanks to make sense of ToT. So, it's more cost-effective to buy them off-the-shelf as-is, and they'll reach sooner. Finally, HIT has its own MBT (i.e., AK), yes it needs work, but AK-2 will be as modern as any tank by the time it enters production.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## RAMPAGE

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Likely because the Army isn't buying nearly enough tanks to make sense of ToT. So, it's more cost-effective to buy them off-the-shelf as-is, and they'll reach sooner. Finally, HIT has its own MBT (i.e., AK), *yes it needs work, but AK-2 will be as modern as any tank by the time it enters production.*


I doubt that, especially in terms of sensors and a hard-kill system. But then again, are they even needed in our case?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

RAMPAGE said:


> I doubt that, especially in terms of sensors and a hard-kill system. But then again, are they even needed in our case?


Those subsystems will become available, be it from China, Ukraine, Turkey and/or South Africa. The real question is how well HIT can manufacture them, and whether the PA will be in a position to afford the AK2. There's a trade-off with buying off-the-shelf...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RAMPAGE

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Those subsystems will become available, be it from China, Ukraine, Turkey and/or South Africa. The real question is how well HIT can manufacture them, and whether the PA will be in a position to afford the AK2. There's a trade-off with buying off-the-shelf...


Let what emerges - if anything. We've been watching this space for the better part of a decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

HRK said:


> baseline AK steering wheel
> View attachment 628035


That looks like manual shifting.



Inception-06 said:


> Really sad, why is the transfer of technology not necessary?


You need to set up production to handle the manufacturing. Since some are new tech, it is inevitable that money need to be invested for it. This will add up cost for the overall tank. Plus setting up line and train skilled tech will be another task which needs time and money. So how long do u think it will take and cost before first production VT-4 comes out from Pakistan? There is urgent need for VT-4 and time is not luxury.

China is proven to be very reliable military supplier. There is no fear of sanction unlike US.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

I was talking about Pakistani attitude towards R&D, local manufacturing etc in general. People are more proud of impotted things rather than making stuff at home and promoting local business.


GumNaam said:


> na bro, he's a good, competant officer AND a veteran, I've known him since he was a 2nd lieutenant. And he's seen plenty of frontline combat, he posted pics in the old PDF. He deserves the most respect & gratitude out of everyone on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

Gryphon said:


> *China dispatches two customised VT4 MBTs to undisclosed foreign customer*
> 
> *Gabriel Dominguez, London and Dmitry Fediushko, Moscow* - Jane's Defence Weekly
> 28 April 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the two customised VT4s photographed leaving China’s Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group on 20 April. The group did not reveal the identity of the customer. Source: Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group_
> 
> China's Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group released images on 20 April via its WeChat account showing what appear to be two customised China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) VT4 main battle tanks (MBTs) being transported on trucks to an undisclosed foreign customer.
> 
> The images, which show the MBTs featuring a new explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted to the glacis and turret, indicate that these VT4s are slightly different from the ones exported to Thailand and Nigeria.
> 
> The factory did not provide further details about the platforms (which were painted in green-brown camouflage), the value of the contract, or the number of tanks set to be supplied, saying only that it had held a "launch ceremony" for the two VT4s, which were being delivered to an undisclosed country.
> 
> According to _Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Armoured Fighting Vehicles_, the export-only VT4 (formerly known as the MBT-3000) follows a conventional Soviet-layout MBT with a 125 mm smoothbore gun and carousel automatic loading system.
> 
> For close support and anti-personnel fire, the VT4 carries a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun and what is most likely the Type 88 12.7 mm machine gun, which is cupola-mounted for the commander's use.
> 
> The turret also carries eight 76 mm smoke dischargers and four dischargers of 76 mm high-explosive fragmentation grenades. In 2014, an enhanced version of the platforms was shown featuring a remote weapon station, believed to be the UW1, which can mount a 7.62 mm or a12.7 mm machine gun.
> 
> The protection afforded to the VT4 has yet to be disclosed, and it is unclear whether the base armour design is a close copy of the T-72B or the T-90A MBTs, as Samuel Cranny-Evans, senior research analyst and editor of _Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Armoured Fighting Vehicles_, pointed out.
> 
> 
> To read the full article, Client Login
> (318 of 489 words)
> 
> China dispatches two customised VT4 MBTs to undisclosed foreign customer | Jane's Defence Weekly



The buyer still remains a mystery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick1977

Gryphon said:


> *China dispatches two customised VT4 MBTs to undisclosed foreign customer*
> 
> *Gabriel Dominguez, London and Dmitry Fediushko, Moscow* - Jane's Defence Weekly
> 28 April 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the two customised VT4s photographed leaving China’s Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group on 20 April. The group did not reveal the identity of the customer. Source: Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group_
> 
> China's Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group released images on 20 April via its WeChat account showing what appear to be two customised China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) VT4 main battle tanks (MBTs) being transported on trucks to an undisclosed foreign customer.
> 
> The images, which show the MBTs featuring a new explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted to the glacis and turret, indicate that these VT4s are slightly different from the ones exported to Thailand and Nigeria.
> 
> The factory did not provide further details about the platforms (which were painted in green-brown camouflage), the value of the contract, or the number of tanks set to be supplied, saying only that it had held a "launch ceremony" for the two VT4s, which were being delivered to an undisclosed country.
> 
> According to _Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Armoured Fighting Vehicles_, the export-only VT4 (formerly known as the MBT-3000) follows a conventional Soviet-layout MBT with a 125 mm smoothbore gun and carousel automatic loading system.
> 
> For close support and anti-personnel fire, the VT4 carries a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun and what is most likely the Type 88 12.7 mm machine gun, which is cupola-mounted for the commander's use.
> 
> The turret also carries eight 76 mm smoke dischargers and four dischargers of 76 mm high-explosive fragmentation grenades. In 2014, an enhanced version of the platforms was shown featuring a remote weapon station, believed to be the UW1, which can mount a 7.62 mm or a12.7 mm machine gun.
> 
> The protection afforded to the VT4 has yet to be disclosed, and it is unclear whether the base armour design is a close copy of the T-72B or the T-90A MBTs, as Samuel Cranny-Evans, senior research analyst and editor of _Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Armoured Fighting Vehicles_, pointed out.
> 
> 
> To read the full article, Client Login
> (318 of 489 words)
> 
> China dispatches two customised VT4 MBTs to undisclosed foreign customer | Jane's Defence Weekly





mystery buyer .. welcomr VT 4s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAR 5

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @PAR 5 it's starting to seem that the PA ordered a package: VT4 and SH15. But in 2018, NORINCO said it won tests for the 8x8 AFV and mobile SAM too, but the mobile SAM went elsewhere. So, did the PA only shelve the AFV?
> 
> 
> IIRC it was a maintenance/rebuild/upgrade contract for the T-80UDs and additional 1,200 hp engines for the AK1.
> 
> No need to re-engine the VT4. It's a tight and integrated package, so swapping the engine out would be a chore. The PA wouldn't have ordered it if the VT4 as-is didn't make the cut, so it ordered exactly what NORINCO brought to the tests.



Pakistan Army has ordered around 300 VT-4 Tanks. 176 of these tanks have been purchased (along with support equipment and spares etc) and the initial batch is currently loaded onto a ship and on its way to port Karachi. Army has paid around US$859M out of its own pocket to NORINCO at this time. The second batch of VT-4's will be delivered in the next few years as well. 

Pakistan Army has also ordered the Chinese SPH (155mm) recently tested (against the South African SPH) and qualified. I do not off hand have the numbers and the amount paid to NORINCO for this project. 

I do not currently have an update on the Chinese mobile SAM and AFV

Reactions: Like Like:
25


----------



## maverick1977

PAR 5 said:


> Pakistan Army has ordered around 300 VT-4 Tanks. 176 of these tanks have been purchased (along with support equipment and spares etc) and the initial batch is currently loaded onto a ship and on its way to port Karachi. Army has paid around US$859M out of its own pocket to NORINCO at this time. The second batch of VT-4's will be delivered in the next few years as well.
> 
> Pakistan Army has also ordered the Chinese SPH (155mm) recently tested (against the South African SPH) and qualified. I do not off hand have the numbers and the amount paid to NORINCO for this project.
> 
> I do not currently have an update on the Chinese mobile SAM and AFV



i heard 250 units of sh15?
Yes i can verify 300 VT4 have been ordered, first shipment on its way ..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ali_raza

maverick1977 said:


> i heard 250 units of sh15?
> Yes i can verify 300 have been ordered, first shipment on its way ..


all of them?


----------



## maverick1977

ali_raza said:


> all of them?




i didnt get it ?


----------



## IblinI

maverick1977 said:


> i heard 250 units of sh15?
> Yes i can verify 300 have been ordered, first shipment on its way ..


Total of 500 units of MBT and 155MM SPH, 
that is a lot, any other land systems in negotiation or corporation?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ali_raza

maverick1977 said:


> i heard 250 units of sh15?
> Yes i can verify 300 have been ordered, first shipment on its way ..


i mean all 300 tanks r coming now



IblinI said:


> Total of 500 units of MBT and 155MM SPH,
> that is a lot, any other land systems in negotiation or corporation?


sam systems and afv

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cool_Soldier

Buyer could be Pakistan


----------



## Dazzler

zhxy said:


> The more you order, the lower the price of each unit



Yep, Thailand got 49 at $ 5.6 million a pop.



Zulfiqar said:


> @Dazzler @LKJ86 which areas will be covered by the FY-4 ERA.
> 
> @Dazzler
> 
> Any good upgrades relative to AK-1.



I see ERA on the hull, roof, turret frontal ark, and some coverage at sides. Production of AK-1 will continue until 220 units are delivered.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

Cool_Soldier said:


> Buyer could be Pakistan


99% confirmed.



IblinI said:


> Total of 500 units of MBT and 155MM SPH,
> that is a lot, any other land systems in negotiation or corporation?


I think such huge deal is impossible to be foot by PA alone. Rumour is the Arabs are financing this this deal too. Maybe they are sick of Indian anti- Muslim stance recently. It's time to teach India a lesson.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Dazzler

24 pieces are on their way..

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Yukihime

waz said:


> *According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) VT4 is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.
> 
> The VT4 MBT (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).*



whoever wrote this funny article... must be living in a parallel world


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PAR 5 said:


> Chinese mobile SAM


Is LY 80 Mobile?


----------



## Dazzler

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Is LY 80 Mobile?



yes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PAR 5 said:


> Army has paid around US$859M out of its own pocket to NORINCO at this time


For 176 or for 300?


----------



## Sine Nomine

PAR 5 said:


> Pakistan Army has also ordered the Chinese SPH (155mm) recently tested (against the South African SPH) and qualified. I do not off hand have the numbers and the amount paid to NORINCO for this project.


@PanzerKiel 
Why did South African(SPH)failed as compared to Chinese one?


----------



## Dazzler

News of VT-4s has reached the neighborhood. 

Be ready

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Sine Nomine said:


> @PanzerKiel
> Why did South African(SPH)failed as compared to Chinese one?


I never understood why G6 Rhino wasnt even considered it was the best SPH available to Pakistan. T5-52 was Good but no where near as Rhino. One of the Reasons we probably decided to go with SH-15 could be this Deal in the Broader term including the Future Prospect of adding a Chinese AFV.

Either Way Going By the Specs and considering the Cost SH-15 is a better option than T5.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Dr. Strangelove said:


> I never understood why G6 Rhino wasnt even considered it was the best SPH available to Pakistan. One of the Reasons we probably decided to go with SH-15 could be this Deal in the Broader term including the Future Prospect of adding a Chinese AFV.


Yes, G6 is good but the price per unit is not. SH-15 is not far off but price per unit areuch more affordable plus it's in PLA service, meaning per unit is heavily brought down plus the abundant of spare as it share the same supply from PLA of suppliers.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Beast said:


> Yes, G6 is good but the price per unit is not. SH-15 is not far off but price per unit areuch more affordable plus it's in PLA service, meaning per unit is heavily brought down plus the abundant of spare as it share the same supply from PLA of suppliers.


Which Chinese AFV and Mobile SAM are they talking about?


----------



## ziaulislam

Dazzler said:


> 24 pieces are on their way..


So whats the final numer of VT 4? 500? 300?


----------



## Armchair

As someone sometimes involved in the arms industry, I can understand why South Africa finds it hard to win anything. There is a strange South African tax on all exports of military goods. Plus, there are no credit facilities which are vital for large purchases by third world countries. Not everyone is as rich as an Arab.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Cuirassier

Neighbours on twitter using posts from this thread as sources. Get ready for the panic

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## maverick1977

ziaulislam said:


> So whats the final numer of VT 4? 500? 300?


 

i heard from various sources 300 VT4 and 250 SH15. .. no official word on it yet though, i might be close ln it.. 
which tanks are VT4s replacing, and is PA raising new SH15 units ?


----------



## Sine Nomine

Dazzler said:


> News of VT-4s has reached the neighborhood.
> 
> Be ready


It's largest equipment purchase by PA in almost 2 decades.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hussain0216

Dazzler said:


> Yep, Thailand got 49 at $ 5.6 million a pop.
> 
> 
> 
> I see ERA on the hull, roof, turret frontal ark, and some coverage at sides. Production of AK-1 will continue until 220 units are delivered.



Once 220 units of AK1 are delivered is the AK1 project completely finished and hence forth only AK2 will be built or will we still get small batch Ak1 production


----------



## Tipu7

Dazzler said:


> News of VT-4s has reached the neighborhood.
> 
> Be ready


Gotta spread it now. 

The cheasy opinions of Indians I have encountered so far,

1: China is delivering VT4 to Pakistan as an aid.
2: VT4 is equipped with 900HP engine and is on par with Indian upgraded T72. 
3: VT4 is coming as Pakistan's own AK project has failed to deliver.
4: Pakistan is using foreign aid, given to counter COVID-19, for buying military weapons.

MORE to come... 



TF141 said:


> Neighbours on twitter using posts from this thread as sources. Get ready for the panic


Shugal began yesterday 



Sine Nomine said:


> It's largest equipment purchase by PA in almost 2 decades.


Pakistan has bought or produced 300 Tanks every decade. 
282 T85 in late 80s,
320 T80 in late 90s,
300 AKs till 2010,
Now its turn of this decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## xuxu1457

Tipu7 said:


> Gotta spread it now.
> 
> The cheasy opinions of Indians I have encountered so far,
> 
> 1: China is delivering VT4 to Pakistan as an aid.
> 2: VT4 is equipped with 900HP engine and is on par with Indian upgraded T72.
> 3: VT4 is coming as Pakistan's own AK project has failed to deliver.
> 4: Pakistan is using foreign aid, given to counter COVID-19, for buying military weapons.
> 
> MORE to come...
> 
> 
> Shugal began yesterday
> 
> 
> Pakistan has bought or produced 300 Tanks every decade.
> 282 T85 in late 80s,
> 320 T80 in late 90s,
> 300 AKs till 2010,
> Now its turn of this decade.


vt4 It has a 1300-horsepower engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

One more question

VT4 is a off the shelf purchase

But the rumour was that SH15 is full ToT and once China delivers a initial amount, they will be made in-house

Can anyone confirm?


----------



## IblinI

xuxu1457 said:


> vt4 It has a 1300-horsepower engine


He is talking about the story fro Indians side, and I think Pakistan is getting the 1500HP engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Tipu7 said:


> Gotta spread it now.
> 
> The cheasy opinions of Indians I have encountered so far,
> 
> 1: China is delivering VT4 to Pakistan as an aid.
> 2: VT4 is equipped with 900HP engine and is on par with Indian upgraded T72.
> 3: VT4 is coming as Pakistan's own AK project has failed to deliver.
> 4: Pakistan is using foreign aid, given to counter COVID-19, for buying military weapons.
> 
> MORE to come...
> 
> 
> Shugal began yesterday
> 
> 
> Pakistan has bought or produced 300 Tanks every decade.
> 282 T85 in late 80s,
> 320 T80 in late 90s,
> 300 AKs till 2010,
> Now its turn of this decade.


Any news about Sh 15? What about Mobile SAMs and AFVs? What mobile SAMS and AFVs we are interested in?


----------



## capricorn5192

IblinI said:


> He is talking about the story fro Indians side, and I think Pakistan is getting the 1500HP engine.


Is it operation with PLA and which engine they use?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

capricorn5192 said:


> Is it operation with PLA and which engine they use?


Not sure if they are using the same model but definitely similar configuration.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Tipu7 said:


> Gotta spread it now.
> 
> The cheasy opinions of Indians I have encountered so far,
> 
> 1: China is delivering VT4 to Pakistan as an aid.
> 2: VT4 is equipped with 900HP engine and is on par with Indian upgraded T72.
> 3: VT4 is coming as Pakistan's own AK project has failed to deliver.
> 4: Pakistan is using foreign aid, given to counter COVID-19, for buying military weapons.
> 
> MORE to come...
> 
> 
> Shugal began yesterday
> 
> 
> Pakistan has bought or produced 300 Tanks every decade.
> 282 T85 in late 80s,
> 320 T80 in late 90s,
> 300 AKs till 2010,
> Now its turn of this decade.



I bet you visited Prasun Gupta's false propaganda blog. That guy has no shame left as he writes shit lies about Pak military developments. He even found the wreckage of viper. 



xuxu1457 said:


> vt4 It has a 1300-horsepower engine



Fundo Indians and their lies..

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Dazzler said:


> I bet you visited Prasun Gupta's false propaganda blog. That guy has no shame left as he writes shit lies about Pak military developments. He even found the wreckage of viper.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundo Indians and their lies..


Which Mobile SAM and AFV are we interested in?


----------



## Blacklight

Dazzler said:


> I bet you visited Prasun Gupta's false propaganda blog. That guy has no shame left as he writes shit lies about Pak military developments. He even found the wreckage of viper.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundo Indians and their lies..


I feel they eat shit, hence just regurgitate the same shit.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

xuxu1457 said:


> vt4 It has a 1300-horsepower engine



Yes, rumours of 1500HP but not sure.

I hope to see the numbers of VT-4 in the region of 900.



Tipu7 said:


> Gotta spread it now.
> 
> The cheasy opinions of Indians I have encountered so far,
> 
> 1: China is delivering VT4 to Pakistan as an aid.
> 2: VT4 is equipped with 900HP engine and is on par with Indian upgraded T72.
> 3: VT4 is coming as Pakistan's own AK project has failed to deliver.
> 4: Pakistan is using foreign aid, given to counter COVID-19, for buying military weapons.
> 
> MORE to come...



They don't understand that 'Cold Start' will eventually become 'Cold Turkey'.
The army is boosting armoured and artillery power (already excellent) by a great deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> Pakistan's version will be 1500hp confirmed.


Really???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Affanakad0t.

LKJ86 said:


> Really???


What are your sources telling?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## syed_yusuf

waz said:


> Pakistan's version will be 1500hp confirmed.
> 
> I hope to see the numbers of VT-4 in the region of 900.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't understand that 'Cold Start' will be eventually become 'Cold Turkey'.
> The army is boosting armoured and artillery power (already excellent) by a great deal.



where is the engine sourced from, any details will help 

i believed that these two VT4 for pakistan are customized and will be for the final testing and verification. eventually it will turn out to be al-haider tank that we have been talking for so long. if that is true then it will be the first 4th gen tank in pakistan inventory might as well be the first 4th gen tank in the region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

LKJ86 said:


> Really???



Yes, according to a fair few people. But again confirmation is hard to come by.
1300HP (standard) is still very good for the tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Affanakad0t. said:


> What are your sources telling?


No news Pakistan VT-4 is 1500hp. Standard engine pack is 1200-1300hp. They are adequate.

Leopard A7 has a 1500hp but weights 65tons. VT-4 is 52 tons. So u do the maths.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## waz

syed_yusuf said:


> where is the engine sourced from, any details will help
> 
> i believed that these two VT4 for pakistan are customized and will be for the final testing and verification. eventually it will turn out to be al-haider tank that we have been talking for so long. if that is true then it will be the first 4th gen tank in pakistan inventory might as well be the first 4th gen tank in the region.



Final testing has already been carried out.
Al-Haider I'm not sure about.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Any news about which AFV and Mobile SAM Pakistan is interested?


Beast said:


> No news Pakistan VT-4 is 1500hp. Standard engine pack is 1200-1300hp. They are adequate.
> 
> Leopard A7 has a 1500hp but weights 65tons. VT-4 is 52 tons. So u do the maths.





waz said:


> Final testing has already been carried out.
> Al-Haider I'm not sure about.


----------



## waz

LKJ86 said:


> Really???



Again it can't be confirmed so I'll amend my post.


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> Yes, according to a fair few people. But again confirmation is hard to come by.


If so, VT-4 would be a "flying tank"...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## syed_yusuf

Mangus Ortus Novem said:


> Now that the VT4 is almost official, we need to understand what it means...
> 
> From *ColdStart *to *IntegeratedBattleGroups *of IA .... we have seen *PakArmedForces *coming up with solid *CounterMeasures*....
> 
> What is now missing from this equation is *massive fleet of armed drones *and *AttackHelicopters*... for the rest *PakArmedForces *have now effective *CounterStrategy *in place.
> 
> We need to produce a massive fleet of *ArmedDrones *for all *Four Wings of PakArmedForces!*



4 wings?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

Though late but cannot wait to join the party in the thread. 

Pakistan, reportedly, has purchased 300 VT-4 MBTs from #Norinco in a deal worth ~$1 Billion. The delivery of initial batches is underway.
The VT-4, along side domestic AK1 project, will greatly increase the efficiency of Pakistan's armored corps.

The deliveries will complete by 2024. The payment of ~1$ Billion is for initial batches as order may expand further. 
#HIT has already been upgraded to support and even modify #VT4 tank fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

capricorn5192 said:


> Is it operation with PLA and which engine they use?



Type99A uses 1500hp engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Beast said:


> Type99A uses 1500hp engine.


You have any report of Mobile SAM and IFV which Pakistan is interested in?


----------



## LKJ86

Beast said:


> Type99A uses 1500hp engine.


The 1500 HP engine of ZTZ-99A tank:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## waz

LKJ86 said:


> If so, VT-4 would be a "flying tank"...



Hahah probably.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> You have any report of Mobile SAM and IFV which Pakistan is interested in?


Not yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

monitor said:


> Though late but cannot wait to join the party in the thread.
> 
> Pakistan, reportedly, has purchased 300 VT-4 MBTs from #Norinco in a deal worth ~$1 Billion. The delivery of initial batches is underway.
> The VT-4, along side domestic AK1 project, will greatly increase the efficiency of Pakistan's armored corps.
> 
> The deliveries will complete by 2024. The payment of ~1$ Billion is for initial batches as order may expand further.
> #HIT has already been upgraded to support and even modify #VT4 tank fleet.



I'm sure there will be a couple of follow up orders in the laters years taking the VT-4 fleet to a 1,000 or close to.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

waz said:


> I'm sure there will be a couple of follow up orders in the laters years taking the VT-4 fleet to a 1,000 or close to.


Why? We have good number of tanks


----------



## waz

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Why? We have good number of tanks



Yes but not enough considering the adversary, there's also great deal that need to be mothballed. If we see even modern tanks taken out by comparably previous generation ATGMS (Syria theatre), you have to think carefully.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xuxu1457

VT4 1300 HP, 52tons, 25HP/t, max speed 71km/h, Full automatic gearbox
if change to 1500hp, 28.85HP/t, but will be Semi-automatic gearbox
VT4 has 3 Crews, 52 tons of 1300 horsepower is enough.


Leopard A7 has a 1500hp but weights 65tons, 23HP/t，4 crew members So it's heavy, and the loader needs a bigger turret.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Blacklight

xuxu1457 said:


> VT4 has 3 Crews, 52 tons of 1300 horsepower is enough.
> .



3 crew = Auto loader

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

waz said:


> Yes but not enough considering the adversary, there's also great deal that need to be mothballed. If we see even modern tanks taken out by comparably previous generation ATGMS (Syria theatre), you have to think carefully.


We have a ratio of 1:1.8 approx considering our adversary have to face China and Bangladesh too. We should now look into Attack Helis, Rocket Projectiles and Towed Artillery. India is about to get 100+ LCHs and about 22 Apaches. We need to look into this sector as our Cobras want to get retired

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ziaulislam

Tipu7 said:


> Gotta spread it now.
> 
> The cheasy opinions of Indians I have encountered so far,
> 
> 1: China is delivering VT4 to Pakistan as an aid.
> 2: VT4 is equipped with 900HP engine and is on par with Indian upgraded T72.
> 3: VT4 is coming as Pakistan's own AK project has failed to deliver.
> 4: Pakistan is using foreign aid, given to counter COVID-19, for buying military weapons.
> 
> MORE to come...
> 
> 
> Shugal began yesterday
> 
> 
> Pakistan has bought or produced 300 Tanks every decade.
> 282 T85 in late 80s,
> 320 T80 in late 90s,
> 300 AKs till 2010,
> Now its turn of this decade.


VT 4 is 52 tone 1400+hp tank..its not in alkhalid catergery and as far as i know nothing in the region either..
T90 is more or less in alkhalid tank HP/weight range



waz said:


> Yes, rumours of 1500HP but not sure.
> 
> I hope to see the numbers of VT-4 in the region of 900.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't understand that 'Cold Start' will eventually become 'Cold Turkey'.
> The army is boosting armoured and artillery power (already excellent) by a great deal.


Isnot the army over playing its hand..
Performance wise atleast isnt alkhalid a match for t90..
Why such a move to purchase a heavier tank all of sudden..
Also even with arterillery..i though we had enough m109s..we already have outdone them in this department ..
I am more concerened about the airforce ..if
PAF budges then no tank or arterllery will save pak army


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Mangus Ortus Novem said:


> *massive fleet of armed drones *and *AttackHelicopters*


Towed Artillery and Rocket Projectiles also



ziaulislam said:


> Also even with arterillery..i though we had enough m109s..we already have outdone them in this department ..


We have less Towed Artillery, rocket Projectiles system and Attack Helis


----------



## HRK

ziaulislam said:


> Why such a move to purchase a heavier tank all of sudden..
> Also even with arterillery..i though we had enough m109s..we already have outdone them in this department ..


We can not match the enemy in numbers then should try match the firepower and try to take lead for information superiority ....

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## maverick1977

HRK said:


> We can not match the enemy in numbers then should try match the firepower and try to take lead for information superiority ....



We can and we will with self reliance. i dont doubt for a single moment that pakistan the world 5th largest population cannot match anyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SuperMAG

What about aps, vt4 suppose to have that, does our version have that too, it's the most defining features that makes it different from ak1 and other older tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

waz said:


> I'm sure there will be a couple of follow up orders in the laters years taking the VT-4 fleet to a 1,000 or close to.



Once we get our 300 tanks, we will make regular small batch purchases over time

If the AK2 had been completed quicker we would probably just gone with that

However because development time took so long and because things are dicey with the Indians we had to make a decision

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kingslayerr

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255527267587014657

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair

I think the camo suggests first few are not for Pakistan. Would be interesting to see what camo the Pak version has. Also I think this tank has separate sights for commander and gunner, which will be a first for any Pak tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## syed_yusuf

Kingslayerr said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255527267587014657


why does it say customized?


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Type99A uses 1500hp engine.



And that thing can reach 80kmph road speed with ease.



syed_yusuf said:


> why does it say customized?



Different ERA cassettes visible which is not the case with VT-4s of Thailand and Nigeria, hence customized.

The side armor also looks thick.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Gentelman

Armchair said:


> I think the camo suggests first few are not for Pakistan. Would be interesting to see what camo the Pak version has. Also I think this tank has separate sights for commander and gunner, which will be a first for any Pak tank.


I think Alkhalid do have seprate commander and gunner's sight.....
Do Confirm.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Armchair said:


> I think the camo suggests first few are not for Pakistan. Would be interesting to see what camo the Pak version has. Also I think this tank has separate sights for commander and gunner, which will be a first for any Pak tank.



Alkhalid has separate sights for commander and gunner, day and night, TI and television channels, laser range finders.

Combined gunner sight








Commander's panoramic sight with independent TV channel, night channel, laser range finder.








SuperMAG said:


> What about aps, vt4 suppose to have that, does our version have that too, it's the most defining features that makes it different from ak1 and other older tanks.



No APS in the world provides 100% protection. Add the cost of these systems doesnt justify the questionable protection they provide. We bought a few Vartas and they were found wanting, though they are passive soft kill systems. The Oplot had Zaslon, while VT-4 has GL-5.

Not much is known about GL-5 APS, and it is a new system. Lets see what it comes with.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ark_Angel

Beast said:


> 99% confirmed.
> 
> 
> I think such huge deal is impossible to be foot by PA alone. Rumour is the Arabs are financing this this deal too. Maybe they are sick of Indian anti- Muslim stance recently. It's time to teach India a lesson.


Arabs are funding Sh*t at the moment for Pakistani Defence forces. Even the 2.5+2.5 Bn from KSA &UAE came with stringent strategic conditions which I can't disclose here. Pakistani Kids need to stop fantasising about Arabs Armring Pakistan to the Teeth to make it its Militray Muscle. Those days are long gone and Pakistan has been replaced by Egypt as the future Military Arab Bulwark against Non Arab Adversaries, But Egyptians play it Smart, Rip off the Arabs while stay on the side lines in Yemen. ZERO Ground Troops comitted for Yemen while at the same time Stationing One Division Plus Troops in Jeddah not even Jizan who get paid by the Saudis all for doing nothing, 30 Bn Plus in Direct Contracts for the Egyptian Military all paid up by the Saudis and Emaratis(I am not even discussing the Economic Support that goes in Tens of Billions). For what? For Showing symbolically that We are with you in Operation Decisive Storm by Stationing Troops(non combat role), One Squadron of F-16s for Lobbing Bombs at Aden and Sana and a few ships in Non Combat role for the Saudi Eastern fleet. That's how you make money. Not by embarrassing your Allied by tabling resolution in Parliament and getting it rejected by a majority when they ask you for support in a Government to Government direct support.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
29


----------



## waz

ziaulislam said:


> Isnot the army over playing its hand..
> Performance wise atleast isnt alkhalid a match for t90..
> Why such a move to purchase a heavier tank all of sudden..
> Also even with arterillery..i though we had enough m109s..we already have outdone them in this department ..
> I am more concerened about the airforce ..if
> PAF budges then no tank or arterllery will save pak army



No bro not at all. The army faced a very lopsided armour shortage. The IA currently fields around 1,600 T-90'S, T-90MS's, that's a very large force, but also more importantly has quality with it, which made/makes it very dangerous.
The Al-Khalid of course is a match for the T-90 and our upgraded models with additional ERA and active protection systems are on par with the T-90MS, but again how many does the army field, around 600? It's just simply not enough.
The VT-4, especially with the numbers it is being inducted with gives the army a powerful punch and a tank which is superior in a fair few areas to what it faces. Artillery and troop transport are additions and can't simply substitute the workhorse of the battlefield nor blunt a concerted armoured push by the IA.
I thought PAF was doing quite well actually, I can't see any critical weaknesses.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## HRK

maverick1977 said:


> We can and we will with self reliance. i dont doubt for a single moment that pakistan the world 5th largest population cannot match anyone.


it's not just about human factor but financial factor which is limiting our capabilities in every sector of state functions

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakFactor

Ark_Angel said:


> Arabs are funding Sh*t at the moment for Pakistani Defence forces. Even the 2.5+2.5 Bn from KSA &UAE came with stringent strategic conditions which I can't disclose here. Pakistani Kids need to stop fantasising about Arabs Armring Pakistan to the Teeth to make it its Militray Muscle. Those days are long gone and Pakistan has been replaced by Egypt as the future Military Arab Bulwark against Non Arab Adversaries, But Egyptians play it Smart, Rip off the Arabs while stay on the side lines in Yemen. ZERO Ground Troops comitted for Yemen while at the same time Stationing One Division Plus Troops in Jeddah not even Jizan who get paid by the Saudis all for doing nothing, 30 Bn Plus in Direct Contracts for the Egyptian Military all paid up by the Saudis and Emaratis(I am not even discussing the Economic Support that goes in Tens of Billions). For what? For Showing symbolically that We are with you in Operation Decisive Storm by Stationing Troops(non combat role), One Squadron of F-16s for Lobbing Bombs at Aden and Sana and a few ships in Non Combat role for the Saudi Eastern fleet. That's how you make money. Not by embarrassing your Allied by tabling resolution in Parliament and getting it rejected by a majority when they ask you for support in a Government to Government direct support.



Would be worth disclosing some of those conditions so we and the future generations know what our leaders are up to and long term implications for the nation.


----------



## Gryphon

HRK said:


> AK-2 will be put in production in 2022-2023 as per expected schedule .... till then HIT will produce AK-I



Army's AK-1 requirement is pegged at 310 pcs, though only 220 are contracted as of now. So, it will be a while before the AK-2 is unveiled and put into production.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

Gryphon said:


> Army's AK-1 requirement is pegged at 310 pcs, though only 220 are contracted as of now. So, it will be a while before the AK-2 is unveiled and put into production.



I heard they might cap the AK-1 production at 220 units?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ark_Angel

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> IIRC the Haider MBT was meant to be off-the-shelf. If anything, I guess the biggest thing of interest to the PA is the VT4's armour technology. It's something HIT could absorb and scale across AK2 and AK1, AK, etc upgrades.


Not the Armour. VT-4 brings NCW in a way that is unprecedented in South Asia and will be unmatchable by the Adversary. The MS that the Indians are purchasing has a pretty solid armour but then there are a few concepts which the Indians can never understand. Those concepts will remain a mystery for the time being until we surprise the Adversary next time.



PakFactor said:


> Would be worth disclosing some of those conditions so we and the future generations know what our leaders are up to and long term implications for the nation.


My advice: Work Hard, Reach the corridors of Power, Open Old Files and learn what could have been done alternatively.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Ark_Angel said:


> Not the Armour. VT-4 brings NCW in a way that is unprecedented in South Asia and will be unmatchable by the Adversary. The MS that the Indians are purchasing has a pretty solid armour but then there are a few concepts which the Indians can never understand. Those concepts will remain a mystery for the time being until we surprise the Adversary next time.


I heard that the VT4 also introduces automation. It's the first step, but if the Chinese continue on the track they're on they could end up taking 1 man out of the mix, i.e., 2-crew tank. So, it's good exposure in that sense, the PA is going to see how it works first-hand, and put it to operational use.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ark_Angel

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> I heard that the VT4 also introduces automation. It's the first step, but if the Chinese continue on the track they're on they could end up taking 1 man out of the mix, i.e., 2-crew tank. So, it's good exposure in that sense, the PA is going to see how it works first-hand, and put it to operational use.


02 Crew at the moment looks superficial to the baseline orthodox tanker. Either it should be Unmanned or the Crew should be 03. Not less. It will add extra strain on the the single crew who will be operating the Weapon Firing Station because the Driver is the driver! Plus in case of an issue with the Auto Loader e.g The feed mechanism faces some sort of a minor issue in the heat of the battle, what will be the way out? Will he change his focus on identifying the hostile enemy vehicles in a dangerous environment where seconds count or will be focusing on fixing the minor issues that can plague any Mechanical war fighting Vehicle? Aramta therefore seems to be dud ATM unless the Ruskies can improve their automation systems to a 1000% reliability-an area where the Ruskies are famous for-Unrealiabilty

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

maverick1977 said:


> i heard 250 units of sh15?
> Yes i can verify 300 VT4 have been ordered, first shipment on its way ..


The SPH requirement was for 500 units. Originally, the MoDP said it'll buy 100 units from the OEM, and then co-produce/assemble the remaining 400 in Pakistan. So, my guess, the PA ordered 100 SH15s (it has already taken delivery of the guided shells), and the rest will come gradually in batches.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dazzler

Some interesting info about the VT-4.

It comes with a new ap shell that can penetrate anything in the Indian armor with ease even at 30 degree angle 
. Much higher values given. 750mm at 0 degree RHA not a problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> The SPH requirement was for 500 units. Originally, the MoDP said it'll buy 100 units from the OEM, and then co-produce/assemble the remaining 400 in Pakistan. So, my guess, the PA ordered 100 SH15s (it has already taken delivery of the guided shells), and the rest will come gradually in batches.


Any Idea about Remaining Italian M109L Stock. Is there still interest in procuring them. Procuring them was one of the better Decisions PA has made in Recent Years.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## waz

Ark_Angel said:


> 02 Crew at the moment looks superficial to the baseline orthodox tanker. Either it should be Unmanned or the Crew should be 03. Not less. It will add extra strain on the the single crew who will be operating the Weapon Firing Station because the Driver is the driver! Plus in case of an issue with the Auto Loader e.g The feed mechanism faces some sort of a minor issue in the heat of the battle, what will be the way out? Will he change his focus on identifying the hostile enemy vehicles in a dangerous environment where seconds count or will be focusing on fixing the minor issues that can plague any Mechanical war fighting Vehicle? Aramta therefore seems to be dud ATM unless the Ruskies can improve their automation systems to a 1000% reliability-an area where the Ruskies are famous for-Unrealiabilty



Great points there. Years back (2002) I remember an excellent poster who was an ex American tanker, vet of Desert Storm (1990) and he said the same things regarding increased automation, he also argued with incredibly detailed posts the superiority of a four man crew to the three man plus autoloader setup.
It's sad he doesn't post anymore.



Dazzler said:


> Some interesting info about the VT-4.
> 
> It comes with a new ap shell that can penetrate anything in the Indian armor with ease even at 30 degree angle
> . Much higher values given. 750mm at 0 degree RHA not a problem.



I saw something on the Chinese working on a range of advanced munitions for tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> I heard that the VT4 also introduces automation. It's the first step, but if the Chinese continue on the track they're on they could end up taking 1 man out of the mix, i.e., 2-crew tank. So, it's good exposure in that sense, the PA is going to see how it works first-hand, and put it to operational use.



For example, the MS version that the Indians dont have yet, introduced the following:

Gunner's Main Sight multichannel with sighting and thermal imaging channels, laser range finder, integrated laser control channel 

Commander's sight combined panoramic with television and thermal imaging channels, laser range finder 


Al khalid (baseline) has these from day one, since the first 15 prototypes. Guess we triumphed them and continue to do so big time. 

Hilarious.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## waz

Dazzler said:


> For example, the MS version that the Indians dont have yet, introduced the following:
> 
> Gunner's Main Sight multichannel with sighting and thermal imaging channels, laser range finder, integrated laser control channel
> 
> Commander's sight combined panoramic with television and thermal imaging channels, laser range finder
> 
> 
> Al khalid (baseline) has these from day one, since the first 15 prototypes. Guess we triumphed them and continue to do so big time.
> 
> Hilarious.



Yep I was surprised to read that they just introduced this to their tanks. Think about the years the PA have had in practice with such tech.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakFactor

waz said:


> Great points there. Years back (2002) I remember an excellent poster who was an ex American tanker, vet of Desert Storm (1990) and he said the same things regarding increased automation, he also argued with incredibly detailed posts the superiority of a four man crew to the three man plus autoloader setup.
> It's sad he doesn't post anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> I saw something on the Chinese working on a range of advanced munitions for tanks.



I remember reading his post long time back before I left PDF; one of his main points was if the auto loader fails the tank would be out until repairs done, and he posted the timing of auto loader and the crew and their was almost minimal to no difference within 1-3 seconds. Then he mentioned if the gunner or commander are out he can take the position. The auto loader will be limited based on its design and the crew can be trained alternatively. The risk factor was the ammo being placed and stacked vs separated.

If I'm not mistake the auto load once set can't change it ammo during combat unlike the manned crew.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

PakFactor said:


> I remember reading his post long time back before I left PDF; one of his main points was if the auto loader fails the tank would be out until repairs done, and he posted the timing of auto loader and the crew and their was almost minimal to no difference within 1-3 seconds. Then he mentioned if the gunner or commander are out he can take the position. The auto loader will be limited based on its design and the crew can be trained alternatively. The risk factor was the ammo being placed and stacked vs separated.
> 
> If I'm not mistake the auto load once set can't change it ammo during combat unlike the manned crew.



Yes that's right. He also did great comparisons of the Al-Khalid and Arjun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZAC1

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> The SPH requirement was for 500 units. Originally, the MoDP said it'll buy 100 units from the OEM, and then co-produce/assemble the remaining 400 in Pakistan. So, my guess, the PA ordered 100 SH15s (it has already taken delivery of the guided shells), and the rest will come gradually in batches.


I think Top brass smells a new war coming

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zulfiqar

waz said:


> Yes that's right. He also did great comparisons of the Al-Khalid and Arjun.



His Id in old pdf was something like M1tanker.

I also remember those posts w.r.t Auto vs 4th crew.

His points are valid though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bossman

ZAC1 said:


> I think Top brass smells a new war coming


Yup, in fact most people are smelling it, Modi is slave to an ideology and there is a plan to the ideology, which is predictable. Plus he has painted himself into a corner in Kashmir and he thinks a limited war with Pakistan will help him get out.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ZAC1

Bossman said:


> Yup, in fact most people are smelling it, Modi is slave to an ideology and there is a plan to the ideology, which is predictable. Plus he has painted himself into a corner in Kashmir and he thinks a limited war with Pakistan will help him get out.


Our majority of procurements are in pipline from subs,surface fleet,helis,tanks n many other stuff.
Will this not effect our response.

Our top brass should give priority to these procurements as they knwed modi will do something

Alot of stuff is in pipeline.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

ZAC1 said:


> Our majority of procurements are in pipline from subs,surface fleet,helis,tanks n many other stuff.


so as their procurements are also in pipeline from Jets, Gunship helicopters, Warships, Submarines, to Tanks and Artillery Guns ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Zulfiqar said:


> His Id in old pdf was something like M1tanker.
> 
> I also remember those posts w.r.t Auto vs 4th crew.
> 
> His points are valid though.



There was two, M1 tanker was also a vet but also joked around a great deal. There was another who was always serious and had fantastic knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## maverick1977

HRK said:


> it's not just about human factor but financial factor which is limiting our capabilities in every sector of state functions



increase taxation from 1% to decent 25%..
you have credible government, issue bonds, CPEC is there, people will buy bonds, roll that money into comparative advantage of products.. go after minerals like sandek.. get into steel manufscturing and drive shipbuilding with help from China. 
Capital can be genrated, pakistan needs to industralize. put a vision 2030, invite global companies.. 
IT is easy to start. software can be developed.. create social welfare marketplace.. or health .. 
for example HIt should start manufscturing trucks, cars or construction equipment, do a spin off. 
ask china, EaDs for certain manufacturing of airplane parts..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

waz said:


> There was two, M1 tanker was also a vet but also joked around a great deal. There was another who was always serious and had fantastic knowledge.



Zraver

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Dazzler said:


> Zraver



Ah yes mashallah you got a great memory bro. This was years back.


----------



## Dazzler

waz said:


> Ah yes mashallah you got a great memory bro. This was years back.


More so because I had to correct his info or lack of it about Pakistani mbts. He didn't know if AK had a TI sight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blacklight

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Towed Artillery and Rocket Projectiles also
> 
> 
> We have less Towed Artillery,* rocket Projectiles system* and Attack Helis



*rocket Projectiles system =* MLRS?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bossman

ZAC1 said:


> Our majority of procurements are in pipline from subs,surface fleet,helis,tanks n many other stuff.
> Will this not effect our response.
> 
> Our top brass should give priority to these procurements as they knwed modi will do something
> 
> Alot of stuff is in pipeline.


It will be a limited engagement in Kashmir so the procurement pipeline will have limited impact. I heard that China will deliver the VT4s through Ladakh .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Dazzler said:


> Zraver


Was it Zraver? He was alright. S-2 was one of my favorite posters along with JAD-33, great command over formal English and polite even when they were being trolled.

I engaged with them for a while on WAB (another forum that had mostly American and Western serving and veterans posting), but as the US-Pakistan relationship fell apart in those years, so did the relationships and tenor (towards Pakistan) on that forum. S-2 and a few others remained civil & engaged in good faith, but Zraver largely fell into the Indian camp.

It didn't help that the Indians had several retired military officers contributing there. One was a retired Brigadier General who has since passed away (Tiki Tam Tam) who was also a frequent commentator on this forum. The fact that WAB was largely run & frequented by military professionals meant that there was a certain degree of respect and deference extended to the Indian contributors (because of the presence of Indian military professionals) that was not extended as much to Pakistanis, especially as disagreements and tensions between the US & Pakistan over Afghanistan grew.

I was probably one of the last Pakistanis to stop posting there. It had gotten to the point that I wasn't comfortable voicing my views without concerns over being banned, and the Indians were allowed to spew hate and filth without check.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## El Observer

Does VT-4 have separate ammo compartment with blow-off panels ?


----------



## Dazzler

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Was it Zraver? He was alright. S-2 was one of my favorite posters along with JAD-33, great command over formal English and polite even when they were being trolled.
> 
> I engaged with them for a while on WAB (another forum that had mostly American and Western serving and veterans posting), but as the US-Pakistan relationship fell apart in those years, so did the relationships and tenor (towards Pakistan) on that forum. S-2 and a few others remained civil & engaged in good faith, but Zraver largely fell into the Indian camp.
> 
> It didn't help that the Indians had several retired military officers contributing there. One was a retired Brigadier General who has since passed away (Tiki Tam Tam) who was also a frequent commentator on this forum. The fact that WAB was largely run & frequented by military professionals meant that there was a certain degree of respect and deference extended to the Indian contributors (because of the presence of Indian military professionals) that was not extended as much to Pakistanis, especially as disagreements and tensions over US failures in Afghanistan and the tense US-Pakistan relationship grew.
> 
> I was probably one of the last Pakistanis to stop posting there. It had gotten to the point that I wasn't comfortable voicing my views without concerns over being banned, and the Indians were allowed to spew hate and filth without check.



Zraver brought me to this forum. True



El Observer said:


> Does VT-4 have separate ammo compartment with blow-off panels ?



Nope. But it has armored ammo bins like Al-khalid


----------



## El Observer

Dazzler said:


> Nope. But it has armored ammo bins like Al-khalid


So is the crew still safe with armored bin setup?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Was it Zraver? He was alright. S-2 was one of my favorite posters along with JAD-33, great command over formal English and polite even when they were being trolled.
> 
> I engaged with them for a while on WAB (another forum that had mostly American and Western serving and veterans posting), but as the US-Pakistan relationship fell apart in those years, so did the relationships and tenor (towards Pakistan) on that forum. S-2 and a few others remained civil & engaged in good faith, but Zraver largely fell into the Indian camp.
> 
> It didn't help that the Indians had several retired military officers contributing there. One was a retired Brigadier General who has since passed away (Tiki Tam Tam) who was also a frequent commentator on this forum. The fact that WAB was largely run & frequented by military professionals meant that there was a certain degree of respect and deference extended to the Indian contributors (because of the presence of Indian military professionals) that was not extended as much to Pakistanis, especially as disagreements and tensions between the US & Pakistan over Afghanistan grew.
> 
> I was probably one of the last Pakistanis to stop posting there. It had gotten to the point that I wasn't comfortable voicing my views without concerns over being banned, and the Indians were allowed to spew hate and filth without check.


S-2 I believe was mechanised infantry.

WAB was pretty much biased and anti Pak to say the least. Also posted there, rather glad it got closed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IblinI

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> I heard that the VT4 also introduces automation. It's the first step, but if the Chinese continue on the track they're on they could end up taking 1 man out of the mix, i.e., 2-crew tank. So, it's good exposure in that sense, the PA is going to see how it works first-hand, and put it to operational use.


There was a big debate on our side for this topic aswell when the chief designer of Type 99A was hinting a two men crew for our next generation MBT, don't know how far the project goes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Readerdefence

LKJ86 said:


> ZTZ-99A tank
> View attachment 627960
> View attachment 627961
> View attachment 627962
> View attachment 627963
> View attachment 627964
> View attachment 627965


Hi what’s the engine HP for ZTZ-99 
Thank you



waz said:


> Yes, it’s the latest generation.


Hi waz sorry to be off topic but is it a possibility to overcome the tank anomaly according to the Pakistani requirement and army opted for it Chinese have already done with Z10 helicopter
Also and soon army getting those also 
Or it’s just a matter of priority to get these tanks first 
Thank you


----------



## waz

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Was it Zraver? He was alright. S-2 was one of my favorite posters along with JAD-33, great command over formal English and polite even when they were being trolled.
> 
> I engaged with them for a while on WAB (another forum that had mostly American and Western serving and veterans posting), but as the US-Pakistan relationship fell apart in those years, so did the relationships and tenor (towards Pakistan) on that forum. S-2 and a few others remained civil & engaged in good faith, but Zraver largely fell into the Indian camp.
> 
> It didn't help that the Indians had several retired military officers contributing there. One was a retired Brigadier General who has since passed away (Tiki Tam Tam) who was also a frequent commentator on this forum. The fact that WAB was largely run & frequented by military professionals meant that there was a certain degree of respect and deference extended to the Indian contributors (because of the presence of Indian military professionals) that was not extended as much to Pakistanis, especially as disagreements and tensions between the US & Pakistan over Afghanistan grew.
> 
> I was probably one of the last Pakistanis to stop posting there. It had gotten to the point that I wasn't comfortable voicing my views without concerns over being banned, and the Indians were allowed to spew hate and filth without check.



God this brings back memories, I was on there to with the same name that I've had for 20 years. The way you described things are exactly what happened. Some sections were hilarious especially the Mediterranean section with the Turks going at the Greeks and visa versa. You're right about the Indians they overrun the Asian section and with professionals among their ranks it was difficult to get a word in. The Chinese posters on there were great and fantastic allies of the Pakistani posters , and had our backs. I posted on the European section and Brits were nice.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> S-2 I believe was mechanised infantry.
> 
> WAB was pretty much biased and anti Pak to say the least. Also posted there, rather glad it got closed.



Yep good bye, I remember many of us leaving and having the last word with them hahaha. They didn't last did they? Here we are going from strength to strength, long may it continue ameen.



Readerdefence said:


> Hi waz sorry to be off topic but is it a possibility to overcome the tank anomaly according to the Pakistani requirement and army opted for it Chinese have already done with Z10 helicopter
> Also and soon army getting those also
> Or it’s just a matter of priority to get these tanks first
> Thank you



No don't worry the odd post is ok.
With the Turkish order on ice now due to the engine issue the Z-10 has been pushed as one of the major priorities.
But the crucial point to tackle now is the armour shortage.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Zulfiqar

waz said:


> There was two, M1 tanker was also a vet but also joked around a great deal. There was another who was always serious and had fantastic knowledge.



I now remember, there were 2 apart from that m21 sniper something guy IIRC.

I also posted on WAB for a month or so as well but left because of reasons described by others here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Readerdefence

waz said:


> God this brings back memories, I was on there to with the same name that I've had for 20 years. The way described things are exactly what happened. Some sections were hilarious especially the Mediterranean section with the Turks going at the Greeks and visa versa. You're right about the Indian they overrun the Asian section and with professionals among their ranks it was difficult to get a word in. The Chinese posters on there were great and fantastic allies of the Pakistani posters and had our backs. I posted on the European section and Brits were nice.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep good bye, I remember many of us leaving and having the last word with them hahaha. They didn't last did they? Here we are going from strength to strength, long may it continue ameen.
> 
> 
> 
> No don't worry the odd post is ok.
> With the Turkish order on ice now due to the engine issue the Z-10 has been pushed as one of the major priorities.
> But the crucial point to tackle now is the armour shortage.


Hi waz thanks for the encouragement so I’ll come to the present postings so if we go by let’s say 50 percent less armour in Pakistan army what else they can have with less money wise to tackle the Indian armoured I mean should have invested more towards and killing things & also towards 
Flying machines to tackle the Indian armour as we all know can’t match Indians one in one 
So the best bet should be to destroy their columns as much as PA can from ground or air 
Your input please 
Thank you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

El Observer said:


> So is the crew still safe with armored bin setup?


Much safer compared to the t90, 72.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

El Observer said:


> So is the crew still safe with armored bin setup?


Blow off ammo panel is not some magical solution. Check out video of M1A1 for Saudi and Iraq where crew still cook despite having ammo blow off panel with ammunition ignited by ATGM.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ziaulislam

waz said:


> No bro not at all. The army faced a very lopsided armour shortage. The IA currently fields around 1,600 T-90'S, T-90MS's, that's a very large force, but also more importantly has quality with it, which made/makes it very dangerous.
> The Al-Khalid of course is a match for the T-90 and our upgraded models with additional ERA and active protection systems are on par with the T-90MS, but again how many does the army field, around 600? It's just simply not enough.
> The VT-4, especially with the numbers it is being inducted with gives the army a powerful punch and a tank which is superior in a fair few areas to what it faces. Artillery and troop transport are additions and can't simply substitute the workhorse of the battlefield nor blunt a concerted armoured push by the IA.
> I thought PAF was doing quite well actually, I can't see any critical weaknesses.



and hence the question, if alkhalid matches t90 why was the production rate so slow..why all of sudden we bought VT4s..if numbers is the problem than a scale of alkhalid should have been the answer. The t90 deal was ordered 4-5 years back so army had time(trials being conducted since 2018)..
i would have argued that are up scale of alkhalid was needed..even we increase the rate form say 50 to 100 we would have got the numbers...
unless army thinks alkhalid is inferior to t90 and needed osmething better and or if VT4 is meant to be next-gen tank and will form the spearhead but i think India has no answer for now for the VT4..t90 on paper is vastly inferior to vt4..i am no expert so correct me if i am wrong



Ark_Angel said:


> Arabs are funding Sh*t at the moment for Pakistani Defence forces. Even the 2.5+2.5 Bn from KSA &UAE came with stringent strategic conditions which I can't disclose here. Pakistani Kids need to stop fantasising about Arabs Armring Pakistan to the Teeth to make it its Militray Muscle. Those days are long gone and Pakistan has been replaced by Egypt as the future Military Arab Bulwark against Non Arab Adversaries, But Egyptians play it Smart, Rip off the Arabs while stay on the side lines in Yemen. ZERO Ground Troops comitted for Yemen while at the same time Stationing One Division Plus Troops in Jeddah not even Jizan who get paid by the Saudis all for doing nothing, 30 Bn Plus in Direct Contracts for the Egyptian Military all paid up by the Saudis and Emaratis(I am not even discussing the Economic Support that goes in Tens of Billions). For what? For Showing symbolically that We are with you in Operation Decisive Storm by Stationing Troops(non combat role), One Squadron of F-16s for Lobbing Bombs at Aden and Sana and a few ships in Non Combat role for the Saudi Eastern fleet. That's how you make money. Not by embarrassing your Allied by tabling resolution in Parliament and getting it rejected by a majority when they ask you for support in a Government to Government direct support.


Egypt..no offence but..well i won't bet on eygpt..we saw what happened to them in 1970s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kongn

ziaulislam said:


> and hence the question, if alkhalid matches t90 why was the production rate so slow..why all of sudden we bought VT4s..if numbers is the problem than a scale of alkhalid should have been the answer. The t90 deal was ordered 4-5 years back so army had time(trials being conducted since 2018)..
> i would have argued that are up scale of alkhalid was needed..even we increase the rate form say 50 to 100 we would have got the numbers...
> unless army thinks alkhalid is inferior to t90 and needed osmething better and or if VT4 is meant to be next-gen tank and will form the spearhead but i think India has no answer for now for the VT4..t90 on paper is vastly inferior to vt4..i am no expert so correct me if i am wrong



As far as i know khalid had 3 problems-
1.Price - many of its components are imported and depreciation of pak rupee made it much costlier than projected.Even high quality steel had to be imported due to failure of pak steel mill.
2.Spare parts issue due to poor state of ukraine industry.
3.Engine -maintainence issue and breakdown during fording .

VT-4 is better than T-90 bhisma but not T-90MS proryv-3 which is superior.India has around 1200 T-90 bhisma with 400 more on order.India doesnt yet have any T-90MS though this might provoke a reaction.
Compared to the 'indian' t-90,VT-4 gun and autoloader is basically same.But it has commander's independent viewer which is a definite advantage .
Protection is similar with composite armour plus ERA,neither having active/passive defences.Will depend on whether FY-4 chinese ERA is better than russian kontakt-5.
Mobility of VT-4 will be better if it comes with 1300 hp engine.
PA certain to deploy it with 6th armoured division in key sector of punjab.

Will be interesting to see whether IA ignores this and waits for next FRCV,or does a new acquisition.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

IblinI said:


> There was a big debate on our side for this topic aswell when the chief designer of Type 99A was hinting a two men crew for our next generation MBT, don't know how far the project goes.


PLA tank crew complain, they want to stick to 3 men.



kongn said:


> As far as i know khalid had 3 problems-
> 1.Price - many of its components are imported and depreciation of pak rupee made it much costlier than projected.Even high quality steel had to be imported due to failure of pak steel mill.
> 2.Spare parts issue due to poor state of ukraine industry.
> 3.Engine -maintainence issue and breakdown during fording .
> 
> VT-4 is better than T-90 bhisma but not T-90MS proryv-3 which is superior.India has around 1200 T-90 bhisma with 400 more on order.India doesnt yet have any T-90MS though this might provoke a reaction.
> Compared to the 'indian' t-90,VT-4 gun and autoloader is basically same.But it has commander's independent viewer which is a definite advantage .
> Protection is similar with composite armour plus ERA,neither having active/passive defences.Will depend on whether FY-4 chinese ERA is better than russian kontakt-5.
> Mobility of VT-4 will be better if it comes with 1300 hp engine.
> PA certain to deploy it with 6th armoured division in key sector of punjab.
> 
> Will be interesting to see whether IA ignores this and waits for next FRCV,or does a new acquisition.


All T-90 series no matter the latest are still inferior to VT-4. The level of VT-4 and handling plus sophistication in fact surpass many aspect of western MBT.



ziaulislam said:


> and hence the question, if alkhalid matches t90 why was the production rate so slow..why all of sudden we bought VT4s..if numbers is the problem than a scale of alkhalid should have been the answer. The t90 deal was ordered 4-5 years back so army had time(trials being conducted since 2018)..
> i would have argued that are up scale of alkhalid was needed..even we increase the rate form say 50 to 100 we would have got the numbers...
> unless army thinks alkhalid is inferior to t90 and needed osmething better and or if VT4 is meant to be next-gen tank and will form the spearhead but i think India has no answer for now for the VT4..t90 on paper is vastly inferior to vt4.



Ulkarine has lost all abilities to continue their production due to economic decline and war. Many skill work forces left for better paid job and Ukraine production need fund to upgrade

Al khalid tank worst decision is to depend on Ulkraine for tank engine.

VT-4 engine is totally different from Ulkraine UTD-2 diesel engine and cannot replace it.Even the dimension is different. VT-4 engine are big and cannot fit into Al Khalid MBT.

Instead of just trying to solves the engine problem. Chinese advise PA to buy VT-4 which not only solves the engine problem for Al Khalid but further upgrade it's tank fleet capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## zhxy

Pakistan can buy both types of tanks. 150 T-90MS proryv-3 and 150 VT-4.


----------



## Dazzler

kongn said:


> As far as i know khalid had 3 problems-
> 1.Price - many of its components are imported and depreciation of pak rupee made it much costlier than projected.Even high quality steel had to be imported due to failure of pak steel mill.
> 2.Spare parts issue due to poor state of ukraine industry.
> 3.Engine -maintainence issue and breakdown during fording .
> 
> VT-4 is better than T-90 bhisma but not T-90MS proryv-3 which is superior.India has around 1200 T-90 bhisma with 400 more on order.India doesnt yet have any T-90MS though this might provoke a reaction.
> Compared to the 'indian' t-90,VT-4 gun and autoloader is basically same.But it has commander's independent viewer which is a definite advantage .
> Protection is similar with composite armour plus ERA,neither having active/passive defences.Will depend on whether FY-4 chinese ERA is better than russian kontakt-5.
> Mobility of VT-4 will be better if it comes with 1300 hp engine.
> PA certain to deploy it with 6th armoured division in key sector of punjab.
> 
> Will be interesting to see whether IA ignores this and waits for next FRCV,or does a new acquisition.



Mate, seriously, if you don't know. Don't throw arrows in the air. MS is what Al-khalid was 15 years ago. Do some reading before commenting.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## LKJ86

Readerdefence said:


> Hi what’s the engine HP for ZTZ-99


The engine of ZTZ-99 is 1200 HP, while that of ZTZ-99A is 1500 HP.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Was it Zraver? He was alright. S-2 was one of my favorite posters along with JAD-33, great command over formal English and polite even when they were being trolled.
> 
> I engaged with them for a while on WAB (another forum that had mostly American and Western serving and veterans posting), but as the US-Pakistan relationship fell apart in those years, so did the relationships and tenor (towards Pakistan) on that forum. S-2 and a few others remained civil & engaged in good faith, but Zraver largely fell into the Indian camp.
> 
> It didn't help that the Indians had several retired military officers contributing there. One was a retired Brigadier General who has since passed away (Tiki Tam Tam) who was also a frequent commentator on this forum. The fact that WAB was largely run & frequented by military professionals meant that there was a certain degree of respect and deference extended to the Indian contributors (because of the presence of Indian military professionals) that was not extended as much to Pakistanis, especially as disagreements and tensions between the US & Pakistan over Afghanistan grew.
> 
> I was probably one of the last Pakistanis to stop posting there. It had gotten to the point that I wasn't comfortable voicing my views without concerns over being banned, and the Indians were allowed to spew hate and filth without check.



I remember that time, and this was something that had repeatedly happened in other channels. Back in the early 2000s, I largely was a silent spectator until I saw Pakistani posters being attacked left right and center, and the Indians being given a free hand. This made me start my first account, a troll account just to defend the Pakistanis. 

I would do things like start a thread that "LCA is better than the F-22" and the Indians would jump in thinking this was a "do" and then I'd turn it into a parody. A point was reached were I was getting info being sent to me by some banned Pakistani members and I was simply using that info to make the Indians dance, while getting the goras confused. 

In the early 2000s, there were no strong Pakistani defense forums, even Pakdef had very few members. Pakistanis and other "brownies" had to go to gora sites to get their fill. And these gora sites had really good technical info from war fighters to engineers and scientists. 

As more and more Pakistanis got banned or cut short, Pakistani defense sites mushroomed everywhere. And now, it seems places like this PDF are far better and more interesting than those of even the West. How the tables have turned. India could not follow, as their forums are nationalistic feel good sites, not real military technical forums in any meaningful sense. 

I'm quite surprised to see so many sites of the past, like keypub now has gone to the gutter with very few members left. It's as if Pakistan has stolen a march on both the Indians and the West.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## serenity

VT-4 is not better than T90MS type roughly the same level of commander equipments but VT-4 just have more armor and heavier than MS version. VT-4 advantage is just in armor and GL5 protection system which can able to defend against rocket based attack like antitank missile. VT-4 is much better than PLA own 96B with more advanced top using many technology from 99A and commander equipment. Engine is okay power with 1200 or 1300 horse power for this over 50 tonnes. Very poor side armor and everywhere else except for front. FY4 is very amazing although and new fang yin reaction armor is even more advanced and can protect side and top very well. It is modular design and can fit into older tanks. Wait for the newest react armor plates. Will become amazing against currently used penetration rod. Americans will make newer penetration rods for this new armor.

VT-4 purchase because for the price it is actually amazing capability. Cheaper because PLA already make thousands of 96 and close to thousand 99 several hundred 99A so costs are totally controlled easily due to huge manufacturing orders. VT-4 just has many luxury items 96B cannot afford to supply all thousand with. Russian T90MS also one of best equipped for commander and crew, excellent power for weight, very good weapons too and newer gun using electroslag melting technique like Chinese ZPT-98 which combine 2a46 design with some German technologies and material science technique. Chinese ZPT-98 has for longest time used and achieved much higher muzzle projectile velocity through highest chamber pressure because one way for Chinese tank commanders to balance poorer penetration of Chinese ammunition. Soviet and Chinese ammunition quality and penetrator rod did not possess same level as western types for a long time especially due to using autoloader machinery which limit length for a long time. Now it's different totally but ZPT-98 still has highest chamber pressure so PLA cannot afford too many 99 and focus mostly on 96B because it can perform almost the same level for much cheaper price. 

So how can VT-4 better than T90MS. T90MS is similar with 99A philosophy of high capability tank but also comes with price. VT-4 is nice in between because much better than 96B with automatic remote control machine gun, GL5, and some nice equipment with modern generation thermal vision and night vision and true hunter style.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IblinI

serenity said:


> VT-4 is not better than T90MS type roughly the same level of commander equipments but VT-4 just have more armor and heavier than MS version. VT-4 advantage is just in armor and GL5 protection system which can able to defend against rocket based attack like antitank missile. VT-4 is much better than PLA own 96B with more advanced top using many technology from 99A and commander equipment. Engine is okay power with 1200 or 1300 horse power for this over 50 tonnes. Very poor side armor and everywhere else except for front. FY4 is very amazing although and new fang yin reaction armor is even more advanced and can protect side and top very well. It is modular design and can fit into older tanks. Wait for the newest react armor plates. Will become amazing against currently used penetration rod. Americans will make newer penetration rods for this new armor.
> 
> VT-4 purchase because for the price it is actually amazing capability. Cheaper because PLA already make thousands of 96 and close to thousand 99 several hundred 99A so costs are totally controlled easily due to huge manufacturing orders. VT-4 just has many luxury items 96B cannot afford to supply all thousand with. Russian T90MS also one of best equipped for commander and crew, excellent power for weight, very good weapons too and newer gun using electroslag melting technique like Chinese ZPT-98 which combine 2a46 design with some German technologies and material science technique. Chinese ZPT-98 has for longest time used and achieved much higher muzzle projectile velocity through highest chamber pressure because one way for Chinese tank commanders to balance poorer penetration of Chinese ammunition. Soviet and Chinese ammunition quality and penetrator rod did not possess same level as western types for a long time especially due to using autoloader machinery which limit length for a long time. Now it's different totally but ZPT-98 still has highest chamber pressure so PLA cannot afford too many 99 and focus mostly on 96B because it can perform almost the same level for much cheaper price.
> 
> So how can VT-4 better than T90MS. T90MS is similar with 99A philosophy of high capability tank but also comes with price. VT-4 is nice in between because much better than 96B with automatic remote control machine gun, GL5, and some nice equipment with modern generation thermal vision and night vision and true hunter style.


Appreciated your effort but doesn't make much sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

IblinI said:


> Appreciated your effort but doesn't make much sense.



What doesn't make sense from what I said?

I cannot see why VT-4 is better than T90MS. Maybe small area like FY4 armor and GL5 defense system but that's it. Also VT-4 is a little cheaper to purchase and much cheaper in this deal seemingly. T90MS export purchase price is quite a lot. Almost close to Leopard class and Korean tank.


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> What doesn't make sense from what I said?
> 
> I cannot see why VT-4 is better than T90MS. Maybe small area like FY4 armor and GL5 defense system but that's it. Also VT-4 is a little cheaper to purchase and much cheaper in this deal seemingly. T90MS export purchase price is quite a lot. Almost close to Leopard class and Korean tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

serenity said:


> What doesn't make sense from what I said?
> 
> I cannot see why VT-4 is better than T90MS. Maybe small area like FY4 armor and GL5 defense system but that's it. Also VT-4 is a little cheaper to purchase and much cheaper in this deal seemingly. T90MS export purchase price is quite a lot. Almost close to Leopard class and Korean tank.


You were totally wrong when you includes the aps GL5 and FY4 in the package, VT4 is a highly moduler tank, the base version doesn't comes with FY4 nor APS.
It's customized base on the buyers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 628376



This is what I said. VT-4 is below 99A but much better than 96B. Similar level of top as ztz-99 version before 99A. Definitely up to fourth generation of best tanks. Doesn't mean anything with T90MS which is also in same level. VT-4 is not better than T90MS. It's about the same level but maybe better armor.



IblinI said:


> You were totally wrong when you includes the aps GL5 and FY4 in the package, VT4 is a highly moduler tank, the base version doesn't comes with FY4 nor APS.
> It's customized base on the buyers.



Yes but they can be installed. FY4 comes with VT-4 certainly. Nobody will be stupid to not use it. GL5 installation is up to customer. I didn't say it is all included in this deal but can be used. This can be means VT-4 can improve protection level. And can in future upgrade with FY-x.


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> This is what I said.


It is just contrary to what you said.


serenity said:


> VT-4 is not better than T90MS type roughly the same level of commander equipments but VT-4 just have more armor and heavier than MS version. VT-4 advantage is just in armor and GL5 protection system which can able to defend against rocket based attack like antitank missile. VT-4 is much better than PLA own 96B with more advanced top using many technology from 99A and commander equipment. Engine is okay power with 1200 or 1300 horse power for this over 50 tonnes. Very poor side armor and everywhere else except for front. FY4 is very amazing although and new fang yin reaction armor is even more advanced and can protect side and top very well. It is modular design and can fit into older tanks. Wait for the newest react armor plates. Will become amazing against currently used penetration rod. Americans will make newer penetration rods for this new armor.


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Blacklight said:


> *rocket Projectiles system =* MLRS?


yes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

No it is not. I cannot understand why and what you are referring. Where is the part that is incorrect or contrary??

What you shared in Chinese is saying nothing just VT-4 uses many 99 technologies but 99A still has some special gun and equipment advantages. This is exactly what I said. Same thing with armor and about VT-4 being true hunter 4th generation tank. I really do not understand.

It does not talk about T90MS. Why some people must say VT-4 is better than T90MS. There is nothing to show this and nothing that even says this. I think they are about the same which I said in first post then said again and again and again. Some areas slightly better some areas slightly worse like power for weight and commander equipment in T90MS all available and from modern generation even using some French ones.

I think since they are similar VT-4 is clearly better choice if customer wants to upgrade future armor and the tank is cheaper to buy. Right now the armor is more and heavier especially in front. I think front armor is impossible to penetrate right now. I really think 99A and VT-4 front armor requires 130mm or up and next generation rod. The FY armor is now incredible and occupy little weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Ark_Angel said:


> Not by embarrassing your Allied by tabling resolution in Parliament and getting it rejected by a majority when they ask you for support in a Government to Government direct support.


@MastanKhan



ZAC1 said:


> I think Top brass smells a new war coming


I don't think so. Just a normal acquisition.


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> No it is not. I cannot understand why and what you are referring. Where is the part that is incorrect or contrary??
> 
> What you shared in Chinese is saying nothing just VT-4 uses many 99 technologies but 99A still has some special gun and equipment advantages. This is exactly what I said. Same thing with armor and about VT-4 being true hunter 4th generation tank. I really do not understand.
> 
> It does not talk about T90MS. Why some people must say VT-4 is better than T90MS. There is nothing to show this and nothing that even says this. I think they are about the same which I said in first post then said again and again and again. Some areas slightly better some areas slightly worse like power for weight and commander equipment in T90MS all available and from modern generation even using some French ones.
> 
> I think since they are similar VT-4 is clearly better choice if customer wants to upgrade future armor and the tank is cheaper to buy. Right now the armor is more and heavier especially in front. I think front armor is impossible to penetrate right now. I really think 99A and VT-4 front armor requires 130mm or up and next generation rod. The FY armor is now incredible and occupy little weight.


Why do you take the weaknesses of Russia's tanks as their strengths, and the strengths of VT-4 as its weaknesses???



serenity said:


> VT-4 is not better than T90MS type roughly the same level of commander equipments but VT-4 just have more armor and heavier than MS version. VT-4 advantage is just in armor and GL5 protection system which can able to defend against rocket based attack like antitank missile. VT-4 is much better than PLA own 96B with more advanced top using many technology from 99A and commander equipment. Engine is okay power with 1200 or 1300 horse power for this over 50 tonnes. Very poor side armor and everywhere else except for front. FY4 is very amazing although and new fang yin reaction armor is even more advanced and can protect side and top very well. It is modular design and can fit into older tanks. Wait for the newest react armor plates. Will become amazing against currently used penetration rod. Americans will make newer penetration rods for this new armor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kongn

Dazzler said:


> Mate, seriously, if you don't know. Don't throw arrows in the air. MS is what Al-khalid was 15 years ago. Do some reading before commenting.




I'm sorry i tried to keep it in.But really are you comparing dressed up MBT-2000 with the latest russian proryv-3?Do you even know the specs of the latter?



Beast said:


> All T-90 series no matter the latest are still inferior to VT-4. The level of VT-4 and handling plus sophistication in fact surpass many aspect of western MBT.



Either spreading propaganda or you are not aware of the improvements in the proryv-3.It fixes almost all of the problems of the T-series.I would love to see that tank in IA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

kongn said:


> As far as i know khalid had 3 problems-
> 1.Price - many of its components are imported and depreciation of pak rupee made it much costlier than projected.Even high quality steel had to be imported due to failure of pak steel mill.
> 2.Spare parts issue due to poor state of ukraine industry.
> 3.Engine -maintainence issue and breakdown during fording .
> 
> VT-4 is better than T-90 bhisma but not T-90MS proryv-3 which is superior.India has around 1200 T-90 bhisma with 400 more on order.India doesnt yet have any T-90MS though this might provoke a reaction.
> Compared to the 'indian' t-90,VT-4 gun and autoloader is basically same.But it has commander's independent viewer which is a definite advantage .
> Protection is similar with composite armour plus ERA,neither having active/passive defences.Will depend on whether FY-4 chinese ERA is better than russian kontakt-5.
> Mobility of VT-4 will be better if it comes with 1300 hp engine.
> PA certain to deploy it with 6th armoured division in key sector of punjab.
> 
> Will be interesting to see whether IA ignores this and waits for next FRCV,or does a new acquisition.



It's better than the T-90M proryv 3.
With all things being equal parts wise the VT-4 still outweighs the T-90MS, where do you think that extra weight comes, it's armour.
The VT-4 does have an active protection system with a demonstration video on this very thread!
The VT-4's mobility is far superior with a more powerful engine, and if it comes with the 1500HP engine then this already wide gap will be even wider.
Fire power is about the same yes.
Battle field management systems are slightly better on the VT-4.



kongn said:


> I'm sorry i tried to keep it in.But really are you comparing dressed up MBT-2000 with the latest russian proryv-3?Do you even know the specs of the latter?
> 
> 
> 
> Either spreading propaganda or you are not aware of the improvements in the proryv-3.It fixes almost all of the problems of the T-series.I would love to see that tank in IA.



Oh ok, here it is;

https://www.armyrecognition.com/rus...bt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet.html

Just a souped up T-90. Nothing groundbreaking.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> Battle field management systems aren slightly better on the VT-4.


It is just what VT-4 is good at.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## waz

LKJ86 said:


> It is just what VT-4 is good at.



Yes it’s noted for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

waz said:


> It's better than the T-90M proryv 3.
> With all things being equal parts wise the VT-4 still outweighs the T-90MS, where do you think that extra weight comes, it's armour.
> The VT-4 does have an active protection system with a demonstration video on this very thread!
> The VT-4's mobility is far superior with a more powerful engine, and if it comes with the 1500HP engine then this already wide gap will be even wider.
> Fire power is about the same yes.
> Battle field management systems aren slightly better on the VT-4.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok, here it is;
> 
> https://www.armyrecognition.com/rus...bt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet.html
> 
> Just a souped up T-90. Nothing groundbreaking.


Who were the other contenders, Oplot, 
T–90S?


----------



## waz

IblinI said:


> Who were the other contenders, Oplot,
> T–90S?



Yes, the T-90S wasn’t tested though, considered I believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> Yes it’s noted for that.


In the past, the only weakness of VT-4 was just its armor protection.
And that is why we are interested in FY-4 and GL-5 now.

VT-4 is a digital tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

kongn said:


> Either spreading propaganda or you are not aware of the improvements in the proryv-3.It fixes almost all of the problems of the T-series.I would love to see that tank in IA.



You are the one spreading misinfo and doing the self bragging. Russian technology is inferior to Chinese currently. Their tank stabiliser is one of the worst in the market. Even the thermal imaging system need to source from China as France had block sales to Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

Sorry LKJ I forgot to comment on gun stabilizer. VT-4's is similar mechanism to 99 and has excellent one. Not sure about anything to do with MS. I looked at MS again and it is heavier than I thought with 48 tonnes. 1130 hp engine in MS. The horsepower per tonne is about the same here and depends on transmission and gearing. Otherwise imagining sensors I thought MS uses french Thales. VT-4 is pretty good in every department except for side armor. Like 96B, VT-4 side armor still too weak even with FY4 plates. GL5 maybe defend against rockets and missile but cannot save VT-4 from penetration rods.


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> Sorry LKJ I forgot to comment on gun stabilizer. VT-4's is similar mechanism to 99 and has excellent one. Not sure about anything to do with MS. I looked at MS again and it is heavier than I thought with 48 tonnes. 1130 hp engine in MS. The horsepower per tonne is about the same here and depends on transmission and gearing. Otherwise imagining sensors I thought MS uses french Thales. VT-4 is pretty good in every department except for side armor. Like 96B, VT-4 side armor still too weak even with FY4 plates. GL5 maybe defend against rockets and missile but cannot save VT-4 from penetration rods.


In the past, the only weakness of VT-4 was just its armor protection.
And that is why we are interested in FY-4 and GL-5 now.

VT-4 is a digital tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

LKJ86 said:


> In the past, the only weakness of VT-4 was just its armor protection.
> And that is why we are interested in FY-4 and GL-5 now.
> 
> VT-4 is a digital tank.





LKJ86 said:


> In the past, the only weakness of VT-4 was just its armor protection.
> And that is why we are interested in FY-4 and GL-5 now.
> 
> VT-4 is a digital tank.



From some reading material it seems to me convinced the VT-4 and 99 front armor is impossible to penetrate today until new rods are invented. The wedge frame holding first layer of FY armor can defeat most energy. They can add another layer below wedge modular frame and after this second layer is laminar ceramic plating and welded frame of main top. Equal to ridiculous amount of steel armor like 2m or more. Unfortunately all this is used in front and required to protect against best NATO shells which means side gets nothing because to equip side with enough armor to stop best shells means tank will be 80tonnes + and impossible with this size and engines. But 90% of hit is in front and PLA uses thousands from every direction. In Pakistan and India the tank against tank war will be similar and also mostly front against front. VT-4 armor now has no problem at all. Russian guns and shells very unlikely to damage it from front and Arjun using rifle gun is strange choice because they want to use English style HESH? Better accuracy but less energy.

The new FY series developed for VT-5 or tank 15 is much better and infantry vehicle. I think they can pack the frontal wedge with plate ceramics if necessary but engine needs 1500hp and up. The modular design was smart choice and everyone now prefer it over older armor style like M1 and Challenger series. Leclerc, Leopard, Arjun, T series and Chinese types all go with total modular design. Can repair damage much cheaper and easier too. Oplot is not competitive anymore unfortunately due to situations in Ukraine recently but basis is still very fine tank and very good systems and excellent front armor. Also think it's impossible to penetrate. In fact the older M1 and Challengers are much easier to kill from front than any of these guys because more than one shot already completely ruin the ceramic plating. Like kevlar can defend only one or two bullets and useless after. Then expensive and very difficult to replace whole plating and front section. This is why Chinese design prefers the two layer method and hopefully rarely need to replace the final layer of ceramic plates. Anyway NATO doesn't rely on tanks nowadays. Also not important like aircraft development to update pretty good tanks. Japanese tank 10 and Korean K2 are similar modular and use very advanced material their steel is so expensive although.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> From some reading material it seems to me convinced the VT-4 and 99 front armor is impossible to penetrate today until new rods are invented. The wedge frame holding first layer of FY armor can defeat most energy. They can add another layer below wedge modular frame and after this second layer is laminar ceramic plating and welded frame of main top. Equal to ridiculous amount of steel armor like 2m or more. Unfortunately all this is used in front and required to protect against best NATO shells which means side gets nothing because to equip side with enough armor to stop best shells means tank will be 80tonnes + and impossible with this size and engines. But 90% of hit is in front and PLA uses thousands from every direction. In Pakistan and India the tank against tank war will be similar and also mostly front against front. VT-4 armor now has no problem at all. Russian guns and shells very unlikely to damage it from front and Arjun using rifle gun is strange choice because they want to use English style HESH? Better accuracy but less energy.


One thing you must know is that VT-4 is China's first high-end tank for export.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## serenity

LKJ86 said:


> One thing you must know is that VT-4 is China's first high-end tank for export.



Yes so we offered pretty expensive equipment even PLA cannot really afford to buy in thousands. Unless we need it for fighting someone skilled with good equipment I don't think PLA will update own 96B to higher standards because really is no need. Anyone come fight land war with China will die horrible death they cannot imagine. Against India there is no way to really fight tank war in Himalaya and neither us can fly many heavy tanks over to each other. For Thailand and Pakistan we will send better tanks against Vietnam and India tanks to counter them there. If they want to prove VT-4, we happily prove its ability.

However I think T90MS is very good. Russians upgraded every department and provide very fine tank. Also has better frontal armor angle which help from 20 degrees + where VT-4 start to pay no attention. I think strategy here is very different. It's very important for Chinese tank operators to make sure front engagement only and potentially this is a serious flaw for customers or if fighting in city areas. However city fighting means missiles from difficult angles only instead of penetrator. For desert or plain it is easy to keep everything front only.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

serenity said:


> Yes so we offered pretty expensive equipment even PLA cannot really afford to buy in thousands. Unless we need it for fighting someone skilled with good equipment I don't think PLA will update own 96B to higher standards because really is no need. Anyone come fight land war with China will die horrible death they cannot imagine. Against India there is no way to really fight tank war in Himalaya and neither us can fly many heavy tanks over to each other. For Thailand and Pakistan we will send better tanks against Vietnam and India tanks to counter them there. If they want to prove VT-4, we happily prove its ability.
> 
> However I think T90MS is very good. Russians upgraded every department and provide very fine tank. Also has better frontal armor angle which help from 20 degrees + where VT-4 start to pay no attention. I think strategy here is very different. It's very important for Chinese tank operators to make sure front engagement only and potentially this is a serious flaw for customers or if fighting in city areas. However city fighting means missiles from difficult angles only instead of penetrator. For desert or plain it is easy to keep everything front only.


any MBT will not work well in highly dense urban warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

kongn said:


> Either spreading propaganda or you are not aware of the improvements in the proryv-3.It fixes almost all of the problems of the T-series.I would love to see that tank in IA.



You answered your own question. All t-90s prior to MS had fundamental flaws. They had good armor, but bad electronics, FCS was basic, little if any situation awareness, non existent ECS, not even a sufficiently powerful APU. No hunter killer mode, no auto tracking, no panoramic sight and worst, lack of independent sights and sensors for commander and gunner. 

1A45 FCS of your 90S and M version is just a basic FCS. It is at least a generaton behind Alkhalid's ISFCS-212B multi mode FCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> Unless we need it for fighting someone skilled with good equipment I don't think PLA will update own 96B to higher standards because really is no need.


In the future, there would be only ZTZ-99A and ZTQ-15 in PLA Army.


serenity said:


> However I think T90MS is very good. Russians upgraded every department and provide very fine tank. Also has better frontal armor angle which help from 20 degrees + where VT-4 start to pay no attention. I think strategy here is very different. It's very important for Chinese tank operators to make sure front engagement only and potentially this is a serious flaw for customers or if fighting in city areas. However city fighting means missiles from difficult angles only instead of penetrator. For desert or plain it is easy to keep everything front only.


China's tank industry doesn't take Russia's tanks seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Dazzler said:


> You answered your own question. All t-90s prior to MS had fundamental flaws. They had good armor, but bad electronics, FCS was basic, little if any situation awareness, non existent ECS, not even a sufficiently powerful APU. No hunter killer mode, no auto tracking, no panoramic sight and worst, lack of independent sights and sensors for commander and gunner.
> 
> 1A45 FCS of your 90S and M version is just a basic FCS. It is at least a generaton behind Alkhalid's ISFCS-212B multi mode FCS.


Does VT-4 lacks side armour?


----------



## Dazzler

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Does VT-4 lacks side armour?



On the contrary, side armor is thickened.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## serenity

LKJ86 said:


> In the future, there would be only ZTZ-99A and ZTQ-15 in PLA Army.
> 
> China's tank industry doesn't take Russia's tanks seriously.



We will still have 96B until fifth generation or Chinese fourth generation come out. Because we learned from the Russian philosophy then realized western tank philosophy has advantage in protection and is important. Also 99A still come from Russian philosophy even if every part is more modern and has more modern equipment. Russian still want T34 victory strategy and have thousands of tanks go into battle. We still use their idea of choosing automatic loader and smaller lighter tank to travel in different surface and run faster and more distance. They now plan to go into Armata which is new philosophy and can be called the fifth generation. Chinese will probably also follow because unmanned is smart idea and their design is actually very good. Can equip easily with high caliber gun and have excellent space for balance machinery.



Dazzler said:


> On the contrary, side armor is thickened.



VT-4 has better side armor compared to 96B but still very weak. Cannot stand any hits from tanks or missiles. For penetrator round, definitely no any benefit to make it thicker because it is going to go through anyway. So Chinese tank philosophy for side armor is just enough to stop heavy rifle and some smaller caliber fighting vehicle guns. For penetrator round unless you want to have 80 tonne tank forget about side protection, and for missiles you use something like GL5 or Russian and Israeli defense systems. Korean K2 also has one.


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> We will still have 96B until fifth generation or Chinese fourth generation come out. Because we learned from the Russian philosophy then realized western tank philosophy has advantage in protection and is important. Also 99A still come from Russian philosophy even if every part is more modern and has more modern equipment. Russian still want T34 and have thousands of tanks go into battle.
> 
> 
> 
> VT-4 has better side armor compared to 96B but still very weak. Cannot stand any hits from tanks or missiles. For penetrator round, definitely no any benefit to make it thicker because it is going to go through anyway. So Chinese tank philosophy for side armor is just enough to stop heavy rifle and some smaller caliber fighting vehicle guns. For penetrator round unless you want to have 80 tonne tank forget about side protection, and for missiles you use something like GL5 or Russian and Israeli defense systems. Korean K2 also has one.


Just forget Russia's tanks, and pay more attention to those of USA and Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

Dazzler said:


> Mate, seriously, if you don't know. Don't throw arrows in the air. MS is what Al-khalid was 15 years ago. Do some reading before commenting.



Is true that Alkhalid is more expensive then VT-4 and Ukraine can't deliver the engine?


----------



## serenity

LKJ86 said:


> Just forget Russia's tanks, and pay more attention to those of USA and Germany.



Russia's older tanks are not good for comparing with best ones anymore of course. But they are first to introduce new philosophy of tank design with Armata. So why forget? This is interesting. USA and Germany actually their tank philosophy with Leopard 2a1 to a4 is too bad and M1 as well. Same with Challenger. European best tank is 2A7 and Leclerc with smarter way of protecting tank. M1 and Challenger actually today is hopeless. Of course all the NATO tanks still have very excellent firepower. Definitely I suspect we are behind here along with Russians. Japan and Korea both go with 55 length barel guns from Germany and manufacture themselves. M1 may upgrade to take those in future but American shells are still the most dangerous.

USA and Germany start generation four design with Leopard and Abram and improved by English armor technology then keep upgrading everything but the basis is now outdated. Of course this doesn't mean I am saying they are bad tanks in fact still compete with best in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SD 10

Tumba said:


> Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...
> 
> Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...


ok.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kongn

waz said:


> It's better than the T-90M proryv 3.
> With all things being equal parts wise the VT-4 still outweighs the T-90MS, where do you think that extra weight comes, it's armour.
> The VT-4 does have an active protection system with a demonstration video on this very thread!
> The VT-4's mobility is far superior with a more powerful engine, and if it comes with the 1500HP engine then this already wide gap will be even wider.
> Fire power is about the same yes.
> Battle field management systems aren slightly better on the VT-4.









T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.


----------



## IblinI

Tumba said:


> Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...
> 
> Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...


Then why are you paying a visit here?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Tumba said:


> Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...
> 
> Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...


I thought you were talking about India...

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## Tumba

kongn said:


> T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
> Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
> Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.


Arjun MK1 has time and over again shown its superiority over T-90 Bhishma...
T-90 MS will never be more superior to Arjun MK1A or Mk2


----------



## maverick1977

kongn said:


> T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
> Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
> Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.


how did u reach a conclusion on chinese engine and fallback to 900HP engine ?? any anecdotal evidence or just a figurative speech..

lets be objective here

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kongn

Dazzler said:


> You answered your own question. All t-90s prior to MS had fundamental flaws. They had good armor, but bad electronics, FCS was basic, little if any situation awareness, non existent ECS, not even a sufficiently powerful APU. No hunter killer mode, no auto tracking, no panoramic sight and worst, lack of independent sights and sensors for commander and gunner.
> 
> 1A45 FCS of your 90S and M version is just a basic FCS. It is at least a generaton behind Alkhalid's ISFCS-212B multi mode FCS.



Al khalid has better firepower than bhisma its true despite basically same gun and autoloader.But bhisma has much better armour than khalid which has incorrect turret shaping and horrible ERA coverage.Al khalid still has all the flaws of T-series such as limited carousel autoloader and ammo problem.T-90 bhisma is also cheap and thus allows us to induct thousands of them.Its missile firing ability is particularly important to take out targets at range.Given the hype,al khalid has done only slightly better than project arjun with its poor production numbers and high cost.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1


----------



## serenity

kongn said:


> T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
> Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
> Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.



What? T90MS only has 1130hp engine. VT-4 will most likely have 1200hp to 1300hp not 1500hp yes this is right. But trust me the engine is fine and actually quite reliable. The real problem before more than 10 years ago was the transmission quality and now mostly fixed. Not sure if transmission is perfect for 1500hp engines and up but for 1300hp and 52 tonne VT-4 is no problem hahaha. power per tonne is actually slightly better on VT-4 when comparing theoretical performance specification.

Both tanks have similar equipment level but I think MS does have better armor arangement pattern and cover but 100% sure FY4 is much better than any Russian reaction armor today. Doesn't matter of course you will think it's not. From front, you will never penetrate VT-4. Please try with everything you have it will be so funny when sometime in future these tanks fight. I really hope they do.

Everything else you mention with MS is same on VT-4 including laser warning, automatic tracing, satellite, sealed compartment for shells.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IblinI

kongn said:


> You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.


It sounds like the Defense procurement is like grabbing a cabbage from the supermarket.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kongn

maverick1977 said:


> how did u reach a conclusion on chinese engine and fallback to 900HP engine ?? any anecdotal evidence or just a figurative speech..
> 
> lets be objective here



Chinese engine has failed in tests before and in other trials.Lets see how it works in the field with PA,especially in the desert.Chinese are new to engine making and are not known for their quality.Fingers crossed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick1977

Tumba said:


> Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...
> 
> Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...




lol, go to HIT industries, they have been working since 1960s..

i love indians claimants just out of thin air come up with assertions about pakistan. 
a phenomenon of pakiatanis tum choti nation ho, kahan hamaray equal in what we do “ 
havent u learned the surprises yet?? rearing your heard out of covers to talk big ??

Reactions: Like Like:
 7


----------



## serenity

kongn said:


> Al khalid has better firepower than bhisma its true despite basically same gun and autoloader.But bhisma has much better armour than khalid which has incorrect turret shaping and horrible ERA coverage.Al khalid still has all the flaws of T-series such as limited carousel autoloader and ammo problem.T-90 bhisma is also cheap and thus allows us to induct thousands of them.Its missile firing ability is particularly important to take out targets at range.Given the hype,al khalid has done only slightly better than project arjun with its poor production numbers and high cost.



AK1 is actually quite poorly designed for protection and carry over weakness of autoloader design too. Missile firing ability can be used for many other fighting vehicles too so Bhisma is not just for this. It's actually still highly dangerous tank in this region because it is not most advanced level. It is for numbers and can fight all the 1970s to 2000s tanks which still is majority in this region. So unless comparing with top tanks modern ones and versions it is still very good.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kongn

serenity said:


> What? T90MS only has 1130hp engine. VT-4 will most likely have 1200hp to 1300hp not 1500hp yes this is right. But trust me the engine is fine and actually quite reliable. The real problem before more than 10 years ago was the transmission quality and now mostly fixed. Not sure if transmission is perfect for 1500hp engines and up but for 1300hp and 52 tonne VT-4 is no problem hahaha. power per tonne is actually slightly better on VT-4 when comparing theoretical performance specification.
> 
> Both tanks have similar equipment level but I think MS does have better armor arangement pattern and cover but 100% sure FY4 is much better than any Russian reaction armor today. Doesn't matter of course you will think it's not. From front, you will never penetrate VT-4. Please try with everything you have it will be so funny when sometime in future these tanks fight. I really hope they do.
> 
> Everything else you mention with MS is same on VT-4 including laser warning, automatic tracing, satellite, sealed compartment for shells.



I meant VT-4 has 1300 HP engine.But MS is lighter.Lets see how 1300 HP engine performs.Can't pass judgement now.The desert is a tough environment.FY4 better than relikt is a tall claim thats all i will say.
I hope they don't fight.But i'm interested in IA's response.


----------



## serenity

kongn said:


> Chinese engine has failed in tests before and in other trials.Lets see how it works in the field with PA,especially in the desert.Chinese are new to engine making and are not known for their quality.Fingers crossed.



This stopped being accurate around 2008. It's already 12 years after. Even in 2008 the problems in Chinese own performance torture tests was mostly in transmission. The reports showed some engine troubles but you forgot important context where in these heat trial torture tests also American, European, Russian tanks always experienced some percentage of engine trouble. That is like saying rest of you can fail 20% of time in torture test but China must achieve 0% failure. In fact engine troubles didn't exist. Transmission however was different and had many issues. But this is 2008 reports and around that time. Then years later they keep saying they have improved transmission by wide margins.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hussain0216

Tumba said:


> Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...
> 
> Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...



This is why India was humiliated and out thought in February 2019

There are detailed threads on AK and AK1 (AK2 is still in development, if it was a simple purchase it wouldn't take us this long to get it ready)

The delusions of grandeur amongst Indians has made war more likely because in their minds super duper vedic technology like Tejas and Arjunk will overcome everything

*We are hoping to spring some surprises on them*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ARMalik

kongn said:


> Chinese engine has failed in tests before and in other trials.Lets see how it works in the field with PA,especially in the desert.Chinese are new to engine making and are not known for their quality.Fingers crossed.



Oh God, not you again. Stop derailing this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kongn

serenity said:


> AK1 is actually quite poorly designed for protection and carry over weakness of autoloader design too. Missile firing ability can be used for many other fighting vehicles too so Bhisma is not just for this. It's actually still highly dangerous tank in this region because it is not most advanced level. It is for numbers and can fight all the 1970s to 2000s tanks which still is majority in this region. So unless comparing with top tanks modern ones and versions it is still very good.



What you are saying is correct both bhisma and khalid are previous century tanks.,but this is the wrong place to say this.Edit the first line before the fanboys come out in force.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

kongn said:


> I meant VT-4 has 1300 HP engine.But MS is lighter.Lets see how 1300 HP engine performs.Can't pass judgement now.The desert is a tough environment.FY4 better than relikt is a tall claim thats all i will say.
> I hope they don't fight.But i'm interested in IA's response.



VT-4 is 52 tonne and MS is 48 tonne. VT-4 is 1300hp MS is 1130hp NOT 1300hp! That shows power per tonne for VT-4 is 25hp/tonne compared to MS which has just under 24hp/tonne. Therefore it is not accurate like you said where T90MS is much better power per tonne in fact it is about the same. Now for quality and reliability, neither can comment. FY4 I have read some Chinese leak material that make it seem very comparable to best Russian and Ukrainian types. It is already older now and can be replaced if customers want but yeah we cannot really comment for certain.

Why hope they don't fight? We all talk so much about these things let's hope they do and then we will see what is just talk and what proves to be really good performance for the money.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IblinI

Tumba said:


> Chinese pla is without any solid support stationed against India in occupied Tibbet what strategy chinese can execute as in long drawn war it’s imminent chinese pla will not have continued supply to its frontier troops... with one child policy the famous human wave tactic is long dead for pla


Don't waste our time. @waz

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

VT-4 purchase by Pakistan army I said years ago. Dazzler I remember disagree with me and convinced Pakistan army will buy something else and develop own designs and how VT-4 is very flawed in some different ways. Of course no way you can buy perfect tank for export price of $5M each. Maybe Korean K2 for middle weight or Leopard a7 for heavy and Japanese tank 10 for light weight are best in most regard. But export price will be between $15M to $20M each with similar level of training and support.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

IblinI said:


> Don't waste our time. @waz





serenity said:


> VT-4 purchase by Pakistan army I said years ago. Dazzler I remember disagree with me and convinced Pakistan army will buy something else and develop own designs and how VT-4 is very flawed in some different ways. Of course no way you can buy perfect tank for export price of $5M each. Maybe Korean K2 for middle weight or Leopard a7 for heavy and Japanese tank 10 for light weight are best in most regard. But export price will be between $15M to $20M each with similar level of training and support.


Don't make our Indian friends so desperate...


----------



## serenity

kongn said:


> What you are saying is correct both bhisma and khalid are previous century tanks.,but this is the wrong place to say this.Edit the first line before the fanboys come out in force.



Don't worry I don't care and it is true anyway and easy to show. In fact even today I think Chinese tank designs are quite flawed due to autoloader using the Soviet style rather than what ZTQ-15 uses now. Anyway it is too late to change and apply the lessons until new generation tanks. Anyway the numbers of tanks is very important and lucky for PLA we have shit side armor but thousands of tanks in every direction so anyone wants to shoot the side will be quite lucky.



kongn said:


> I didn't say t90ms has better power per tonne,i said 'mobility is largely equal' which it is as difference very marginal.
> I don't think chinese shit is cheap at all,top of the line chinese tanks like type-99 will be formidable.But yes chinese tank industry cant be expected to have same maturity as the russians who have been tank pioneers for a hundred years.The chinese will catch up no doubt with better funding,but wont happen overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Came accross this,just shows you the innovativeness of russian designers to think of something like this in 1980s.Armata is a scaled down modernized version of this.



Yes I agree. I think MS and VT-4 mobility range and acceleration all quite similar. Honestly it is so close they really doesn't matter much. But Russians are definitely tank experts even today. We cannot fairly compare their cold war philosophy of design today so I think the other guys are being unfair. Still we inherit some bad designs for 2020 which only new light tank 15 has changed. By now Russian school is playing with Armata and due to finances they are slow to introduce and sort production problems out. Anyway I think our army is too poor after spedning everything on navy and airforce and space. The government just says have certainty land war is too easy for China but we cannot compare with USA in navy or airforce so desperately need to improve there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

kongn said:


> T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
> Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
> Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.



No it doesn't have better geometry, both have a low silhouette and the VT-4 borrows also from western designs, the T-90MS had a dated design from three decades back, itself based on the T-72.
The VT4 also has receivers and i've already written about the defencive systems.
No firepower is not better, the guns are around the same and the VT-4 comes with the *DTC125 round which is able to penetrate 750 millimeters at 2km*, and is touted as good by western experts.
Optics are similar but electronic systems on the VT-4 are better.
Mobility is not "largely" equal, even with the T-90MS being lighter. *The horse power to ton ratio is better in the VT-4 for the 1300HP, and for the 1500HP is it far greater. *
The Chinese engine is working properly and passed with flying colours under severe heat and sand filled conditions. Stop writing silly things about Chinese reliability, _this seems to be your default option when you run out of things to write about._

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Tumba said:


> Arjun MK1 has time and over again shown its superiority over T-90 Bhishma...
> T-90 MS will never be more superior to Arjun MK1A or Mk2


A fukin piece of shit leopard copy assembled in india, plagued by design flaws, spare issues, obsolete with only 125 produced most of which are grounded.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## princefaisal

AhmAd IbrAhim in his twitter account informed that Pakistan, reportedly, has purchased 300 VT-4 MBTs from #Norinco in a deal worth ~$1 Billion.Is it true?


----------



## serenity

aliaselin said:


> Why? Why some people here believe a country with low GDP, low input into sciense and technology can develop something good? Are they fortunate enough to get something better than others for free?



South Africa is not so backwards in science and technology or education in fact it is quite good. They also have quite mature and specialist industry but yes I doubt it is that much better and it is certainly much more expensive. I can understand a simple technology like these artillery can easily be made to be better and better just depends what you need and what you can pay. This is quite insulting without being asked for because they did not say anything and your point is inaccurate anyway.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> A fukin piece of shit leopard copy assembled in india, plagued by design flaws, spare issues, obsolete with only 125 produced most of which are grounded.



India will continue to work on Arjun and to be honest it is quite difficult to produce all this alone for first time. We will see in future how successful the program is with Indian army using the second version. They already showed in trial it is quite good, better than Bhsima and actually it is possible for it to be a very good tank. It is however very expensive since development costs are also considered. Not same level tank though because Arjun 2 is heavy weight and VT-4 is light to medium weight and Russian ones are light weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## aliaselin

serenity said:


> South Africa is not so backwards in science and technology or education in fact it is quite good.


How could？ What the ranking of SA on Nature index? Have you done any science? Have you read any patent or paper done in SA? If not, how could you prove they are good?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

serenity said:


> Not same level tank though because Arjun 2 is heavy weight and VT-4 is light to medium weight and Russian ones are light weight.



VT-4 would be medium i.e. anything above 50 tons. Anything above 60 would be heavy. You have the M1A2C crossing 70 tons!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zulfiqar

To any stupid Indian blogger cum "analyst" that thinks that AK can't cross water obstacles.

This is an ancient 90s/early 2000s video about baseline AK. Watch from 4 min onwards. Much has changed since then.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

maverick1977 said:


> how did u reach a conclusion on chinese engine and fallback to 900HP engine ?? any anecdotal evidence or just a figurative speech..
> 
> lets be objective here


He is usual Indian Idiot who is comparing Provy-3 [which India is not getting but T-90MS] with VT-4 ....

secondly without any shame he is intruding into the thread which is not related to Russian T-90 tanks latest version or with Indian inferiority ..... but as it is too much for him get ignored so acting as attention seeking w.h.o.r.e .....



Zulfiqar said:


> To any stupid Indian blogger cum "analyst" that thinks that AK can't cross water obstacles.


its not that they don't know they know it very well but invent lies to satisfy themselves and their followers .....

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## waz

HRK said:


> He is usual Indian Idiot who is comparing Provy-3 [which India is not getting but T-90MS] with VT-4 ....
> 
> secondly without any shame he is intruding into the thread which is not related to Russian T-90 tanks latest version or with Indian inferiority ..... but as it is too much for him get ignored so acting as attention seeking w.h.o.r.e .....



Pity he couldn't answer some of the points put to him especially regarding mobility and armour. He copped out and went down the well trodden path of many Indian trolls i.e. Chinese stuff is bad/sucks/quality is terrible etc. 
Anyway he is gone and you're right about him hilariously discussing a tank that India isn't even getting.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ark_Angel

waz said:


> Yes, the T-90S wasn’t tested though, considered I believe.


Negative Tested by PA. Where? That is a question only a few know the answer to.



princefaisal said:


> AhmAd IbrAhim in his twitter account informed that Pakistan, reportedly, has purchased 300 VT-4 MBTs from #Norinco in a deal worth ~$1 Billion.Is it true?


Ahmed Ibrahim tweets after reading stuff From Defence.Pk.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## waz

Ark_Angel said:


> Negative Tested by PA. Where? That is a question only a few know the answer to



That's true, I didn't want to say anything I couldn't back up, because I was also engaging an Indian poster at the time.
It would be eye opening to find out that the T-90 was also tested.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

Ark_Angel said:


> Negative Tested by PA. Where? That is a question only a few know the answer to.


Two theories ...

- T-90 was negotiated but the discussion fell through due to no agreement from Pakistan for some of the clauses/ conditions because of this we never reached to the stage of testing

- T-90 was tested in Russia [though I have doubt about this theory/rumor]

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Blacklight

waz said:


> That's true, I didn't want to say anything I couldn't back up, because I was also engaging an Indian poster at the time.
> *It would be eye opening to find out that the T-90 was also tested.*


2018 Alabino, Moscow.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Readerdefence

LKJ86 said:


> The engine of ZTZ-99 is 1200 HP, while that of ZTZ-99A is 1500 HP.


Hi thanks for the reply so what PA is getting 1300/1500 
Thank you


----------



## Zulfiqar

HRK said:


> Two theories ...
> 
> - T-90 was negotiated but the discussion fell through due to no agreement from Pakistan from some of the clauses/ conditions because of this we never reached to stage of testing
> 
> - T-90 was tested in Russia [though I have doubt about this theory/rumor]



Egypt or Iraq (just throwing it out there)?


----------



## Tipu7

Ark_Angel said:


> Negative Tested by PA. Where? That is a question only a few know the answer to.
> 
> 
> Ahmed Ibrahim tweets after reading stuff From Defence.Pk.


I am currently engaged in _protecting_ VT4 from Gulalai Ismail and Ahmad Waqas Goraya... Both are cursing Army for spending billions on weapons, while as per them '*Rest of World is reducing defense spending'* for fighting Corona crisis.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## ziaulislam

HRK said:


> Two theories ...
> 
> - T-90 was negotiated but the discussion fell through due to no agreement from Pakistan for some of the clauses/ conditions because of this we never reached to the stage of testing
> 
> - T-90 was tested in Russia [though I have doubt about this theory/rumor]


or t90 was not up to it to begin with it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

Zulfiqar said:


> Egypt or Iraq (just throwing it out there)?


could not say about Egypt or Iraq I posted the *rumor *which came to my knowledge ....



ziaulislam said:


> or t90 was not up to it to begin with it


interest was genuine in fact in one interview of an official who was part of visiting Delegation to Russia hinted the purchase of multiple batches over the period .... but as per @Arsalan our discussion for T-90 was facing some issues regarding import of tank ammunition and spares parts [If I am not wrong]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

HRK said:


> could not say about Egypt or Iraq I posted the *rumor *which came to my knowledge ....
> 
> 
> interest was genuine in fact in one interview of an official who was part of visiting Delegation to Russia hinted the purchase of multiple batches over the period .... but as per @Arsalan our discussion for T-90 was facing some issues regarding import of tank ammunition and spares parts [If I am not wrong]




What I've heard is that when we intended to purchase it , we just had a plan to have Confirmatory Trials for the same since it's being used by adversary in almost similar conditions as of us. Heard that politics also played out somewhere as it was not to the likeness of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Tipu7 said:


> I am currently engaged in _protecting_ VT4 from Gulalai Ismail and Ahmad Waqas Goraya... Both are cursing Army for spending billions on weapons, while as per them '*Rest of World is reducing defense spending'* for fighting Corona crisis.


Say to them that PA needs Towed Howitzers and we need to buy them ASAP



PanzerKiel said:


> we intended to purchase it


So does that mean T90 in our eyes was better than VT-4?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

kongn said:


> What you are saying is correct both bhisma and khalid are previous century tanks.,but this is the wrong place to say this.Edit the first line before the fanboys come out in force.


yup poorly designed, with "poor" engine and poor "autoloader", poor 48 tones "armour"..
seem poor is now a generic term..

e.g 
the alkahlid poor "engine" 1200hp is lower than "superb" t90 800hp engine and so on..
we all remember raptor of the east and bison of India..
honestly i wont believe anything that comes from india after seeing how poorly su 30 performed

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

ziaulislam said:


> the alkahlid poor "engine" 1200hp is lower than "superb" t90 800hp engine


and Torque?


----------



## Cookie Monster

Dazzler said:


> I see ERA on the hull, roof, turret frontal ark, and some coverage at sides. Production of AK-1 will continue until 220 units are delivered.


After those 220 AK1s are delivered...is that when AK2 will start going into production? Of course no one can know the exact date and time...I'm just asking a general question out of curiosity.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Cookie Monster said:


> After those 220 AK1s are delivered...is that when AK2 will start going into production? Of course no one can know the exact date and time...I'm just asking a general question out of curiosity.


Yep that's the idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Lord Of Gondor

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> and Torque?


http://www.malyshevplant.com/en/content/6td
Around 3200N-m according to this:





Very similar to the ~3100N-m developed by the T-72 engine(V46-6) across the border.
Unusually it is also a 2 Stroke motor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Lord Of Gondor said:


> http://www.malyshevplant.com/en/content/6td
> Around 3200N-m according to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very similar to the ~3100N-m developed by the T-72 engine(V46-6) across the border.
> Unusually it is also a 2 Stroke motor.


2385 ft PD of torque

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umar Nazir

Tanks play secondary role in today war. As Pakistan has limited resources , so money should have been spend on Fighter Jets and modern Air Defence System. Pak army have to admit that in today world, Its Air force which is not only the primary force but also lead the war, so more resources must be spend on Air force

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

Don't forget the tank ammo debacle. IA has a huge issue in hands. More on this later.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## maverick1977

Dazzler said:


> Don't forget the tank ammo debacle. IA has a huge issue in hands. More on this later.


 Thats a news. looking forward to hearing more on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

maverick1977 said:


> Thats a news. looking forward to hearing more on it.



It's so hilarious you'll laugh all night

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakFactor

Dazzler said:


> It's so hilarious you'll laugh all night



Please do tell and copy me in it also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick1977

Dazzler said:


> It's so hilarious you'll laugh all night



u got me hooked. i am going to keep on refreshing my screen.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

They have insufficient quantity of ammo.
Then, the ones they have are mostly dude, the one made in OFB lack quality. The ones they imported from IMI were good but the company got blacklist so they don't have those anymore.

Wait, funniest part is yet to come.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Cookie Monster

Dazzler said:


> Don't forget the tank ammo debacle. IA has a huge issue in hands. More on this later.





maverick1977 said:


> Thats a news. looking forward to hearing more on it.





Dazzler said:


> It's so hilarious you'll laugh all night


I vaguely remember something along those lines in some video about Arjun(or was it T90 Bhishma? Can't recall bcuz it's been a while)...
...the video was from either Matsimus or Red Effect...
I think "Mango" was mentioned and that its armor penetration is not really that effective on modern tanks...the guy went more in detail I just can't remember it at the moment.

In any case plz do tag me when u share it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

Ark_Angel said:


> Arabs are funding Sh*t at the moment for Pakistani Defence forces. Even the 2.5+2.5 Bn from KSA &UAE came with stringent strategic conditions which I can't disclose here. Pakistani Kids need to stop fantasising about Arabs Armring Pakistan to the Teeth to make it its Militray Muscle. Those days are long gone and Pakistan has been replaced by Egypt as the future Military Arab Bulwark against Non Arab Adversaries, But Egyptians play it Smart, Rip off the Arabs while stay on the side lines in Yemen. ZERO Ground Troops comitted for Yemen while at the same time Stationing One Division Plus Troops in Jeddah not even Jizan who get paid by the Saudis all for doing nothing, 30 Bn Plus in Direct Contracts for the Egyptian Military all paid up by the Saudis and Emaratis(I am not even discussing the Economic Support that goes in Tens of Billions). For what? For Showing symbolically that We are with you in Operation Decisive Storm by Stationing Troops(non combat role), One Squadron of F-16s for Lobbing Bombs at Aden and Sana and a few ships in Non Combat role for the Saudi Eastern fleet. That's how you make money. Not by embarrassing your Allied by tabling resolution in Parliament and getting it rejected by a majority when they ask you for support in a Government to Government direct support.




Hi,

Well---pak military could have had the GCC front the bill for a permanent fully equipped strike force---air---navy---ground---armor---logistics---.

Pakistanis had NEWLY FOUND DEMOCRACY---they thought what better time to use it---. They showed it how it can be done against an eternal ally---and eternal benefactor---.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Dazzler

Cookie Monster said:


> I vaguely remember something along those lines in some video about Arjun(or was it T90 Bhishma? Can't recall bcuz it's been a while)...
> ...the video was from either Matsimus or Red Effect...
> I think "Mango" was mentioned and that its armor penetration is not really that effective on modern tanks...the guy went more in detail I just can't remember it at the moment.



Russians know how to milk Indians on defence purchases

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## bananarepublic

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Well---pak military could have had the GCC front the bill for a permanent fully equipped strike force---air---navy---ground---armor---logistics---.
> 
> Pakistanis had NEWLY FOUND DEMOCRACY---they thought what better time to use it---. They showed it how it can be done against an eternal ally---and eternal benefactor---.



You should've seen the condition of the nation at that time, 2 decades of internal turmoil had exhausted the people and they were in no inclination of support another "war".
You should've seen those times, it was a first where the " liberals" and "mullah" coming together and agreeing on something.
Neither the army nor the political parties were ready to face the outlash if they were to send troops.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bananarepublic said:


> You should've seen the condition of the nation at that time, 2 decades of internal turmoil had exhausted the people and they were in no inclination of support another "war".
> You should've seen those times, it was a first where the " liberals" and "mullah" coming together and agreeing on something.
> Neither the army nor the political parties were ready to face the outlash if they were to send troops.


I had the same views as yours, but @Ark_Angel made a very good point. It was one thing to not send troops to Yemen, but we unnecessarily created a public spectacle of the Nawaz Sharif government taking it to the National Assembly and formally passing a resolution against the Saudi/Emirati request.

Rebuking allies publicly in such a fashion was not the proper thing to do. The whole situation should have been handled privately and along the lines of the Egyptians.

It likely also did not help that it was the Nawaz Sharif led PMLN government, whom the Saudis had saved and allowed to reside in their country after Musharraf's coup, that led the spectacle of rebuking the Saudis and Emiratis.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Afv HIT should have made at home. They already had the Hamza MCV and it's sister LAVA program already running. 

For the AFV Europeans had better options. Best would be to make it at home.


----------



## Dazzler

So the story goes like this.

None of Indian mbts have effective apfsds ammo against the adversary. The best they have as of now is bm42 mango, the round is certified to achieve 430mm armor at 0 degrees. This is not sufficient to penetrate ERA equipped mbts.

Second, their mainstay t72 ajeya cannot fire the same apfsds as the t90s despite both having 125mm smoothbore. Sounds funny right, here is why.
T90s has 1a45 fcs that the t72 lacks. In fact, it has no fcs which makes firing the bm42 and Invar heat round difficult as values must be fed to fcc computer.

Third , they don't have DU rounds for any of their mbts. Arjun has a tiny apfsds that can barely achieve 300mm at 0 degrees
Don't forget the bursting barrels.

They think the MS, whenever it comes, will solve these issues but no order is placed and Russians have raised the price of MS. NOT to mention, they want separate contract for ammo as usual at higher price.

Nicely milked I say. @PakFactor

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
25


----------



## bananarepublic

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> I had the same views as yours, but @Ark_Angel made a very good point. It was one thing to not send troops to Yemen, but we unnecessarily created a public spectacle of the Nawaz Sharif government taking it to the National Assembly and formally passing a resolution against the Saudi/Emirati request.
> 
> Rebuking allies publicly in such a fashion was not the proper thing to do. The whole situation should have been handled privately and along the lines of the Egyptians.
> 
> It likely also did not help that it was the Nawaz Sharif led PMLN government, whom the Saudis had saved and allowed to reside in their country after Musharraf's coup, that led the spectacle of rebuking the Saudis and Emiratis.



Yes exactly, If we had quietly negotiated with the arabs and sent a few troops along with a PAF squadron(or let the arabs fund us for a new figbter) The public would've taken it more easily albeit with some opposition.
PMLN did blow it out of proportion (or maybe someone else did) either way we lost billions, nonetheless we cannot change the past and these kinds of decision making always comes with a democracy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

bananarepublic said:


> Yes exactly, If we had quietly negotiated with the arabs and sent a few troops along with a PAF squadron(or let the arabs fund us for a new figbter) The public would've taken it more easily albeit with some opposition.
> PMLN did blow it out of proportion (or maybe someone else did) either way we lost billions, nonetheless we cannot change the past and these kinds of decision making always comes with a democracy.


We have strong Iranian lobby.



MastanKhan said:


> Pakistanis had NEWLY FOUND DEMOCRACY---they thought what better time to use it---. They showed it how it can be done against an eternal ally---and eternal benefactor---.


We are known for shooting on our own foot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Dazzler said:


> apfsds


What Happened to that Domestic APFSDs Project we had ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Dr. Strangelove said:


> What Happened to that Domestic APFSDs Project we had ?



We have several

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## maverick1977

Dazzler said:


> They have insufficient quantity of ammo.
> Then, the ones they have are mostly dude, the one made in OFB lack quality. The ones they imported from IMI were good but the company got blacklist so they don't have those anymore.
> 
> Wait, funniest part is yet to come.


haha ! good.


Dazzler said:


> We have several


One i heard is called Naiza (spear) its a DU based APFSDS screaming at 1850meter/sec.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

bananarepublic said:


> Yes exactly, If we had quietly negotiated with the arabs and sent a few troops along with a *PAF squadron*(or let the arabs fund us for a new figbter)



Subsequently, something like this was resorted to.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Lord Of Gondor

Dazzler said:


> So the story goes like this.
> 
> None of Indian mbts have effective apfsds ammo against the adversary. The best they have as of now is bm42 mango, the round is certified to achieve 430mm armor at 0 degrees. This is not sufficient to penetrate ERA equipped mbts.
> 
> Second, their mainstay t72 ajeya cannot fire the same apfsds as the t90s despite both having 125mm smoothbore. Sounds funny right, here is why.
> T90s has 1a45 fcs that the t72 lacks. In fact, it has no fcs which makes firing the bm42 and Invar heat round difficult as values must be fed to fcc computer.
> 
> Third , they don't have DU rounds for any of their mbts. Arjun has a tiny apfsds that can barely achieve 300mm at 0 degrees
> Don't forget the bursting barrels.
> 
> They think the MS, whenever it comes, will solve these issues but no order is placed and Russians have raised the price of MS. NOT to mention, they want separate contract for ammo as usual at higher price.
> 
> Nicely milked I say. @PakFactor



The Army has one of the highest stocks of Cannon Launched Missiles in the World. The Range is more than twice that of an AP Round and much better against moving targets.
The AP rounds will be secondary to this capability.
T-72(1000 numbers that are being upgraded) have the capability to fire all that the T-90 can, including missiles.
India also emphasises on localisation so the costs are definitely more but on the other hand more jobs here and easier to manage the logistics.


----------



## bananarepublic

PanzerKiel said:


> Subsequently, something like this was resorted to.



Dammit then where are the eurofighters funded by arab shekels in PAF colours

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kongn

waz said:


> No it doesn't have better geometry, both have a low silhouette and the VT-4 borrows also from western designs, the T-90MS had a dated design from three decades back, itself based on the T-72.
> The VT4 also has receivers and i've already written about the defencive systems.
> No firepower is not better, the guns are around the same and the VT-4 comes with the *DTC125 round which is able to penetrate 750 millimeters at 2km*, and is touted as good by western experts.
> Optics are similar but electronic systems on the VT-4 are better.
> Mobility is not "largely" equal, even with the T-90MS being lighter. *The horse power to ton ratio is better in the VT-4 for the 1300HP, and for the 1500HP is it far greater. *
> The Chinese engine is working properly and passed with flying colours under severe heat and sand filled conditions. Stop writing silly things about Chinese reliability, _this seems to be your default option when you run out of things to write about._



Turret sloping is better in T-90MS.Infact its near perfect.The ERA placing is excellent and relikt is second only to afghanit.Though performance of FY-4 is unknown.
T-90ms has almost nothing in common with T-72.Whole turret is different.
T-90MS can fire svinets with 700-750 mm at 2 km at 60 degrees stated.But the autoloader has been changed.Older T-90 and t-series autoloader can max accomodate 640 mm penetrator.Without a change in autoloader how can VT-4 fire DTC125 export variant?Maybe chinese members can shed info.
Electronics is better how?By which parameters?
Mobility is largely equal.The 1500 HP engine is still on paper,at 1300 HP its almost negligible difference between the 2.
Well time will tell on the engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Hopefully, PA will put ASELSAN made AKKOR PULAT type active 360 degrees protection systems, with both soft and hard kill capabilities against the incoming projectiles and threats, on these monsters...

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Ark_Angel

PanzerKiel said:


> What I've heard is that when we intended to purchase it , we just had a plan to have Confirmatory Trials for the same since it's being used by adversary in almost similar conditions as of us. Heard that politics also played out somewhere as it was not to the likeness of India.


Show Russians the Money and they will sell you everything. Ruskies don’t care about Politics anymore, they just go for where ever they can score a Good Buck. 
It wasn’t politics that I can assure you. 
If the Ruskies cared about Politics they wouldn’t have pitched their Front Line Combat A/C to PAF. T-90 deal was peanuts in front of that. PA went for the best machine. All trials conducted with full vigour and transparency(Indenters can always wield a certain amount of Influence as we see our Eastern Neighbour always handing out deals to the heaviest Briber-Even in the case for Rafales where the Numbers dropped to 36 from 118 while the cost remained more or less the same, Hire a good Financial Advisor from LSE or UC Berkeley he’ll tell you the numbers don’t add up. Call it off set or whatever, those who are into the business of Defence procurement know how much money can change hands for a deal. Ask the Indians who are based in Arab countries or those who are reps of Western Firms sitting in Arab countries pitching them Combat Equipment. Even their Royals take a cut. Fortunately the system of Pakistani Armed Forces is much transparent and fool proof. Hope it will remain the same. VT-4 outclassed T-90 in 7/10 categories. It will definitely add a major punch to our Armoured Corps while the Indian Armoured Regiments wait for their new TI sights which they burnt in the Heat of the desert during an Exercise(just a small example) 


Tipu7 said:


> I am currently engaged in _protecting_ VT4 from Gulalai Ismail and Ahmad Waqas Goraya... Both are cursing Army for spending billions on weapons, while as per them '*Rest of World is reducing defense spending'* for fighting Corona crisis.


Good Job! Keep it up we need more people like you on Twitter who can protect the National Narrative and Counter Propaganda as well as project National Resolve.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Mumm-Ra

PanzerKiel said:


> Subsequently, something like this was resorted to.



And it also involved some naval Assets as well. There were several naval aircrafts were also sent to help them

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Lord Of Gondor

Ark_Angel said:


> Show Russians the Money and they will sell you everything. Ruskies don’t care about Politics anymore, they just go for where ever they can score a Good Buck.
> It wasn’t politics that I can assure you.
> If the Ruskies cared about Politics they wouldn’t have pitched their Front Line Combat A/C to PAF. T-90 deal was peanuts in front of that. PA went for the best machine. All trials conducted with full vigour and transparency(Indenters can always wield a certain amount of Influence as we see our Eastern Neighbour always handing out deals to the heaviest Briber-Even in the case for Rafales where the Numbers dropped to 36 from 118 while the cost remained more or less the same, Hire a good Financial Advisor from LSE or UC Berkeley he’ll tell you the numbers don’t add up. Call it off set or whatever, those who are into the business of Defence procurement know how much money can change hands for a deal. Ask the Indians who are based in Arab countries or those who are reps of Western Firms sitting in Arab countries pitching them Combat Equipment. Even their Royals take a cut. Fortunately the system of Pakistani Armed Forces is much transparent and fool proof. Hope it will remain the same. VT-4 outclassed T-90 in 7/10 categories. It will definitely add a major punch to our Armoured Corps while the Indian Armoured Regiments wait for their new TI sights which they burnt in the Heat of the desert during an Exercise(just a small example)


Your knowledge on Indian procurement system is amusing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kongn

Dazzler said:


> So the story goes like this.
> 
> None of Indian mbts have effective apfsds ammo against the adversary. The best they have as of now is bm42 mango, the round is certified to achieve 430mm armor at 0 degrees. This is not sufficient to penetrate ERA equipped mbts.
> 
> Second, their mainstay t72 ajeya cannot fire the same apfsds as the t90s despite both having 125mm smoothbore. Sounds funny right, here is why.
> T90s has 1a45 fcs that the t72 lacks. In fact, it has no fcs which makes firing the bm42 and Invar heat round difficult as values must be fed to fcc computer.
> 
> Third , they don't have DU rounds for any of their mbts. Arjun has a tiny apfsds that can barely achieve 300mm at 0 degrees
> Don't forget the bursting barrels.
> 
> They think the MS, whenever it comes, will solve these issues but no order is placed and Russians have raised the price of MS. NOT to mention, they want separate contract for ammo as usual at higher price.
> 
> Nicely milked I say. @PakFactor



Mango is the standard round with 460mm penetration.Its not sufficient to penetrate frontal armour at max ranges of only khalid and t-80UD.All the rest of PA not a problem.Its a cheap round though obsolete.The israeli rounds have around 500 mm.Main attack round is invar with 25000 in stock.We already have a new round with 520-550 mm which passed trials and now entered production,covid permitting.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/citie...oming-up-with-new-project/article31101187.ece
Arjun already had 500 mm round and now new round is under work.

Ajeya can actually fire mango.And yes the 1000 upgraded ajeyas have israeli fire control system.Our main focus is fleet logistics and indigenization at this point.We are already making the barrels of both T-72 and T-90.We recently fully indigenized the engines,and are making a new engine.We use our own composite armour on T-90 turrets derived from arjun's kanchan.And we also have now no need to import kontakt-5 blocks either.





This will replace the older ERA blocks on upgraded T-72s.
New homemade cannon guided missile for tanks is almost ready,though its being amde for FRCV project and arjun mk2.We have also made our own remote control firing station.
https://defproac.com/?p=4372
Also bharatforge is to make a new gun for T-series and FRCV.We learnt our lesson with OFB .Private sector is in now.L and T delivered the K-9 vajras ahead of time.We also now use homemade mine ploughs.APU is also underway.
https://www.janes.com/article/93951/indian-army-seeks-tank-apus-from-local-producers

As for new APFSDS round,its already underway.This time to private players.600-800 mm target.













You are living in the past and behind the times.In 10 years the indian military industrial complex will have private players at its forefront.They have already started taking over in infantry equipment.Aerospace is going out of HAL which has now become assembler to private subcontractors.Artillery has been taken over by kalyani.The happy days of competing with OFB is over.

Now since this thread is about VT-4 if you want to continue i suggest a new thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## maverick1977

Hakikat ve Hikmet said:


> Hopefully, PA will put ASELSAN made AKKOR PULAT type active 360 degrees protection systems, with both soft and hard kill capabilities against the incoming projectiles and threats, on these monsters...




Is it spread charge counter measure with multiple pellets ?



kongn said:


> Mango is the standard round with 460mm penetration.Its not sufficient to penetrate frontal armour at max ranges of only khalid and t-80UD.All the rest of PA not a problem.Its a cheap round though obsolete.The israeli rounds have around 500 mm.Main attack round is invar with 25000 in stock.We already have a new round with 520-550 mm which passed trials and now entered production,covid permitting.
> https://www.thehindu.com/news/citie...oming-up-with-new-project/article31101187.ece
> Arjun already had 500 mm round and now new round is under work.
> 
> Ajeya can actually fire mango.And yes the 1000 upgraded ajeyas have israeli fire control system.Our main focus is fleet logistics and indigenization at this point.We are already making the barrels of both T-72 and T-90.We recently fully indigenized the engines,and are making a new engine.We use our own composite armour on T-90 turrets derived from arjun's kanchan.And we also have now no need to import kontakt-5 blocks either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will replace the older ERA blocks on upgraded T-72s.
> New homemade cannon guided missile for tanks is almost ready,though its being amde for FRCV project and arjun mk2.We have also made our own remote control firing station.
> https://defproac.com/?p=4372
> Also bharatforge is to make a new gun for T-series and FRCV.We learnt our lesson with OFB .Private sector is in now.L and T delivered the K-9 vajras ahead of time.We also now use homemade mine ploughs.APU is also underway.
> https://www.janes.com/article/93951/indian-army-seeks-tank-apus-from-local-producers
> 
> As for new APFSDS round,its already underway.This time to private players.600-800 mm target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in the past and behind the times.In 10 years the indian military industrial complex will have private players at its forefront.They have already started taking over in infantry equipment.Aerospace is going out of HAL which has now become assembler to private subcontractors.Artillery has been taken over by kalyani.The happy days of competing with OFB is over.
> 
> Now since this thread is about VT-4 if you want to continue i suggest a new thread.




Interesting! Thanks for the input.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

maverick1977 said:


> Is it spread charge counter measure with multiple pellets ?
> .



Demo videos indicate the presence of proximity fuse, its probably, as per the vids, not pellet based.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Hakikat ve Hikmet said:


> Hopefully, PA will put ASELSAN made AKKOR PULAT type active 360 degrees protection systems, with both soft and hard kill capabilities against the incoming projectiles and threats, on these monsters...


Hopefully it makes it onto the AK2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick1977

PanzerKiel said:


> Demo videos indicate the presence of proximity fuse, its probably, as per the vids, not pellet based.




Damn, its hard to counter a projectile which is traveling at 1300+ meters per sec.. proximity makes sense, but headon and calculation when to explode must be based on early explosion and spraying the sharpnel at a wider area.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

maverick1977 said:


> Damn, its hard to counter a projectile which is traveling at 1300+ meters per sec.. proximity makes sense, but headon and calculation when to explode must be based on early explosion and spraying the sharpnel at a wider area.



Just saw another detailed vid, its proximity fuse and pellet / shrapnel based.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## PakFactor

Dazzler said:


> So the story goes like this.
> 
> None of Indian mbts have effective apfsds ammo against the adversary. The best they have as of now is bm42 mango, the round is certified to achieve 430mm armor at 0 degrees. This is not sufficient to penetrate ERA equipped mbts.
> 
> Second, their mainstay t72 ajeya cannot fire the same apfsds as the t90s despite both having 125mm smoothbore. Sounds funny right, here is why.
> T90s has 1a45 fcs that the t72 lacks. In fact, it has no fcs which makes firing the bm42 and Invar heat round difficult as values must be fed to fcc computer.
> 
> Third , they don't have DU rounds for any of their mbts. Arjun has a tiny apfsds that can barely achieve 300mm at 0 degrees
> Don't forget the bursting barrels.
> 
> They think the MS, whenever it comes, will solve these issues but no order is placed and Russians have raised the price of MS. NOT to mention, they want separate contract for ammo as usual at higher price.
> 
> Nicely milked I say. @PakFactor



Wow, that's a horrible way to get milked. No interoperability of rounds alone is a logistical headache for any army, but this takes it to another level.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hussain0216

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Yep that's the idea.



Will that be the end of AK1 production then?


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

PanzerKiel said:


> Just saw another detailed vid, its proximity fuse and pellet / shrapnel based.


Not getting fluent in Turkish is no option...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blacklight

Tipu7 said:


> I am currently engaged in _protecting_ VT4 from Gulalai Ismail and Ahmad Waqas Goraya... Both are cursing Army for spending billions on weapons, while as per them '*Rest of World is reducing defense spending'* for fighting Corona crisis.


Did you ask them: "When are you going to be kissed by corona" 

They are so shameless to actually come back and reply: "Corona Extra - half an hour ago"

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

kongn said:


> Turret sloping is better in T-90MS.Infact its near perfect.The ERA placing is excellent and relikt is second only to afghanit.Though performance of FY-4 is unknown.
> T-90ms has almost nothing in common with T-72.Whole turret is different.
> T-90MS can fire svinets with 700-750 mm at 2 km at 60 degrees stated.But the autoloader has been changed.Older T-90 and t-series autoloader can max accomodate 640 mm penetrator.Without a change in autoloader how can VT-4 fire DTC125 export variant?Maybe chinese members can shed info.
> Electronics is better how?By which parameters?
> Mobility is largely equal.The 1500 HP engine is still on paper,at 1300 HP its almost negligible difference between the 2.
> Well time will tell on the engine.



No it's turrent sloping is not "better" it's actually the same, I'm not sure what you mean by "perfect''.
The ERA on the VT-4 is well placed as well, attack angles covered and weak spots reinforced.
You also seem to talk about armour and then active protection in the same sentence, you're confusing yourself.
The performance of FY-4 is unknown is it? Maybe you should go to the Sino defence sites, it's undergone a great deal of testing.


The T-90MS design has everything in common with the T-72 this is a well known fact, even if you deny it;

*Another post-Soviet development with its root in the T-72 program is the T-90 main battle tank and its variants*

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2017/04/02/tankspotting-t-90as-donbass/

*(The T-90s is based off the Soviet-era T-72 tank design.) *

https://thediplomat.com/2016/02/will-iran-license-build-russias-t-90s-main-battle-tank/

The autoloader in both the VT-4 and type-99 have been completely overhauled and was one of the first things to happen, especially with the investments made by China in exploring new tank munitions. Of course it can fire the DTC125, are you telling me that the tank which has been put up for export for the last several years wouldn't come with it's said ammunition? Do you know that a newer round i.e. successor of the DTC125 is currently in development? Where are you getting all your information from?

*A new round is also in development for the export market based on technology from the current generation DTC125 round (which is rumored to penetrate 750 millimeters at the same range)*

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-selling-its-new-ztz-99-tank-anyone-buying-84876

The engine is not on 'paper', *where did you get this from?*

Do you know the type-99 drives with a 1500HP engine, a tank which the VT-4 borrows off heavily? The VT-4 has a 1300HP engine for sure, which tips mobility and speed heavily in its favour over the T-90MS i.e. power to ton.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Dazzler

kongn said:


> Mango is the standard round with 460mm penetration.Its not sufficient to penetrate frontal armour at max ranges of only khalid and t-80UD.All the rest of PA not a problem.Its a cheap round though obsolete.The israeli rounds have around 500 mm.Main attack round is invar with 25000 in stock.We already have a new round with 520-550 mm which passed trials and now entered production,covid permitting.
> https://www.thehindu.com/news/citie...oming-up-with-new-project/article31101187.ece
> Arjun already had 500 mm round and now new round is under work.
> 
> Ajeya can actually fire mango.And yes the 1000 upgraded ajeyas have israeli fire control system.Our main focus is fleet logistics and indigenization at this point.We are already making the barrels of both T-72 and T-90.We recently fully indigenized the engines,and are making a new engine.We use our own composite armour on T-90 turrets derived from arjun's kanchan.And we also have now no need to import kontakt-5 blocks either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will replace the older ERA blocks on upgraded T-72s.
> New homemade cannon guided missile for tanks is almost ready,though its being amde for FRCV project and arjun mk2.We have also made our own remote control firing station.
> https://defproac.com/?p=4372
> Also bharatforge is to make a new gun for T-series and FRCV.We learnt our lesson with OFB .Private sector is in now.L and T delivered the K-9 vajras ahead of time.We also now use homemade mine ploughs.APU is also underway.
> https://www.janes.com/article/93951/indian-army-seeks-tank-apus-from-local-producers
> 
> As for new APFSDS round,its already underway.This time to private players.600-800 mm target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in the past and behind the times.In 10 years the indian military industrial complex will have private players at its forefront.They have already started taking over in infantry equipment.Aerospace is going out of HAL which has now become assembler to private subcontractors.Artillery has been taken over by kalyani.The happy days of competing with OFB is over.
> 
> Now since this thread is about VT-4 if you want to continue i suggest a new thread.



None of these are in IA service. Some are just on paper. Arjuns 500 round is not certified kid go confirm. I have official Russian document that gives mangos range 430mm 0@ degrees.

IMI was blacklisted how can sell after that?

And plz bring something more credible than the Hindu



PakFactor said:


> Wow, that's a horrible way to get milked. No interoperability of rounds alone is a logistical headache for any army, but this takes it to another level.


They bought obsolete ammo at 400% of the original price. Invar heat and mango apfsds.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Tipu7

A comparison of performance between Oplot-T and VT-4 operated by Thailand. (Via friend from China) 

Basic:
-Oplot is lighter by 1 tonne.
-VT-4 has smaller profile.
-VT-4 has more powerful engine (in the case of Thailand).
-Oplot has higher off-road speed.

Firepower:
-VT-4 has stronger gun barrel.
-Oplot has better recoil.
-VT-4 has digital operated autoloader vs. older hydraulic controlled autoloader in Oplot.
-Oplot carries more ammunition.
-VT-4 can fire ammunitions at higher initial velocity.
-VT-4 has better accuracy and penetration
-Oplot has better tank launched missile
-Oplot's weapon station comes with stabilizer
-VT-4 has significantly better gunner's sight, main gun stabilizer, IR imaging, beam rider and laser range finder.
-VT-4 has auto target tracking, Oplot does not.
-VT-4 has auto gun calibration, Oplot does not.
-VT-4 has full electric gun control system.

Protection:
-Oplot has better protection from all aspects except sides of turret.
-VT-4 has better laser warning system (provides more details).
-Oplot has lower heat signature in terms of engine compartment.

Engine:
-Oplot has smaller engine and lighter mass.
-VT-4 can withstand higher torque.
-VT-4 has more efficient motor oil consumption.
-VT-4 has better gearbox.
-VT-4 has better turning capability.
-VT-4 has integrated power package, which can be replaced more easily during maintenance.

Motion:
-Oplot has better suspension system.

Information:
-VT-4 has significantly more advanced information management system and guidance. 
-VT-4 has milliwave IFF
-VT-4 has better situation awareness with more cameras and multifunction display.

Overall, in case of Thailand which operates both tanks, VT4 is better tank.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
23


----------



## Joe Shearer

serenity said:


> AK1 is actually quite poorly designed for protection and carry over weakness of autoloader design too. Missile firing ability can be used for many other fighting vehicles too so Bhisma is not just for this. It's actually still highly dangerous tank in this region because it is not most advanced level. It is for numbers and can fight all the 1970s to 2000s tanks which still is majority in this region. So unless comparing with top tanks modern ones and versions it is still very good.



I appreciate your frankness and objectivity. It is refreshing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Tipu7 said:


> A comparison of performance between Oplot-T and VT-4 operated by Thailand. (Via friend from China)
> 
> Basic:
> -Oplot is lighter by 1 tonne.
> -VT-4 has smaller profile.
> -VT-4 has more powerful engine (in the case of Thailand).
> -Oplot has higher off-road speed.
> 
> Firepower:
> -VT-4 has stronger gun barrel.
> -Oplot has better recoil.
> -VT-4 has digital operated autoloader vs. older hydraulic controlled autoloader in Oplot.
> -Oplot carries more ammunition.
> -VT-4 can fire ammunitions at higher initial velocity.
> -VT-4 has better accuracy and penetration
> -Oplot has better tank launched missile
> -Oplot's weapon station comes with stabilizer
> -VT-4 has significantly better gunner's sight, main gun stabilizer, IR imaging, beam rider and laser range finder.
> -VT-4 has auto target tracking, Oplot does not.
> -VT-4 has auto gun calibration, Oplot does not.
> -VT-4 has full electric gun control system.
> 
> Protection:
> -Oplot has better protection from all aspects except sides of turret.
> -VT-4 has better laser warning system (provides more details).
> -Oplot has lower heat signature in terms of engine compartment.
> 
> Engine:
> -Oplot has smaller engine and lighter mass.
> -VT-4 can withstand higher torque.
> -VT-4 has more efficient motor oil consumption.
> -VT-4 has better gearbox.
> -VT-4 has better turning capability.
> -VT-4 has integrated power package, which can be replaced more easily during maintenance.
> 
> Motion:
> -Oplot has better suspension system.
> 
> Information:
> -VT-4 has significantly more advanced information management system and guidance.
> -VT-4 has milliwave IFF
> -VT-4 has better situation awareness with more cameras and multifunction display.
> 
> Overall, in case of Thailand which operates both tanks, VT4 is better tank.
> View attachment 628564



Add the apfsds that is significantly better in VT4.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

serenity said:


> South Africa is not so backwards in science and technology or education in fact it is quite good. They also have quite mature and specialist industry but yes I doubt it is that much better and it is certainly much more expensive. I can understand a simple technology like these artillery can easily be made to be better and better just depends what you need and what you can pay. This is quite insulting without being asked for because they did not say anything and your point is inaccurate anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> India will continue to work on Arjun and to be honest it is quite difficult to produce all this alone for first time. We will see in future how successful the program is with Indian army using the second version. They already showed in trial it is quite good, better than Bhsima and actually it is possible for it to be a very good tank. It is however very expensive since development costs are also considered. Not same level tank though because Arjun 2 is heavy weight and VT-4 is light to medium weight and Russian ones are light weight.


Its still obsolete and the design flaws still exist in mark II. The same obsolete tank gun, same old engine, same frontal gapping hole, more weight added, and so on.

The only addition are perhaps:

Missile firing capability
Better FCS
Remote operated anti aircraft gun

All these and more werent present in mark I, while even baseline AK had these capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Blacklight

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Its still obsolete and the design flaws still exist in mark II. The same obsolete tank gun, same old engine, same frontal gapping hole, more weight added, and so on.
> 
> The only addition are perhaps:
> 
> Missile firing capability
> Better FCS
> Remote operated anti aircraft gun
> 
> All these and more werent present in mark I, while even baseline AK had these capabilities.


You forgot the vedic tech

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## HRK

Tipu7 said:


> -VT-4 has smaller profile.


.... 







Tipu7 said:


> -Oplot has better protection from all aspects except sides of turret.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

HRK said:


> ....
> View attachment 628568
> 
> 
> View attachment 628576


Oplot is such a beautiful tank...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tipu7

HRK said:


> ....
> View attachment 628568
> 
> 
> View attachment 628576


His words not mine. 

In first Pic VT4 is closer to camera.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## HRK

Tipu7 said:


> His words not mine.


I know and I am not criticizing you ....


Tipu7 said:


> In first Pic VT4 is closer to camera.


nope at the same distance .... you can watch youtube video of trial of VT-4 and Oplot in Pakistan, Oplot has low profile as compare to VT-4

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tipu7

HRK said:


> I know and I am not criticizing you ....
> 
> nope at the same distance .... you can watch youtube video of trial of VT-4 and Oplot in Pakistan, Oplot has low profile as compare to VT-4


But Oplot is chubby

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HRK

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Oplot is such a beautiful tank...


no one can doubt about Ukrainian beauties


Tipu7 said:


> But Oplot is chubby


well some men prefer curves ....

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## El Observer

HRK said:


> no one can doubt about Ukrainian beauties


Are we still talking about the tank ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Tipu7 said:


> But Oplot is chubby


And VT is flat screenzz

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tipu7

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> And VT is flat screenzz


VT4 is big bro of AK. So no blasphemy ...


HRK said:


> well some men prefer curves ....


Hammer a T80 from top, and you get shape of Oplot

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

El Observer said:


> Are we still talking about the tank ?


of course .... what else you think we are talking about ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

El Observer said:


> Are we still talking about the tank ?


The biggest Problem with Oplot is Russian decision to annex Crimea and ignite conflict in Donbass. Otherwise its pretty good tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HRK

enjoy the curves ....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tipu7

HRK said:


> ....
> View attachment 628568
> 
> 
> View attachment 628576


Check this one








HRK said:


> enjoy the curves ....
> View attachment 628579

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> Do you know the type-99 drives with a 1500HP engine, a tank which the VT-4 borrows off heavily? The VT-4 has a 1300HP engine for sure, which tips mobility and speed heavily in its favour over the T-90MS i.e. power to ton.


VT-4, ZTZ-99, ZTZ-99A, and ZTZ-96B are all using the 150HB series engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Its still obsolete and the design flaws still exist in mark II. The same obsolete tank gun, same old engine, same frontal gapping hole, more weight added, and so on.
> 
> The only addition are perhaps:
> 
> Missile firing capability
> Better FCS
> Remote operated anti aircraft gun
> 
> All these and more werent present in mark I, while even baseline AK had these capabilities.



The roof armor is cardboard thin, no freaking side armor and their pride and joy Kanchan is just a copy of t72s composite armor offering freaking 315mm frontal protection. Hull has no composites, just steel sheets. No blowoff panels despite Indians shouting.


Take that for national pride. :Rofl:

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

HRK said:


> enjoy the curves ....
> View attachment 628579





Tipu7 said:


> Check this one
> 
> View attachment 628582
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 628583


From Thai Army:

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> From Thai Army:
> View attachment 628598
> View attachment 628599
> View attachment 628600
> View attachment 628601



Thais love their vt4s that's a given

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PakFactor

LKJ86 said:


> From Thai Army:
> View attachment 628598
> View attachment 628599
> View attachment 628600
> View attachment 628601



That last pic has me feeling some type of way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

Tipu7 said:


> A comparison of performance between Oplot-T and VT-4 operated by Thailand. (Via friend from China)
> 
> Basic:
> -Oplot is lighter by 1 tonne.
> -VT-4 has smaller profile.
> -VT-4 has more powerful engine (in the case of Thailand).
> -Oplot has higher off-road speed.
> 
> Firepower:
> -VT-4 has stronger gun barrel.
> -Oplot has better recoil.
> -VT-4 has digital operated autoloader vs. older hydraulic controlled autoloader in Oplot.
> -Oplot carries more ammunition.
> -VT-4 can fire ammunitions at higher initial velocity.
> -VT-4 has better accuracy and penetration
> -Oplot has better tank launched missile
> -Oplot's weapon station comes with stabilizer
> -VT-4 has significantly better gunner's sight, main gun stabilizer, IR imaging, beam rider and laser range finder.
> -VT-4 has auto target tracking, Oplot does not.
> -VT-4 has auto gun calibration, Oplot does not.
> -VT-4 has full electric gun control system.
> 
> Protection:
> -Oplot has better protection from all aspects except sides of turret.
> -VT-4 has better laser warning system (provides more details).
> -Oplot has lower heat signature in terms of engine compartment.
> 
> Engine:
> -Oplot has smaller engine and lighter mass.
> -VT-4 can withstand higher torque.
> -VT-4 has more efficient motor oil consumption.
> -VT-4 has better gearbox.
> -VT-4 has better turning capability.
> -VT-4 has integrated power package, which can be replaced more easily during maintenance.
> 
> Motion:
> -Oplot has better suspension system.
> 
> Information:
> -VT-4 has significantly more advanced information management system and guidance.
> -VT-4 has milliwave IFF
> -VT-4 has better situation awareness with more cameras and multifunction display.
> 
> Overall, in case of Thailand which operates both tanks, VT4 is better tank.
> View attachment 628564


What are the differences, improvements beside the known better ERA FY4 on Pakistan version compared with Thailand


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> I am currently engaged in _protecting_ VT4 from Gulalai Ismail and Ahmad Waqas Goraya... Both are cursing Army for spending billions on weapons, while as per them '*Rest of World is reducing defense spending'* for fighting Corona crisis.


Pakistan has deployed Army in all major cities to help civil infra with COVID 19 since Civil defence is almost non existent.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Dazzler

Oplot has excellent frontal and top protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

2-3000 VT4 lo to maza aye PA


----------



## Nilgiri

kongn said:


> Mango is the standard round with 460mm penetration.Its not sufficient to penetrate frontal armour at max ranges of only khalid and t-80UD.All the rest of PA not a problem.Its a cheap round though obsolete.The israeli rounds have around 500 mm.Main attack round is invar with 25000 in stock.We already have a new round with 520-550 mm which passed trials and now entered production,covid permitting.
> https://www.thehindu.com/news/citie...oming-up-with-new-project/article31101187.ece
> Arjun already had 500 mm round and now new round is under work.
> 
> Ajeya can actually fire mango.And yes the 1000 upgraded ajeyas have israeli fire control system.Our main focus is fleet logistics and indigenization at this point.We are already making the barrels of both T-72 and T-90.We recently fully indigenized the engines,and are making a new engine.We use our own composite armour on T-90 turrets derived from arjun's kanchan.And we also have now no need to import kontakt-5 blocks either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will replace the older ERA blocks on upgraded T-72s.
> New homemade cannon guided missile for tanks is almost ready,though its being amde for FRCV project and arjun mk2.We have also made our own remote control firing station.
> https://defproac.com/?p=4372
> Also bharatforge is to make a new gun for T-series and FRCV.We learnt our lesson with OFB .Private sector is in now.L and T delivered the K-9 vajras ahead of time.We also now use homemade mine ploughs.APU is also underway.
> https://www.janes.com/article/93951/indian-army-seeks-tank-apus-from-local-producers
> 
> As for new APFSDS round,its already underway.This time to private players.600-800 mm target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in the past and behind the times.In 10 years the indian military industrial complex will have private players at its forefront.They have already started taking over in infantry equipment.Aerospace is going out of HAL which has now become assembler to private subcontractors.Artillery has been taken over by kalyani.The happy days of competing with OFB is over.
> 
> Now since this thread is about VT-4 if you want to continue i suggest a new thread.



We are getting things into gear, commensurate with what we achieved, achieve (and will achieve) in vetted science+engg output and international patent application (finally but inevitably). 

It is basically about figuring out that less govt babus involved the better (esp in mid to final production)...and harnessing private sector for that instead. They really made some big goof-ups in lot of the the early decisions (on certain core features) of lot of projects started in 80s and 90s that are now inherited for the further dev...but serve as good lessons for genesis of new projects starting and planned.

But others can get stuck to copy-pasting from "red effect" YT analysis (which was very good and frank one along with AK) and claim they "knew" all along....and get echo chamber likes and back-pats. It is also after all commensurate with what they accomplish in the science and patent realm too....along with them forgoing improving that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ali_raza

PanzerKiel said:


> Subsequently, something like this was resorted to.


and i m hinting the same thing on the forum from 3 years no one getting the ideas

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakFactor

ali_raza said:


> and i m hinting the same thing on the forum from 3 years no one getting the ideas



meaning?


----------



## ARMalik

Signalian said:


> Pakistan has deployed Army in all major cities to help civil infra with COVID 19 since Civil defence is almost non existent.



A very sad state of affairs indeed. Tragic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zulfiqar

PakFactor said:


> meaning?




From the air chief himself. 

Watch from 2:15 onwards

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Dazzler said:


> Thais love their vt4s that's a given


The best thing the Thai like this tank are the gun stabilizer and the ease of steering/driving this tank. They never drive a tank like this before. Thais are well known as hell rider.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> The biggest Problem with Oplot is Russian decision to annex Crimea and ignite conflict in Donbass. Otherwise its pretty good tank.


Those who upgrade T-80 UD say its a mess.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> Those who upgrade T-80 UD say its a mess.


Our dudes in HIT?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakFactor

Tipu7 said:


> Our dudes in HIT?





Signalian said:


> Those who upgrade T-80 UD say its a mess.



Why? Due to bad design?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

VT-4 comes with those electronic goodies but I'm surprised to learn about in the Thai comparison between them saying Oplot has weaker side armor. Maybe only because VT-4 side armor adds on FY4. Both are very thin and you can see the philosophy is same derived from the Soviet school tank design. Every kilogram used for front angles to keep weight and profile low. Oplot front also is impossible to beat. Some people still believe M1 and Challenger front armor is still top which is very untrue in 2020. In fact become untrue around 2010 with last generation of Russian Ukraine and Chinese additional armor developments.

Also surprised the suspension in Oplot is better than VT-4. I remember seeing pictures of VT-4 having the hydraulic type of variable suspension like K2 and Japanese tank 10 where you can change the profile against wall or to hide in crater in ground to get perfect angle for gun. Anyway maybe they are referring to some other point in suspensions.

Oplot is also fantastic tank in this 45 to 55 tonne division. I think Oplot-M T90MS and VT-4 are very close here and there in this division. Any tank will do a good job but Chinese material talking about VT-4 in past make it sound like it is better than early ztz-99 and the military researcher and reporters come out of briefing about VT-4 totally amazed and saying our army should buy this and replace 96B. They focus a lot on how well it can drive and easy to handle like a car almost. Then brag about gun stabilizer being superior generation to ztz-99. Of course the equipment for export also includes everything with latest generation because PLA is not quite have his luxury for every tank crew. PLA still operate tens of thousands of old tanks. I think next generation tank is being researched in development so we will just slowly retire or sell older tank and just use next generation tank with 99 series, 96B and 15. I hope Thailand buys more like they plan to and Pakistan bought hundreds hopefully 1000. Maybe some other countries will join and price can move down again so open up more factory space for VT-4. Then in some years upgrade FY4 with the next additional armor plate. Maybe the next PLA medium tank after 96B can be new upgrade of VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair

I wonder if the NCW capability can be looped with UAVs above. That would be interesting both for SPHs and VT-4s. Feeds from above could be overlayed onto the BMS. 

I am happy to read this thread, a lot of excellent posts including from some Chinese members with technical expertise. Seldom see them on PDF, hope more show up. 

The only piece missing in the combined arms of PA now is the all critical CAS component.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

Armchair said:


> The only piece missing in the combined arms of PA now is the all critical CAS component.



Elaborate please.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> It likely also did not help that it was the Nawaz Sharif led PMLN government,


Pressurized by opposition especially Imran Niazi



Dazzler said:


> So the story goes like this.
> 
> None of Indian mbts have effective apfsds ammo against the adversary. The best they have as of now is bm42 mango, the round is certified to achieve 430mm armor at 0 degrees. This is not sufficient to penetrate ERA equipped mbts.
> 
> Second, their mainstay t72 ajeya cannot fire the same apfsds as the t90s despite both having 125mm smoothbore. Sounds funny right, here is why.
> T90s has 1a45 fcs that the t72 lacks. In fact, it has no fcs which makes firing the bm42 and Invar heat round difficult as values must be fed to fcc computer.
> 
> Third , they don't have DU rounds for any of their mbts. Arjun has a tiny apfsds that can barely achieve 300mm at 0 degrees
> Don't forget the bursting barrels.
> 
> They think the MS, whenever it comes, will solve these issues but no order is placed and Russians have raised the price of MS. NOT to mention, they want separate contract for ammo as usual at higher price.
> 
> Nicely milked I say. @PakFactor


I think they ordered S
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/india-orders-extra-464-t-90-tanks-from-russia/

Some Saying its MS version
https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/india-approves-procurement-of-464-t-90ms-main-battle-tanks/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> Those who upgrade T-80 UD say its a mess.




Compared to VT4 and Alkhalid, indeed it is

gunner station







Commander station







Driver station

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Armchair

PanzerKiel said:


> Elaborate please.



CAS is a time sensitive element and PAF is unlikely to be able to provide assets for this mission set. Given the relative size of PAF compared to IAF, there just isn't enough resources to practically provide CAS. 

PA now will potentially have a large number of artillery, tanks (relatively), APCs, etc. But modern combat indicates the effectiveness of an air component. Following are the force multipliers discovered in the past 40 years or so:

1. CAS either fixed wing or rotary
2. Heliborne force projection, particularly useful in the mountains
3. UAVs for recce and armed UAVs

When these elements are meaningfully added to the army, there is a force multiplier effect from their combined arms use. 

The T-129 purchase, although only a small number of attack helicopters, would have provide some minor semblance to a modern combined arms effort. However, PA in actuality will have to fight with minimal air support of any kind. 

Even when such air support is available, it will be few and far between, and time dependent not on PA's needs, but more on the availability of PAF to reallocate its force for a CAS mission. Which ultimately destroys the effectiveness of a truly combined arms CAS component, fighting a highly time sensitive and integrated battle.

In fact, the best way to defeat Indian armor is from the air.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Armchair said:


> artillery


We have lesser number of Towed Artillery probably at 1:3.8 ratio

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> We have lesser number of Towed Artillery probably at 1:3.8 ratio



PA's strategy over time is to replace towed artillery with either tracked or wheeled artillery.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Armchair said:


> either tracked or wheeled artillery.


You cannot used them on LOC,Working Boundary and Western Border

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ

Armchair said:


> CAS is a time sensitive element and PAF is unlikely to be able to provide assets for this mission set. Given the relative size of PAF compared to IAF, there just isn't enough resources to practically provide CAS.
> 
> PA now will potentially have a large number of artillery, tanks (relatively), APCs, etc. But modern combat indicates the effectiveness of an air component. Following are the force multipliers discovered in the past 40 years or so:
> 
> 1. CAS either fixed wing or rotary
> 2. Heliborne force projection, particularly useful in the mountains
> 3. UAVs for recce and armed UAVs
> 
> When these elements are meaningfully added to the army, there is a force multiplier effect from their combined arms use.
> 
> The T-129 purchase, although only a small number of attack helicopters, would have provide some minor semblance to a modern combined arms effort. However, PA in actuality will have to fight with minimal air support of any kind.
> 
> Even when such air support is available, it will be few and far between, and time dependent not on PA's needs, but more on the availability of PAF to reallocate its force for a CAS mission. Which ultimately destroys the effectiveness of a truly combined arms CAS component, fighting a highly time sensitive and integrated battle.
> 
> In fact, the best way to defeat Indian armor is from the air.



Turkey is by far ahead in CAS with multitudes of UAV's, rotary and fixed wing aircrafts. Importantly, working in concert wiyh ground forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

Armchair said:


> CAS is a time sensitive element and PAF is unlikely to be able to provide assets for this mission set. Given the relative size of PAF compared to IAF, there just isn't enough resources to practically provide CAS.
> 
> PA now will potentially have a large number of artillery, tanks (relatively), APCs, etc. But modern combat indicates the effectiveness of an air component. Following are the force multipliers discovered in the past 40 years or so:
> 
> 1. CAS either fixed wing or rotary
> 2. Heliborne force projection, particularly useful in the mountains
> 3. UAVs for recce and armed UAVs



First coming to force multipliers...
This term may mean nothing. It was first applied to E3 AWACS, and the implication was that its command and control features permitted the more effective use of fighters. Thus instead of adding more fighters to meet a threat, you could procure AWACS, which would multiply the combat power of your fighters.
But then, all improvements to command and control are FORCE MULTIPLIERS, as are all improvements to weapons, intelligence, leadership, logistics, tactics, strategy and diplomacy.

Examples of possible force multipliers
PGMs since they reduce number of sorties needed to kill a target.
ATMGs provide an eco way to take out much expensive tanks.
Our military institutions since they enhance our leadership standards and permit an efficient use of existing force.
EW units since they give a more precise know how of opponent's moves, enabling own efficient use of force.
Vehicles with balloon tyres in desert since they have improved mobility, which improves logistics, which improves combat power.
Any defence treaty can be termed as a force multiplier since it can enable you to free forces from a particular front to be employed en masse at another place.



Armchair said:


> CAS is a time sensitive element and PAF is unlikely to be able to provide assets for this mission set. Given the relative size of PAF compared to IAF, there just isn't enough resources to practically provide CAS.
> 
> PA now will potentially have a large number of artillery, tanks (relatively), APCs, etc. But modern combat indicates the effectiveness of an air component.
> 
> In fact, the best way to defeat Indian armor is from the air.



It is correct to deduce that PAF may not be able to provide CAS in an ideal sense, but the we also should not say that it will not be at all available. You can ask a pilot what a single 2000 or 5000 pounder dumb bomb does to a large area, it may completely deny it to another force for any period of time.

Since concern is much more for IA armor, do please keep in your count the thousands of ATGMS (BSWS) we have been making over decades, coupled with imports of BGM-71 and its variants. Present understanding is that unless you find an armor regiment, brigade or a division concentrated in a specific area, it will be under-utilization of PAF to be used on scattered targets. Aim is, if PAF (our strat asset) ought to be used, it should then create comparative strat effects as well, which cannot be accrued by targeting smaller targets.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
13


----------



## 313ghazi

PanzerKiel said:


> First coming to force multipliers...
> This term may mean nothing. It was first applied to E3 AWACS, and the implication was that its command and control features permitted the more effective use of fighters. Thus instead of adding more fighters to meet a threat, you could procure AWACS, which would multiply the combat power of your fighters.
> But then, all improvements to command and control are FORCE MULTIPLIERS, as are all improvements to weapons, intelligence, leadership, logistics, tactics, strategy and diplomacy.
> 
> Examples of possible force multipliers
> PGMs since they reduce number of sorties needed to kill a target.
> ATMGs provide an eco way to take out much expensive tanks.
> Our military institutions since they enhance our leadership standards and permit an efficient use of existing force.
> EW units since they give a more precise know how of opponent's moves, enabling own efficient use of force.
> Vehicles with balloon tyres in desert since they have improved mobility, which improves logistics, which improves combat power.
> Any defence treaty can be termed as a force multiplier since it can enable you to free forces from a particular front to be employed en masse at another place.
> 
> 
> 
> It is correct to deduce that PAF may not be able to provide CAS in an ideal sense, but the we also should not say that it will not be at all available. You can ask a pilot what a single 2000 or 5000 pounder dumb bomb does to a large area, it may completely deny it to another force for any period of time.
> 
> Since concern is much more for IA armor, do please keep in your count the thousands of ATGMS (BSWS) we have been making over decades, coupled with imports of BGM-71 and its variants. Present understanding is that unless you find an armor regiment, brigade or a division concentrated in a specific area, it will be under-utilization of PAF to be used on scattered targets. Aim is, if PAF (our strat asset) ought to be used, it should then create comparative strat effects as well, which cannot be accrued by targeting smaller targets.




What do you think about PA aviation wing being armed with weaponised drones to use on the battlefield? Do the Indians have integrated air defence with their armoured columns? Would thee drones be vulnerable. Do we have integrated air defence with our armoured columns?


----------



## PanzerKiel

313ghazi said:


> What do you think about PA aviation wing being armed with weaponised drones to use on the battlefield? Do the Indians have integrated air defence with their armoured columns? Would thee drones be vulnerable. Do we have integrated air defence with our armoured columns?



They, as well as us, we both have integrated AD elements moving with our respective armor components.



313ghazi said:


> What do you think about PA aviation wing being armed with weaponised drones to use on the battlefield?



Who would not like them on the battlefield. But then money problems come in our way, therefore we have to prioritise our purchases. Either you can have 300 VT-4s or may be 300 UCAVs.....but then most armies know that boots on ground, rather in air, matter more.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Armchair

PanzerKiel said:


> First coming to force multipliers...
> This term may mean nothing. It was first applied to E3 AWACS, and the implication was that its command and control features permitted the more effective use of fighters. Thus instead of adding more fighters to meet a threat, you could procure AWACS, which would multiply the combat power of your fighters.
> But then, all improvements to command and control are FORCE MULTIPLIERS, as are all improvements to weapons, intelligence, leadership, logistics, tactics, strategy and diplomacy.
> 
> Examples of possible force multipliers
> PGMs since they reduce number of sorties needed to kill a target.
> ATMGs provide an eco way to take out much expensive tanks.
> Our military institutions since they enhance our leadership standards and permit an efficient use of existing force.
> EW units since they give a more precise know how of opponent's moves, enabling own efficient use of force.
> Vehicles with balloon tyres in desert since they have improved mobility, which improves logistics, which improves combat power.
> Any defence treaty can be termed as a force multiplier since it can enable you to free forces from a particular front to be employed en masse at another place.
> 
> 
> 
> It is correct to deduce that PAF may not be able to provide CAS in an ideal sense, but the we also should not say that it will not be at all available. You can ask a pilot what a single 2000 or 5000 pounder dumb bomb does to a large area, it may completely deny it to another force for any period of time.
> 
> Since concern is much more for IA armor, do please keep in you count the thousands of ATGMS (BSWS) we have been making, coupled with imports of BGM-71 and its variants. Present understanding is that unless you find an armor regiment, brigade or a division concentrated in a specific area, it will be under-utilization of PAF to be used on scattered targets. Aim is, if PAF (our strat asset) ought to be used, it should then create comparative strat effects as well, which cannot be accrued by targeting smaller targets.



Force multiplier, simply put: 


> Force Multiplier, in military terms it refers to an attribute or a combination of attributes that dramatically increases (hence “multiplies”) the effectiveness of an item or group, giving a given number of troops (or other personnel) or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater things than without it.



Having ATGMs is not a substitute to having CAS. Never has been. Also, the utility of CAS, and how effective it has been since not only WWII, but dramatically since Gulf War I, has to be appreciated. 

CAS is the new cavalry equivalent. A flight of CAS aircraft can destroy a column of tanks near Lahore, turn around, fly south and stop an armoured thrust near Multan. 

When you are countering Indian T-90MS with VT-4, you can multiply the effectiveness of your battle against enemy armor by having an integrated combined arms approach with CAS aircraft, UAVs, artillery and HAT / LAT, etc. 

Pakistan army right now has a pre-Gulf War orientation as it completely ignores CAS or having a meaningful UAV force like Turkey as @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ just explained. 

While the T-90MS has been countered, how will PA deal with that 100-200 LCH and other attack helicopters in the Indian Army? How effective were the "Stingers on every peak" in Kargil? If not that effective, how would PA look to defend against a combined arms assault of the IA?

For instance, when large numbers of Indian infantry, tanks, artillery and CAS is attacking you simultaneously, how would you deal with that when you are meaningfully missing the CAS element from your own mix?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JPMM

PanzerKiel said:


> First coming to force multipliers...
> This term may mean nothing. It was first applied to E3 AWACS, and the implication was that its command and control features permitted the more effective use of fighters. Thus instead of adding more fighters to meet a threat, you could procure AWACS, which would multiply the combat power of your fighters.
> But then, all improvements to command and control are FORCE MULTIPLIERS, as are all improvements to weapons, intelligence, leadership, logistics, tactics, strategy and diplomacy.
> 
> Examples of possible force multipliers
> PGMs since they reduce number of sorties needed to kill a target.
> ATMGs provide an eco way to take out much expensive tanks.
> Our military institutions since they enhance our leadership standards and permit an efficient use of existing force.
> EW units since they give a more precise know how of opponent's moves, enabling own efficient use of force.
> Vehicles with balloon tyres in desert since they have improved mobility, which improves logistics, which improves combat power.
> Any defence treaty can be termed as a force multiplier since it can enable you to free forces from a particular front to be employed en masse at another place.
> 
> 
> 
> It is correct to deduce that PAF may not be able to provide CAS in an ideal sense, but the we also should not say that it will not be at all available. You can ask a pilot what a single 2000 or 5000 pounder dumb bomb does to a large area, it may completely deny it to another force for any period of time.
> 
> Since concern is much more for IA armor, do please keep in your count the thousands of ATGMS (BSWS) we have been making over decades, coupled with imports of BGM-71 and its variants. Present understanding is that unless you find an armor regiment, brigade or a division concentrated in a specific area, it will be under-utilization of PAF to be used on scattered targets. Aim is, if PAF (our strat asset) ought to be used, it should then create comparative strat effects as well, which cannot be accrued by targeting smaller targets.



Western/NATO type Air Forces (PAF included) are presently designed as "Air Campaign" formations.
Direct support fires are majorly made by Artillery, Combat Helos and UAVs. Target aquisition, reconaissance and surveillance are also majorly made by UAVs and electronic equipment.
Few Air Forces spend Money in dedicated CAS platforms.
Gone are those days in Santa Margarida, were I slept in the back of Unimog, and every day at 6.00 a PoAF Alpha Jet (CAS) fly at 50m above my Fire Support Base. The
FAAR (Radar) syrennes stroke and I jump on my boots, pick my helmet/gear & G3, and run to my hole with 50cm of water.​PS: and shouted "God morning Mother Fu**er!

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## PanzerKiel

Armchair said:


> Force multiplier, simply put:
> 
> 
> Having ATGMs is not a substitute to having CAS. Never has been. Also, the utility of CAS, and how effective it has been since not only WWII, but dramatically since Gulf War I, has to be appreciated.
> 
> CAS is the new cavalry equivalent. A flight of CAS aircraft can destroy a column of tanks near Lahore, turn around, fly south and stop an armoured thrust near Multan.
> 
> When you are countering Indian T-90MS with VT-4, you can multiply the effectiveness of your battle against enemy armor by having an integrated combined arms approach with CAS aircraft, UAVs, artillery and HAT / LAT, etc.
> 
> Pakistan army right now has a pre-Gulf War orientation as it completely ignores CAS or having a meaningful UAV force like Turkey as @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ just explained.
> 
> While the T-90MS has been countered, how will PA deal with that 100-200 LCH and other attack helicopters in the Indian Army? How effective were the "Stingers on every peak" in Kargil? If not that effective, how would PA look to defend against a combined arms assault of the IA?
> 
> For instance, when large numbers of Indian infantry, tanks, artillery and CAS is attacking you simultaneously, how would you deal with that when you are meaningfully missing the CAS element from your own mix?



Ideally you are right. But what you say will be possible only if we have corresponding number of air assets (fighter, support, AWACS), more air bases, more pilots and more money. If we have everything in abundance, then which ground commander wont like to call in CAS, like the US do even to take out a small number of individuals. Costs of a single sortie of specialized aircraft is not that low. 

PA doesnt ignore CAS, like everyone we would also like to have CAS as much as possible.

For those 100-200 LCH, you are then forgetting our AD assets. Somehow, you will find that AD and logistics are seldom discussed here on PDF, thats why people dont know about them, their AD and our AD assets, their organization, working and command articulation. You may get surprised by their capabilities. (Example, a single Gun Missile Regiment is enough to defend an area of 120 sq km)

As far as stingers on peak are concerned, once IAF lost MIG21, MIG27 and MI17, they stopped coming low and started high altitude bombing, so stingers on peaks achieved what was required out of them.

You may also like to go into the military concepts of Air Interdiction and Battlefield Air Interdiction. They will answer almost all your questions.



Armchair said:


> If not that effective, how would PA look to defend against a combined arms assault of the IA?


Our basic defensive layout caters for an all-arms assaults, it is made in a manner to absorb that assault before it reaches our sensitive area.



Armchair said:


> For instance, when large numbers of Indian infantry, tanks, artillery and CAS is attacking you simultaneously, how would you deal with that when you are meaningfully missing the CAS element from your own mix?



Their infantry (advancing in the open) will be dealt by our dug-in infantry, their tanks by our ATGMs grouped with infantry, their artillery by our own counter bombardment fire missions and WLRs, their CAS by our AD.

P.S. The great number of AD brigades and units we are having are not there just to fill our ORBATs, they will actually come in quiet handy.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## IblinI

PanzerKiel said:


> Their infantry (advancing in the open) will be dealt by our dug-in infantry, their tanks by our ATGMs grouped with infantry, their artillery by our own counter bombardment fire missions and WLRs, their CAS by our AD.
> 
> P.S. The great number of AD brigades and units we are having are not there just to fill our ORBATs, they will actually come in quiet handy.


Could you shed some light on the India's armed force structure and how effective they are able to deal with a modern warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

IblinI said:


> Could you shed some light on the India's armed force structure and how effective they are able to deal with a modern warfare.



Dear, a separate thread is required for this gigantic task.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Armchair

PanzerKiel said:


> Ideally you are right. But what you say will be possible only if we have corresponding number of air assets (fighter, support, AWACS), more air bases, more pilots and more money. If we have everything in abundance, then which ground commander wont like to call in CAS, like the US do even to take out a small number of individuals. Costs of a single sortie of specialized aircraft is not that low.



Hi Panzerkiel, the basic requirement for a CAS aircraft does not need a modern fighter jet. CAS does not require a supersonic flight profile. It needs something relatively slow (like an attack helicopter or an A-10 aircraft). 

Because modern munitions allow a CAS aircraft to fight from standoff ranges, heavy armor or a big gun are also not as important as it was in the past. 

If your tanks have NCW capability, you can add armed drones and CAS aircraft easily and create a very effective combination of UAVs, tanks, CAS aircraft, artillery. This has tremendeous real time potential for the commander. 

Here is a low cost way to include these in your battle plans. This is my original research. It's a combination of technologies which would allow you to build low cost UAVs, CAS aircraft and even cruise missiles. The technology is a hybrid development of a WWII era tech that a basic workshop can churn out. 
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/a-diy-drone-cas-aircraft-for-the-paa-concept.656964/

CAS today does not require a very high cost solution. It requires a relatively basic aircraft / drone to have a sensor and designator and lob standoff laser guided munition. Flight profiles are either from 5000 ft to 10,000 ft, or in air contested environment the standard Cold War European theatre NATO tactic is to fly nap of the earth, pop up, deliver munition, get out. 

VT-4s networked with UAVs and CAS aircraft could be a game changer. AD is like anti tank for aircraft. AD does not mean you give up on CAS any more than ATGMs, HAT, LAT means you give up on tanks. 

Last I remember, Stingers on peaks didn't stop the Indian M2Ks from having a game changing impact on the PA positions. 
However, to avoid going off topic I'll end it here. Do check out the link, I think you'll find it interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI

PanzerKiel said:


> Dear, a separate thread is required for this gigantic task.


I am just unable to find an totally objective article that is worth reading or any valuble input from this forum.


----------



## PanzerKiel

Armchair said:


> .
> Last I remember, Stingers on peaks didn't stop the Indian M2Ks from having a game changing impact on the PA positions.


 Stingers were and are never meant to engage targets flying at high altitude, out of their engagement range. LOMADS and HIMADS are responsible for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Cookie Monster

Dazzler said:


> So the story goes like this.
> 
> None of Indian mbts have effective apfsds ammo against the adversary. The best they have as of now is bm42 mango, the round is certified to achieve 430mm armor at 0 degrees. This is not sufficient to penetrate ERA equipped mbts.
> 
> Second, their mainstay t72 ajeya cannot fire the same apfsds as the t90s despite both having 125mm smoothbore. Sounds funny right, here is why.
> T90s has 1a45 fcs that the t72 lacks. In fact, it has no fcs which makes firing the bm42 and Invar heat round difficult as values must be fed to fcc computer.
> 
> Third , they don't have DU rounds for any of their mbts. Arjun has a tiny apfsds that can barely achieve 300mm at 0 degrees
> Don't forget the bursting barrels.
> 
> They think the MS, whenever it comes, will solve these issues but no order is placed and Russians have raised the price of MS. NOT to mention, they want separate contract for ammo as usual at higher price.
> 
> Nicely milked I say. @PakFactor


Yes that's exactly what Red Effect was saying...Mango has about 300mm penetration from 2km...the penetrating rod is laughably short compared to modern APFSDS rounds and doesn't stand a chance against modern armor.

It's astounding that after so much money thrown at Arjun...they couldn't come up with a decent APFSDS or DU rounds. I bet lots of politicians, bureaucrats, and the seniors at DRDO were laughing all the way to the bank having delivered a lemon at such exorbitant price.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 313ghazi

@PanzerKiel would it be fair to say that financial restrictions have required Pakistani armed forces to plan in a more pragmatic manner? It seems to be that there is the ideal solution and then the solution we can afford. Are we striking the right balance between the two in your opinion?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ

Armchair said:


> Force multiplier, simply put:
> 
> 
> Having ATGMs is not a substitute to having CAS. Never has been. Also, the utility of CAS, and how effective it has been since not only WWII, but dramatically since Gulf War I, has to be appreciated.
> 
> CAS is the new cavalry equivalent. A flight of CAS aircraft can destroy a column of tanks near Lahore, turn around, fly south and stop an armoured thrust near Multan.
> 
> When you are countering Indian T-90MS with VT-4, you can multiply the effectiveness of your battle against enemy armor by having an integrated combined arms approach with CAS aircraft, UAVs, artillery and HAT / LAT, etc.
> 
> Pakistan army right now has a pre-Gulf War orientation as it completely ignores CAS or having a meaningful UAV force like Turkey as @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ just explained.
> 
> While the T-90MS has been countered, how will PA deal with that 100-200 LCH and other attack helicopters in the Indian Army? How effective were the "Stingers on every peak" in Kargil? If not that effective, how would PA look to defend against a combined arms assault of the IA?
> 
> For instance, when large numbers of Indian infantry, tanks, artillery and CAS is attacking you simultaneously, how would you deal with that when you are meaningfully missing the CAS element from your own mix?


Since you brought up first gulf war ... it would be important to mention the role of A-10 warthog. The plane that decimated Iraqi tank columns. Simply put in this day and age one cannot be without CAS or found lacking. 

300 UCAVs can perhaps provide serve whole of eastern frontier. Not only providing vital intel, they can help troops that are getting bogged down at any given location. Ofcourse future is for much greater unmanned support all the way to unit level.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Armchair said:


> Hi Panzerkiel, the basic requirement for a CAS aircraft does not need a modern fighter jet. CAS does not require a supersonic flight profile. It needs something relatively slow (like an attack helicopter or an A-10 aircraft).
> 
> Because modern munitions allow a CAS aircraft to fight from standoff ranges, heavy armor or a big gun are also not as important as it was in the past.
> 
> If your tanks have NCW capability, you can add armed drones and CAS aircraft easily and create a very effective combination of UAVs, tanks, CAS aircraft, artillery. This has tremendeous real time potential for the commander.
> 
> Here is a low cost way to include these in your battle plans. This is my original research. It's a combination of technologies which would allow you to build low cost UAVs, CAS aircraft and even cruise missiles. The technology is a hybrid development of a WWII era tech that a basic workshop can churn out.
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/a-diy-drone-cas-aircraft-for-the-paa-concept.656964/
> 
> CAS today does not require a very high cost solution. It requires a relatively basic aircraft / drone to have a sensor and designator and lob standoff laser guided munition. Flight profiles are either from 5000 ft to 10,000 ft, or in air contested environment the standard Cold War European theatre NATO tactic is to fly nap of the earth, pop up, deliver munition, get out.
> 
> VT-4s networked with UAVs and CAS aircraft could be a game changer. AD is like anti tank for aircraft. AD does not mean you give up on CAS any more than ATGMs, HAT, LAT means you give up on tanks.
> 
> Last I remember, Stingers on peaks didn't stop the Indian M2Ks from having a game changing impact on the PA positions.



Whatever you have suggested is surely logical and workable. But then PAF or Pakistan Armed Forces cannot adopt your solution in a blink of an eye. Starting from doctrine, which takes decades to be formulated, everything.... Everything will have to be changed.



313ghazi said:


> @PanzerKiel would it be fair to say that financial restrictions have required Pakistani armed forces to plan in a more pragmatic manner? It seems to be that there is the ideal solution and then the solution we can afford. Are we striking the right balance between the two in your opinion?



That would be, and that is, the wisest thing to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## maverick1977

Ark_Angel said:


> Show Russians the Money and they will sell you everything. Ruskies don’t care about Politics anymore, they just go for where ever they can score a Good Buck.
> It wasn’t politics that I can assure you.
> If the Ruskies cared about Politics they wouldn’t have pitched their Front Line Combat A/C to PAF. T-90 deal was peanuts in front of that. PA went for the best machine. All trials conducted with full vigour and transparency(Indenters can always wield a certain amount of Influence as we see our Eastern Neighbour always handing out deals to the heaviest Briber-Even in the case for Rafales where the Numbers dropped to 36 from 118 while the cost remained more or less the same, Hire a good Financial Advisor from LSE or UC Berkeley he’ll tell you the numbers don’t add up. Call it off set or whatever, those who are into the business of Defence procurement know how much money can change hands for a deal. Ask the Indians who are based in Arab countries or those who are reps of Western Firms sitting in Arab countries pitching them Combat Equipment. Even their Royals take a cut. Fortunately the system of Pakistani Armed Forces is much transparent and fool proof. Hope it will remain the same. VT-4 outclassed T-90 in 7/10 categories. It will definitely add a major punch to our Armoured Corps while the Indian Armoured Regiments wait for their new TI sights which they burnt in the Heat of the desert during an Exercise(just a small example)
> 
> Good Job! Keep it up we need more people like you on Twitter who can protect the National Narrative and Counter Propaganda as well as project National Resolve.



yes my brother who is a Armored guy, is damn excited by getting VT4s. Spoke to him 2 days ago and he echoed what you said.. The machine will be integrated with Satellite links and can give real time situational awareness to the Central command like core HQ, div or brig, unit level. it depends how u want to diseminate information to it or ingest battle awareness from it. 
imagine with drones in the skies feeding live enemy movement from far away, and tank formations devising tactics based on enemy real time movement.. 
Along with that, there are some next gen of DU units, Pakistan armor has the highest ratio of DU units than any force in the world, that should send shiver down to any leading tank in the world, whether m1A2, merkava 4, or challanger.. 
This tank God willingly will add decisive punch.. real quick on khalid2s. it will have a lot new enhancement coming by jointly working with turks .. did i say it out loud ??

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> Ideally you are right. But what you say will be possible only if we have corresponding number of air assets (fighter, support, AWACS), more air bases, more pilots and more money. If we have everything in abundance, then which ground commander wont like to call in CAS, like the US do even to take out a small number of individuals. Costs of a single sortie of specialized aircraft is not that low.
> 
> PA doesnt ignore CAS, like everyone we would also like to have CAS as much as possible.
> 
> For those 100-200 LCH, you are then forgetting our AD assets. Somehow, you will find that AD and logistics are seldom discussed here on PDF, thats why people dont know about them, their AD and our AD assets, their organization, working and command articulation. You may get surprised by their capabilities. (Example, a single Gun Missile Regiment is enough to defend an area of 120 sq km)
> 
> As far as stingers on peak are concerned, once IAF lost MIG21, MIG27 and MI17, they stopped coming low and started high altitude bombing, so stingers on peaks achieved what was required out of them.
> 
> You may also like to go into the military concepts of Air Interdiction and Battlefield Air Interdiction. They will answer almost all your questions.
> 
> 
> Our basic defensive layout caters for an all-arms assaults, it is made in a manner to absorb that assault before it reaches our sensitive area.
> 
> 
> 
> Their infantry (advancing in the open) will be dealt by our dug-in infantry, their tanks by our ATGMs grouped with infantry, their artillery by our own counter bombardment fire missions and WLRs, their CAS by our AD.
> 
> P.S. The great number of AD brigades and units we are having are not there just to fill our ORBATs, they will actually come in quiet handy.


Sir the problem is we dont have much Heli or AD assets. India will be having about 100+LCHs and 24 Apaches and we can't even have a deal signed for Gunships. Our Cobras are now begging us to get retired and we haven't got any Gunship deal confirmed. gunships are vital for Anti Tank Warfare

Also we don't have much mobile Air Defence Assets for our ground forces. Our FM 90 only has 15 km whereas India's Akash has 30km range. MANPADs have lesser ranges

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ said:


> Since you brought up first gulf war ... it would be important to mention the role of A-10 warthog. The plane that decimated Iraqi tank columns. Simply put in this day and age one cannot be without CAS or found lacking.
> 
> 300 UCAVs can perhaps provide serve whole of eastern frontier. Not only providing vital intel, they can help troops that are getting bogged down at any given location. Ofcourse future is for much greater unmanned support all the way to unit level.



Totally agree with your assessment. A-10s or Su-25s would be an incredible force multiplier for Pak armor. Specially in a netcentric environment which VT-4s can provide (supposedly). If you ask me, PA would grab any chance to get A-10s but your country wouldn't sell. I'd even go with A-1 Skyraiders or something similar. 

If PA is cash strapped as implied by @PanzerKiel the solution lies in replicating a Mirage-like program of buying second-hand and overhauling / modernizing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

maverick1977 said:


> yes my brother who is a Armored guy, is damn excited by getting VT4s. Spoke to him 2 days ago and he echoed what you said.. The machine will be integrated with Satellite links and can give real time situational awareness to the Central command like core HQ, div or brig, unit level. it depends how u want to diseminate information to it or ingest battle awareness from it.
> imagine with drones in the skies feeding live enemy movement from far away, and tank formations devising tactics based on enemy real time movement..
> Along with that, there are some next gen of DU units, Pakistan armor has the highest ratio of DU units than any force in the world, that should send shiver down to any leading tank in the world, whether m1A2, merkava 4, or challanger..
> This tank God willingly will add decisive punch.. real quick on khalid2s. it will have a lot new enhancement coming by jointly working with turks .. did i say it out loud ??


Relax. India is getting about 600 tanks. 464 T90MS+118 Arjun MK1A

https://theprint.in/defence/army-se...the-most-potent-tank-in-its-inventory/380869/
https://thediplomat.com/2019/11/ind...illion-deal-for-464-t-90ms-main-battle-tanks/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

HRK said:


> could not say about Egypt or Iraq I posted the *rumor *which came to my knowledge ....
> 
> 
> interest was genuine in fact in one interview of an official who was part of visiting Delegation to Russia hinted the purchase of multiple batches over the period .... but as per @Arsalan our discussion for T-90 was facing some issues regarding import of tank ammunition and spares parts [If I am not wrong]


Honestly, it got confusing! A friend of mine told me about a team of ammunition experts (not tank boys) going to Russia to work out of details of that T-90 deal. Must have something to do with ammunition we would go for or something like that. Anyway, the deal collapsed! I have been saying this ever since that there is very little chance of T-90s for PA. Again, i am not talking about from perspective of the tank guys here but the ones who are supposed to provide them firepower.



HRK said:


> Two theories ...
> 
> - T-90 was negotiated but the discussion fell through due to no agreement from Pakistan for some of the clauses/ conditions because of this we never reached to the stage of testing
> 
> - T-90 was tested in Russia [though I have doubt about this theory/rumor]


Go with the first one, 
ALWAYS go with the first one

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Arsalan said:


> Honestly, it got confusing! A friend of mine told me about a team of ammunition experts (not tank boys) going to Russia to work out of details of that T-90 deal. Must have something to do with ammunition we would go for or something like that. Anyway, the deal collapsed! I have been saying this ever since that there is very little chance of T-90s for PA. Again, i am not talking about from perspective of the tank guys here but the ones who are supposed to provide them firepower.
> 
> 
> Go with the first one,
> ALWAYS go with the first one


So PA initially went for T90 instead of VT-4?


----------



## Arsalan

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> So PA initially went for T90 instead of VT-4?


I wont say "went for it". Multiple options were being looked at and it seems T-90s were one of those options.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

If you go through Ark Angel's posts, the T-90MS issue has been cleared up completely. He says they were in fact tested and found to be good, mentions metallurgy as better. Financing was the issue and overall value for the deal. 

The only question I have is why not T-80Us. Switch the engine and you get roughly a T-80UD.


----------



## LKJ86

Armchair said:


> Totally agree with your assessment. A-10s or Su-25s would be an incredible force multiplier for Pak armor. Specially in a netcentric environment which VT-4s can provide (supposedly). If you ask me, PA would grab any chance to get A-10s but your country wouldn't sell. I'd even go with A-1 Skyraiders or something similar.
> 
> If PA is cash strapped as implied by @PanzerKiel the solution lies in replicating a Mirage-like program of buying second-hand and overhauling / modernizing.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ

Armchair said:


> Totally agree with your assessment. A-10s or Su-25s would be an incredible force multiplier for Pak armor. Specially in a netcentric environment which VT-4s can provide (supposedly). If you ask me, PA would grab any chance to get A-10s but your country wouldn't sell. I'd even go with A-1 Skyraiders or something similar.
> 
> If PA is cash strapped as implied by @PanzerKiel the solution lies in replicating a Mirage-like program of buying second-hand and overhauling / modernizing.


Warthog is a bit expensive if you consider cost per flight hour besides unavailability... rightly said props are a better solution think, Super Tucano ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 628781
> View attachment 628782
> View attachment 628783
> View attachment 628784


Details?


----------



## LKJ86

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Details?


PGZ-09 and HQ-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ said:


> Warthog is a bit expensive if you consider cost per flight hour besides unavailability... rightly said props are a better solution think, Super Tucano ...



Super Tucano $6-$10 million. VT-4 - $3 million. Su-25 - $1 - $10 million. Refurbished radial props like the A-1s probably less than 0.5 million. CJ-6s probably around 0.1 million.


----------



## ziaulislam

Armchair said:


> Totally agree with your assessment. A-10s or Su-25s would be an incredible force multiplier for Pak armor. Specially in a netcentric environment which VT-4s can provide (supposedly). If you ask me, PA would grab any chance to get A-10s but your country wouldn't sell. I'd even go with A-1 Skyraiders or something similar.
> 
> If PA is cash strapped as implied by @PanzerKiel the solution lies in replicating a Mirage-like program of buying second-hand and overhauling / modernizing.


I kinda believe things might turn out different ..
My guess is that cold start doctrine will not happen or even work... and both countries will first fight it out in the air..the one who wins that will command further battles and ultimately the war.. 
Without air battle being decided the risk to armour advancement is too high..

In such case A10s/su 25 will not work you would need high performance jet that can fist counter IAF..

Drones armed with laser guided weapons should however work early on given their Long endurance and lower cost

This beleive that world might come to end the war is also flawed..historical it has not happened...
Therefore a long protracted war is possible ..
In such war the air battles will first be decided once that is decided the winner will push with armour assualt ...

This will all remain below nuclear threshold as till armour assualt loss of life will be low. 
India is increasingly questioning the nuclear threshold(dangerously) anyway

In summary PAF needs to revamped so it can ensure that IAF doesnt attain airsuperiority over battlefield...after that armoured core should have independent assests for airsupports /denial (gunships/drones/SAMs) to ensure protection ...
If IAF does dismantle PAF early on then army gunships & drones will simply become target practice for IAF

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Haris Ali2140

Armchair said:


> Totally agree with your assessment. A-10s or Su-25s would be an incredible force multiplier for Pak armor. Specially in a netcentric environment which VT-4s can provide (supposedly). If you ask me, PA would grab any chance to get A-10s but your country wouldn't sell. I'd even go with A-1 Skyraiders or something similar.
> 
> If PA is cash strapped as implied by @PanzerKiel the solution lies in replicating a Mirage-like program of buying second-hand and overhauling / modernizing.



How will you counter Manpads that will be present in very large quantities among you enemy???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

Haris Ali2140 said:


> How will you counter Manpads that will be present in very large quantities among you enemy???



Hi Haris, please allow me to answer in points:
1. Existence of manpads do not negate CAS missions any more than existence of ATGMs making tanks obsolete
2. If you follow Syrian news, you will notice manpads have largely been unsuccessful against fixed wing, but relatively more successful against helicopters dropping barrel bombs from height. This is because fixed wing is faster, shrinking effective ranges of manpads and having the ability to maneuver away more effectively
3. The standard NATO method, during the Cold War, when not only did they expect manpads but entire Soviet layered IADS. The method is to fly nap of the earth, pop up, fire, scoot. This is what the Harriers, A-10s, AMXs, etc were designed to perform.
4. I could further use DIRCM, which have become cheap and compact. Flares. Use drones to supplement and complement the CAS aircraft, distracting the enemy and overloading his ability to differentiate targets.
5. I could use the time of day and position of the sun. Manpads have a hard time when fired in the direction of the sun.
6. I could use altitude / distance and use standoff laser guided munitions.
7. I could fly at an altitude and drop cluster munition
8. I could drop mines in projected enemy vectors
9. I could use net-centric assets like VT-4 and Sh-15s to provide detailed data of enemy positions, real time, so artillery and other assets can take them out
10. I could use an onboard artillery spotting radar to find were the enemy artillery is, flanking their main force, take out their artillery
11. I could distribute my CAS and UAV assets sparsely along the entire Eastern front, thus avoiding large clusters and high frequency of flights in specific geographical areas, thus making it difficult for the enemy to predictably locate ingressing aircraft.
12. I could keep juggling tactics and strategies. For instance, I could randomly increase or decrease tempos and diversify vectors.
13...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Haris Ali2140 said:


> How will you counter Manpads that will be present in very large quantities among you enemy???


A lot of modern airforces are turning towards these low cost,highly agile and potent turbo props below for CAS.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> A lot of modern airforces are turning towards these low cost,highly agile and potent turbo props below for CAS.


They cannot install radar. Not very useful and too dedicated platform and one function equipment. Against low tech rebels, good enough. But against a proper armed forces. Its gonna waste money.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Haris Ali2140

Armchair said:


> Hi Haris, please allow me to answer in points:
> 1. Existence of manpads do not negate CAS missions any more than existence of ATGMs making tanks obsolete
> 2. If you follow Syrian news, you will notice manpads have largely been unsuccessful against fixed wing, but relatively more successful against helicopters dropping barrel bombs from height. This is because fixed wing is faster, shrinking effective ranges of manpads and having the ability to maneuver away more effectively
> 3. The standard NATO method, during the Cold War, when not only did they expect manpads but entire Soviet layered IADS. The method is to fly nap of the earth, pop up, fire, scoot. This is what the Harriers, A-10s, AMXs, etc were designed to perform.
> 4. I could further use DIRCM, which have become cheap and compact. Flares. Use drones to supplement and complement the CAS aircraft, distracting the enemy and overloading his ability to differentiate targets.
> 5. I could use the time of day and position of the sun. Manpads have a hard time when fired in the direction of the sun.
> 6. I could use altitude / distance and use standoff laser guided munitions.
> 7. I could fly at an altitude and drop cluster munition
> 8. I could drop mines in projected enemy vectors
> 9. I could use net-centric assets like VT-4 and Sh-15s to provide detailed data of enemy positions, real time, so artillery and other assets can take them out
> 10. I could use an onboard artillery spotting radar to find were the enemy artillery is, flanking their main force, take out their artillery
> 11. I could distribute my CAS and UAV assets sparsely along the entire Eastern front, thus avoiding large clusters and high frequency of flights in specific geographical areas, thus making it difficult for the enemy to predictably locate ingressing aircraft.
> 12. I could keep juggling tactics and strategies. For instance, I could randomly increase or decrease tempos and diversify vectors.
> 13...


We are talking about one of the biggest defence spender here not some rebels with no AD.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> A lot of modern airforces are turning towards these low cost,highly agile and potent turbo props below for CAS.


Good for COIN but not conventional war.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

ziaulislam said:


> I kinda believe things might turn out different ..
> My guess is that cold start doctrine will not happen or even work... and both countries will first fight it out in the air..the one who wins that will command further battles and ultimately the war..
> Without air battle being decided the risk to armour advancement is too high..
> 
> In such case A10s/su 25 will not work you would need high performance jet that can fist counter IAF..
> 
> Drones armed with laser guided weapons should however work early on given their Long endurance and lower cost
> 
> This beleive that world might come to end the war is also flawed..historical it has not happened...
> Therefore a long protracted war is possible ..
> In such war the air battles will first be decided once that is decided the winner will push with armour assualt ...
> 
> This will all remain below nuclear threshold as till armour assualt loss of life will be low.
> India is increasingly questioning the nuclear threshold(dangerously) anyway
> 
> In summary PAF needs to revamped so it can ensure that IAF doesnt attain airsuperiority over battlefield...after that armoured core should have independent assests for airsupports /denial (gunships/drones/SAMs) to ensure protection ...
> If IAF does dismantle PAF early on then army gunships & drones will simply become target practice for IAF



A new doctrine, as a successor to CSD is now there. Has entirely different dimensions, challenges the best in all of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Constantin84

PanzerKiel said:


> Dear, a separate thread is required for this gigantic task.


What do we have,? but time on our hands,nowadays


----------



## PanzerKiel

Constantin84 said:


> What do we have,? but time on our hands,nowadays



Not everyone, I must say .



PanzerKiel said:


> A new doctrine, as a successor to CSD is now there. Has entirely different dimensions, challenges the best in all of us.



Reason for mentioning this thing is that, we shouldn't be discussing CSD that much, but on its possible derivatives so that we should arrive at the right conclusions. Focusing purely on CSD may not prove beneficial anymore.



PanzerKiel said:


> A new doctrine, as a successor to CSD is now there. Has entirely different dimensions, challenges the best in all of us.



https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/496192-the-new-shape-of-cold-start

Just some cursory hints in there, but of course pure sources cannot be quoted.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## maverick1977

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Relax. India is getting about 600 tanks. 464 T90MS+118 Arjun MK1A
> 
> https://theprint.in/defence/army-se...the-most-potent-tank-in-its-inventory/380869/
> https://thediplomat.com/2019/11/ind...illion-deal-for-464-t-90ms-main-battle-tanks/





OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ said:


> Warthog is a bit expensive if you consider cost per flight hour besides unavailability... rightly said props are a better solution think, Super Tucano ...



K8 can be a great anti armor platform. leverage what pakistan already has..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

maverick1977 said:


> K8 can be a great anti armor platform


You first need to maintain air superiority and take out IA's SAMs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Pressurized by opposition especially Imran Niazi


Nawaz Sharif owns (and should own) every decision made during his government, just like Imran Khan owns (and should own) every decision made during his government.

I know it sounds simplistic, but that is how I view it. If you're going to run for, and win, the highest elected office in the land, have the courage and values to take responsibility for what happens under your watch .... or just resign.

I am really tired of all the excuses trotted out about 'dharna didn't let me do this ... Army didn't let me do this .... Khadim Rizvi didn't let me do this'.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 628781
> View attachment 628782
> View attachment 628783
> View attachment 628784


Its Air defence System right? Its range according to net is 12 km. We have 15km FM 90


----------



## Mumm-Ra

PanzerKiel said:


> Just some cursory hints in there, but of course pure sources cannot be quoted



It looks like it is based on the Brigade Combat Teams of the US. Their recent acquisitions of mobile heavy artillery also points to this direction.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Xlvee01 said:


> It looks like it is based on the Brigade Combat Teams of the US. Their recent acquisitions of mobile heavy artillery also points to this direction.



Actually, IA Brigade level groups were there in CSD as well. But now, their mode, time and grouping has been changed.

IA was always lacking SP Artillery for their armored brigades which they are trying to make up now . It has nothing to do with their doctrine, but just an integral and required element which was missing.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Inception-06

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Also we don't have much mobile Air Defence Assets for our ground forces. Our FM 90 only has 15 km whereas India's Akash has 30km range. MANPADs have lesser ranges



Only in this part, I can agree!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> A was always lacking SP Artillery for their armored brigades which they are trying to make up now


They are getting K9 Vajras



Inception-06 said:


> Only in this part, I can agree!


We also lack Attack Helis


----------



## IceCold

PanzerKiel said:


> A new doctrine, as a successor to CSD is now there. Has entirely different dimensions, challenges the best in all of us.


Care to elaborate once you have time? Challenges, strength and weakness. Nasr was our response to CSD. If a new doctrine is there,that means a response must also be developed accordingly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Its Air defence System right? Its range according to net is 12 km. We have 15km FM 90


PGZ-09 and HQ-17 don't play the same role as that of FM-90.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> We also lack Attack Helis



We should not see the number of our attack helis as though we wanted more but this is what we got. It was, again, as per doctrine, that these helis were bought for a very specific task, and for this task this amount was plentiful.



IceCold said:


> Care to elaborate once you have time? Challenges, strength and weakness. Nasr was our response to CSD. If a new doctrine is there,that means a response must also be developed accordingly.



Would surely do. Nasr, however, still retains its importance for countering the new doctrine. In order to counter the effects of Nasr, IA would have to let go of several drills and procedures they ought to take for operations.



Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> We also lack Attack Helis



Procurement of military equipment has to be role specific. Hundreds or thousands of everything cannot and should not be bought.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Inception-06

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 628781
> View attachment 628782
> View attachment 628783
> View attachment 628784



Firing during driving videos?


----------



## LKJ86

Inception-06 said:


> Firing during driving videos?


They can, but didn't show in those videos.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> Procurement of military equipment has to be role specific. Hundreds or thousands of everything cannot and should not be bought.


Sir AH1s I think lack in effective Anti Armour Role. i can be wrong also


----------



## PanzerKiel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Sir AH1s I think lack in effective Anti Armour Role. i can be wrong also



Nopes dear. A flight of 3 AH1 is enough to stop an armored regiment. You can do the maths.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Cookie Monster

ziaulislam said:


> I kinda believe things might turn out different ..
> My guess is that cold start doctrine will not happen or even work... and both countries will first fight it out in the air..the one who wins that will command further battles and ultimately the war..
> Without air battle being decided the risk to armour advancement is too high..
> 
> In such case A10s/su 25 will not work you would need high performance jet that can fist counter IAF..
> 
> Drones armed with laser guided weapons should however work early on given their Long endurance and lower cost
> 
> This beleive that world might come to end the war is also flawed..historical it has not happened...
> Therefore a long protracted war is possible ..
> In such war the air battles will first be decided once that is decided the winner will push with armour assualt ...
> 
> This will all remain below nuclear threshold as till armour assualt loss of life will be low.
> India is increasingly questioning the nuclear threshold(dangerously) anyway
> 
> In summary PAF needs to revamped so it can ensure that IAF doesnt attain airsuperiority over battlefield...after that armoured core should have independent assests for airsupports /denial (gunships/drones/SAMs) to ensure protection ...
> If IAF does dismantle PAF early on then army gunships & drones will simply become target practice for IAF


If it's going to be a full blown war...rather than just a minor skirmish then I don't think it will be first air warfare while advancing armored columns are held back until air superiority is achieved by one side...

It may initially start out that way...but the moment any side experiences a set back...they would start using other means to divert their opponent's airforce. If IAF was being dominated in the air by PAF...it would make sense for them to launch ground offensives in various sectors bcuz then PAF would be forced to provide cover to PA countering those offensives while also carrying out bombing missions on the advancing IA...
...this would take away the ability of PAF to solely focus on IAF and spread it thin.

The same would happen the other way around. This would only be the case if both countries are going to engage in a full blown war. For minor skirmishes to seem macho and what not...that's a different thing.

However as u have said that air dominance is an absolute must in today's warfare...and PAF needs to be beefed up as much as possible through whatever means necessary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Sir AH1s I think lack in effective Anti Armour Role. i can be wrong also



Lo, they were PRIMARILY bought for their anti armor role. Imagine, 8 BGM 71s on each Cobra.







Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Sir AH1s I think lack in effective Anti Armour Role. i can be wrong also



https://www.airliners.net/photo/Pakistan-Army/Bell-AH-1F-Cobra-209/5485011/L





@Syed Hammad Ahmed

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Cookie Monster said:


> then PAF would be forced to provide cover to PA countering those offensives while also carrying out bombing missions on the advancing IA


Well I think F16s and JF17s will their against IAF. JF 17s and Mirages will be there for bombing mission on IAF


----------



## Affanakad0t.

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> They are getting K9 Vajras


They are also making it localy. Drdo project and another one also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

And this what an Indian Defence analyst had to say about the initial 20 AH1s we bought in the 80s.
@Syed Hammad Ahmed

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Affanakad0t. said:


> They are also making it localy. Drdo project and another one also.


This?
https://www.***************/russia-india-to-develop-new-self-propelled-gun-spg-67854/


----------



## Affanakad0t.

We can also buy or make few dozens of *SPAAG vehicles.

It can work along side with VT-4s*



Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> This?
> https://www.***************/russia-india-to-develop-new-self-propelled-gun-spg-67854/


My bad. Both are towed artillery system.
1. *Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System
2. Dhanush*


----------



## Cookie Monster

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Well I think F16s and JF17s will their against IAF. JF 17s and Mirages will be there for bombing mission on IAF


That's not the point in making...
...what I'm saying is that one country or the other will try to divert its opponent's assets in a full blown war.


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> View attachment 628845
> 
> 
> And this what an Indian Defence analyst had to say about the initial 20 AH1s we bought in the 80s.
> @Syed Hammad Ahmed


Thankyou Sir. Now i think they are having Akash Missile and 2K12 KUB having 20km+ range which our Cobras now have to look out


----------



## PanzerKiel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Thankyou Sir. Now i think they are having Akash Missile and 2K12 KUB having 20km+ range which our Cobras now have to look out



Cmon man, its always a circle. If we want to employ AH1s in an area, shouldnt we take active measures to neutralize their SAMs beforehand? Thats where SEAD / DEAD and employment of LCBs and SSG comes in. Its all connected. Always have the bigger picture, nothing is in isolation.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Affanakad0t.

Ukraine has no. Of su-25 in their storage. We can get em cheaply.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHI RULES

PanzerKiel said:


> Nopes dear. A flight of 3 AH1 is enough to stop an armored regiment. You can do the maths.


Sir in recent past even a serving high ranking PAA officer publicly made statement that our AH1s are now becoming difficult to maintain and hardly can fly up to 10000 ft, the missiles perhaps are Baktar shikan which may face effectiveness issues against modern MBTs. PA should get replacements as early as possible with capable ATGMS and defensive gadgets. The Moody is a war monger and may take a foolish step any time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

CHI RULES said:


> Sir in recent past even a serving high ranking PAA officer publicly made statement that our AH1s are now becoming difficult to maintain and hardly can fly up to 10000 ft, the missiles perhaps are Baktar shikan which may face effectiveness issues against modern MBTs. PA should get replacements as early as possible with capable ATGMS and defensive gadgets. The Moody is a war monger and may take a foolish step any time.



You are right dear, maintenance issues especially of airframes are there. But then, in anti-armr role you always fly using nap-of-the-earth tactics, even AH-64 Apache uses the same tactics, keeping below the horizon while using its Longbow radar.

High altitude for attack helis means they can be shot down from miles away. Therefore, altitude isnt a problem.

Our AH1s are configured for both BGM-71 and BSWS.



Affanakad0t. said:


> We can also buy or make few dozens of *SPAAG vehicles.
> 
> It can work along side with VT-4s*



The reason we arent going primarily on a SPAAG route is that their guns offer ranges of max 4-5 Kms nowadays besides high rate of ammo expenditure and accuracy. In the era of standoff threat there is a need of system able to counter stand off threat with guidance system, therefore missiles are preferred which are having 1 or more guidance system

We have got PANTSIR for the reason that it is a hybrid system, it has 12 missiles on one vehicle with a range of 20 Kms and radio command guidance , the guns are secondary weapons with range of 4 Kms. Even in PANTSIR for firing of guns the system needs to be stopped and jacks lowered. However for missiles, it can fire while moving.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## ziaulislam

PanzerKiel said:


> Lo, they were PRIMARILY bought for their anti armor role. Imagine, 8 BGM 71s on each Cobra.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.airliners.net/photo/Pakistan-Army/Bell-AH-1F-Cobra-209/5485011/L
> 
> View attachment 628844
> 
> @Syed Hammad Ahmed


Can they use hellfire? And do we have acess to hellfire(i know it was orderee with zulus)
Any other fire and forget system that can go with it?


----------



## PanzerKiel

ziaulislam said:


> Can they use hellfire? And do we have acess to hellfire(i know it was orderee with zulus)
> Any other fire and forget system that can go with it?



We do not have AGM-114.



ziaulislam said:


> Can they use hellfire?



Nopes. In cobra family, AGM-114 can only be used by AH1W Super Cobras and AH1Z.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CHI RULES

PanzerKiel said:


> You are right dear, maintenance issues especially of airframes are there. But then, in anti-armr role you always fly using nap-of-the-earth tactics, even AH-64 Apache uses the same tactics, keeping below the horizon while using its Longbow radar.
> 
> High altitude for attack helis means they can be shot down from miles away. Therefore, altitude isnt a problem.
> 
> Our AH1s are configured for both BGM-71 and BSWS.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we arent going primarily on a SPAAG route is that their guns offer ranges of max 4-5 Kms nowadays besides high rate of ammo expenditure and accuracy. In the era of standoff threat there is a need of system able to counter stand off threat with guidance system, therefore missiles are preferred which are having 1 or more guidance system
> 
> We have got PANTSIR for the reason that it is a hybrid system, it has 12 missiles on one vehicle with a range of 20 Kms and radio command guidance , the guns are secondary weapons with range of 4 Kms. Even in PANTSIR for firing of guns the system needs to be stopped and jacks lowered. However for missiles, it can fire while moving.



Sir only two issues one maintenance and other defensive capabilities. As may be a lay man yet I am smelling that PA and IAF/IA attack helis may come face to face in any future war and better shall survive just like skirmish of previous year proved many points. The same has already happened in Iran-Iraq war though details are hardly available.



CHI RULES said:


> Sir only two issues one maintenance and other defensive capabilities. As may be a lay man yet I am smelling that PA and IAF/IA attack helis may come face to face in any future war and better shall survive just like skirmish of previous year proved many points. The same has already happened in Iran-Iraq war though details are hardly available.



The VT4 and other coming MBTs can prove their worth only if used in a combo with other assets like very short to medium range mobile SAMs and support of capable Attack helis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255850232946057218USA? Iran? VT-4???

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

CHI RULES said:


> Sir only two issues one maintenance and other defensive capabilities. As may be a lay man yet I am smelling that PA and IAF/IA attack helis may come face to face in any future war and better shall survive just like skirmish of previous year proved many points. The same has already happened in Iran-Iraq war though details are hardly available.



In that case, first, both sides will try to shoot the other side's AHs out of the sky, either by AD or PAF/IAF. Attack helis normally donot operate till the time you donot have air superiority, or atleast air parity. With enemy fighters in the air already, its suicide to take your helis out.

Even then, if they do come face to face, it will have mixed results, ours is small and agile, theirs is big and heavily armed, on the ground will be AD elements of both sides who will interfere, along with AA HMGs joining in the show.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Joe Shearer

LKJ86 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255850232946057218USA? Iran? VT-4???



Pompeo is being heavily sarcastic, and berating Sen.Elizabeth Warren for some reason. He puts it to her that what she has said earlier, whatever he is responding to, implies that she will not want to see Chinese aid to Iran in October blocked. If so, he asks, what would she agree to China sending to Iran? VT-4 tanks, he asks?

This is all part of a spat between two members of the American political system. It has nothing to do with Iran, or with China.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

CHI RULES said:


> The VT4 and other coming MBTs can prove their worth only if used in a combo with other assets like very short to medium range mobile SAMs and support of capable Attack helis.



Seems like you missed my point in the previous posts. AH1s wont be used in direct support of our advancing armor. They will be mostly used either to interdict enemy armor reinforcements moving towards the battlefield or to stop an enemy armor force which has broken through unexpectedly through our defences.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86

Joe Shearer said:


> Pompeo is being heavily sarcastic, and berating Sen.Elizabeth Warren for some reason. He puts it to her that what she has said earlier, whatever he is responding to, implies that she will not want to see Chinese aid to Iran in October blocked. If so, he asks, what would she agree to China sending to Iran? VT-4 tanks, he asks?
> 
> This is all part of a spat between two members of the American political system. It has nothing to do with Iran, or with China.


I'm just surprised that Pompeo also knows of VT-4...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Joe Shearer

PanzerKiel said:


> In that case, first, both sides will try to shoot the other side's AHs out of the sky, either by AD or PAF/IAF. Attack helis normally donot operate till the time you donot have air superiority, or atleast air parity. With enemy fighters in the air already, its suicide to take your helis out.
> 
> Even then, if they do come face to face, it will have mixed results, ours is small and agile, theirs is big and heavily armed, on the ground will be AD elements of both sides who will interfere, along with AA HMGs joining in the show.



At least 75% of the attack helicopters that can be deployed are intended to be small and agile ones, operated by the Army. The big and heavily armed 800 lb gorillas are to be operated by the Air Force. 

Apart from this, all the rest is likely to remain the same.

Whoever wins across all three layers, Air Defence assets and Anti-Aircraft assets, attack helicopters, and fixed wing interceptors and air superiority fighters, will win the domination of the air over the battlefield. It does not guarantee success for the ground forces engagements.



LKJ86 said:


> I'm just surprised that Pompeo also knows of VT-4...



You do remember his previous job?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bratva

PanzerKiel said:


> You are right dear, maintenance issues especially of airframes are there. But then, in anti-armr role you always fly using nap-of-the-earth tactics, even AH-64 Apache uses the same tactics, keeping below the horizon while using its Longbow radar.
> 
> High altitude for attack helis means they can be shot down from miles away. Therefore, altitude isnt a problem.
> 
> Our AH1s are configured for both BGM-71 and BSWS.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we arent going primarily on a SPAAG route is that their guns offer ranges of max 4-5 Kms nowadays besides high rate of ammo expenditure and accuracy. In the era of standoff threat there is a need of system able to counter stand off threat with guidance system, therefore missiles are preferred which are having 1 or more guidance system
> 
> We have got PANTSIR for the reason that it is a hybrid system, it has 12 missiles on one vehicle with a range of 20 Kms and radio command guidance , the guns are secondary weapons with range of 4 Kms. Even in PANTSIR for firing of guns the system needs to be stopped and jacks lowered. However for missiles, it can fire while moving.



PANTSIR has been delivered? Some member claimed that Initial deliver was in January but for some reason it got delayed and didn't arrive?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Joe Shearer said:


> You do remember his previous job?


*Pompeo: 'I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole'*

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> *We have got PANTSIR* for the reason that it is a hybrid system, it has 12 missiles on one vehicle with a range of 20 Kms and radio command guidance , the guns are secondary weapons with range of 4 Kms. Even in PANTSIR for firing of guns the system needs to be stopped and jacks lowered. However for missiles, it can fire while moving.


Yes Confirmation has come Finally 
I hope we have Pantsir S2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Bratva said:


> PANTSIR has been delivered? Some member claimed that Initial deliver was in January but for some reason it got delayed and didn't arrive?



Nopes dear. Unit has bee raised, OEM trg at Russia done, it was to be delivered in January as you say, but Covid-19 has delayed everything.

@Syed Hammad Ahmed

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Zarvan

PanzerKiel said:


> You are right dear, maintenance issues especially of airframes are there. But then, in anti-armr role you always fly using nap-of-the-earth tactics, even AH-64 Apache uses the same tactics, keeping below the horizon while using its Longbow radar.
> 
> High altitude for attack helis means they can be shot down from miles away. Therefore, altitude isnt a problem.
> 
> Our AH1s are configured for both BGM-71 and BSWS.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we arent going primarily on a SPAAG route is that their guns offer ranges of max 4-5 Kms nowadays besides high rate of ammo expenditure and accuracy. In the era of standoff threat there is a need of system able to counter stand off threat with guidance system, therefore missiles are preferred which are having 1 or more guidance system
> 
> We have got PANTSIR for the reason that it is a hybrid system, it has 12 missiles on one vehicle with a range of 20 Kms and radio command guidance , the guns are secondary weapons with range of 4 Kms. Even in PANTSIR for firing of guns the system needs to be stopped and jacks lowered. However for missiles, it can fire while moving.


How many batteries we got ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> theirs is big and heavily armed


Only i think 24 AH 64s. Their Mi24s are going to be retired and their LCHs are light


----------



## PanzerKiel

Zarvan said:


> How many batteries we got ???



A whole regiment.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Cuirassier

IMO battlefield-level air defence is adequate - probably one of the departments I'm comfortable we're fine in. LRSAMs for VP/VA protection may be needed - we rely on PAF interceptors for protection, apart from those SA-2s near ICT there is nothing much.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

TF141 said:


> IMO battlefield-level air defence is adequate - probably one of the departments I'm comfortable we're fine in. LRSAMs for VP/VA protection may be needed - we rely on PAF interceptors for protection, apart from those SA-2s near ICT there is nothing much.



...and that LY80 in Lahore.......others also around......

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> ...and that LY80 in Lahore.......others also around......


Sir LY 80 is only 40km max. I hope we upgrade them to HQ16B(70km max)

Something like HQ9B/9C is needed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cuirassier

PanzerKiel said:


> ...and that LY80 in Lahore.......others also around......


Sorry to bother but where does Pantsir fit in - and only 3 batteries? Is it for serving w/ LY80 or elsewhere?


----------



## PanzerKiel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Sir LY 80 is only 40km max. I hope we upgrade them to HQ16B(70km max)
> 
> Something like HQ9B/9C is needed



But then thats where the concept of VA and VP comes in. Aim is not to cover the whole airspace, we just need to cover the important points and areas. Minimum is that, everyone would be happy having more than that.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> But then thats where the concept of VA and VP comes in. Aim is not to cover the whole airspace, we just need to cover the important points and areas. Minimum is that, everyone would be happy having more than that.


India is getting S400s and Barak 8s to protect its major cities


----------



## LKJ86

Genghis khan1 said:


> I want VT-5. I don’t like last years models. Izzat b koi cheez hy.





waz said:


> Bro they are totally different tanks....The VT5 is 32% lighter, can be transported by heavy lift craft and is designed to operate in China's high altitude border areas.
> The VT4 is a frontline battle tank designed to meet the enemy head on.


ZTQ-15 on the plateau:

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## PanzerKiel

TF141 said:


> Sorry to bother but where does Pantsir fit in - and only 3 batteries? Is it for serving w/ LY80 or elsewhere?



Elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

PanzerKiel said:


> You are right dear, maintenance issues especially of airframes are there. But then, in anti-armr role you always fly using nap-of-the-earth tactics, even AH-64 Apache uses the same tactics, keeping below the horizon while using its Longbow radar.
> 
> High altitude for attack helis means they can be shot down from miles away. Therefore, altitude isnt a problem.
> 
> Our AH1s are configured for both BGM-71 and BSWS.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we arent going primarily on a SPAAG route is that their guns offer ranges of max 4-5 Kms nowadays besides high rate of ammo expenditure and accuracy. In the era of standoff threat there is a need of system able to counter stand off threat with guidance system, therefore missiles are preferred which are having 1 or more guidance system
> 
> We have got PANTSIR for the reason that it is a hybrid system, it has 12 missiles on one vehicle with a range of 20 Kms and radio command guidance , the guns are secondary weapons with range of 4 Kms. Even in PANTSIR for firing of guns the system needs to be stopped and jacks lowered. However for missiles, it can fire while moving.



Don't mind but you had to reveal this?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Dazzler said:


> Don't mind but you had to reveal this?



This whole info in available on internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Affanakad0t. said:


> Ukraine has no. Of su-25 in their storage. We can get em cheaply.



Su25s are maintenance Hogs man



PanzerKiel said:


> This whole info in available on internet.



Yes info is there but you confirmed it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Dazzler said:


> Don't mind but you had to reveal this?





Dazzler said:


> Su25s are maintenance Hogs man
> 
> 
> 
> Yes info is there but you confirmed it.



The info which I've given is just like any other info on internet, with some cushion of inaccuracy in it as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Tipu7

PanzerKiel said:


> The info which I've given is just like any other info on internet, with some cushion of inaccuracy in it as well.


The VT4 storm is yet to set, and here you are creating a new one. 
These storms should come periodically not simultaneously.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

Tipu7 said:


> The VT4 storm is yet to set, and here you are creating a new one.
> These storms should come periodically not simultaneously.



Alright then. I'll delay the storms.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tipu7

PanzerKiel said:


> Alright then. I'll delay the storms.


Yeah for a bit. It might create a bad impression.
Number of people believing that Army is spending a lot on defense products despite of shortage of money for COVID-19, is increasing. There are even gems who want to sell off Pakistan existing military arsenal for sake of buying more ventilators.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## PanzerKiel

Tipu7 said:


> Yeah for a bit. It might create a bad impression.
> Number of people believing that Army is spending a lot on defense products despite of shortage of money for COVID-19, is increasing. There are even gems who want to sell of Pakistan existing arsenal for sake of buying more ventilators.



Yeah I've read the tweets. Anyways, these people otherwise don't let any opportunity go waste of maligning Pakistan, Covid-19 not.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## waz

Just a general note *please stick to discussing the VT-4.*
We've had CAS, air defence, helicopter procuring etc. 
It's all related but people will just get lost and a good thread just goes in every direction.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Affanakad0t.

PanzerKiel said:


> You are right dear, maintenance issues especially of airframes are there. But then, in anti-armr role you always fly using nap-of-the-earth tactics, even AH-64 Apache uses the same tactics, keeping below the horizon while using its Longbow radar.
> 
> High altitude for attack helis means they can be shot down from miles away. Therefore, altitude isnt a problem.
> 
> Our AH1s are configured for both BGM-71 and BSWS.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we arent going primarily on a SPAAG route is that their guns offer ranges of max 4-5 Kms nowadays besides high rate of ammo expenditure and accuracy. In the era of standoff threat there is a need of system able to counter stand off threat with guidance system, therefore missiles are preferred which are having 1 or more guidance system
> 
> We have got PANTSIR for the reason that it is a hybrid system, it has 12 missiles on one vehicle with a range of 20 Kms and radio command guidance , the guns are secondary weapons with range of 4 Kms. Even in PANTSIR for firing of guns the system needs to be stopped and jacks lowered. However for missiles, it can fire while moving.


We have pantsir??


----------



## Akh1112

Affanakad0t. said:


> We have pantsir??




No we do not.


----------



## Sine Nomine

@AgNoStiC MuSliM it's about time,that thread should be made sticky and title changed to appropriate one.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Sine Nomine said:


> @AgNoStiC MuSliM it's about time,that thread should be made sticky and title changed to appropriate one.


It's supposed to be a VT-4 thread, correct?

Suggestions on a better thread title?

I'll delete these posts after their conclusion.



Affanakad0t. said:


> We have pantsir??


As Waz said, let's stick to the primary topic.

I understand that @PanzerKiel has been extremely forthcoming and helpful in answering a wide variety of questions, but perhaps questions on issues other than the VT-4 can be asked by tagging him in the relevant thread (pretty sure we have a bunch of Pantsir threads).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sine Nomine

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> It's supposed to be a VT-4 thread, correct?
> 
> Suggestions on a better thread title?
> 
> I'll delete these posts after their conclusion.


VT-4 Main Battle Tank Information Pool

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

Sine Nomine said:


> VT-4 Main Battle Tank Information Pool


Maybe we should do that once its first pic revealed after it arrives Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Zulfiqar

T-80 reload mechanism.

@Dazzler what type of mechanism is used by VT4 and AK?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dreamer.

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> It's supposed to be a VT-4 thread, correct?
> 
> Suggestions on a better thread title?
> 
> I'll delete these posts after their conclusion.


Given the nature of thread starting from page 1 and then what came in later pages Title should be,
"VT-4 MBT Trials/Procurement by Pakistan Army."


IblinI said:


> Maybe we should do that once its first pic revealed after it arrives Pakistan.


When we actually get them and there are pics etc. and it's officially confirmed then it's time to close this thread and start another one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

Zulfiqar said:


> T-80 reload mechanism.
> 
> @Dazzler what type of mechanism is used by VT4 and AK?



Same as t72/ t90. The one on the left.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CHI RULES

Sir comments requested on GL-5 APS -Hard Kill of VT-4, perhaps previously only limited old era APS soft kill systems were in use like Varta.


----------



## Readerdefence

bananarepublic said:


> Dammit then where are the eurofighters funded by arab shekels in PAF colours


Hi sir hold your horses who sell those eurofighters and to whom & will be used against whom 
I hope you not mind writing me 
1 Arabs will never & ever going to buy anything potent for us (specifically of buying from USA or the allies ) which can be used against India 
Please do keep that considered specifically after the e it of USSR from Afghanistan 
So those days are gone frankly for funding euro kind of gadgets
2 Do you think civilians are that much powerful if military really wan to carry out Yemen they 
Are not allowed to do so 
3 if you do remember the first gulf war very minion Islamic country was sending their troops 
To line behind the American troops but General Bag wasn’t happy and too reluctant to send the troops under the American command Egypt send their troops & all their loans been write off completely 
So my plea is it’s not always the civilians all the time to decide in Pakistan beside with the current 
Situation & I mean current since atomic blasts no body likes Pakistan and nobody wants to make it that strong who can run over the Indians and capture Kashmir easily 
I hope I’m on offensive here with the writing 
Thank you

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

PanzerKiel said:


> Nopes dear. Unit has bee raised, OEM trg at Russia done, it was to be delivered in January as you say, but Covid-19 has delayed everything.
> 
> @Syed Hammad Ahmed


After the Syrian and Libyan experience do you think Pantsir is still sought by PA?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tipu7

Hakikat ve Hikmet said:


> After the Syrian and Libyan experience do you think Pantsir is still sought by PA?


Honestly, Pantsir was misused or better to say inappropriately used in these conflict. 
If one military, which lack air power of its own, got its ground forces dispursed and majority of assets destroyed, use a short range mobile air defense system as a forward deployed defensive asset against hostile forces which have achieved air superiority, got advance recon & surveillance systems and have stand off strike capability, then under such circumstances what does poor Pantsir can do other than getting knocked down like a target practice?



IblinI said:


> Maybe we should do that once its first pic revealed after it arrives Pakistan.


Agree, pics of Pakistan's VT4 will clear the remaining 10% doubt about authenticity of news.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Jamie Brooks

Testing and trial. Old one.


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Tipu7 said:


> Honestly, Pantsir was misused or better to say inappropriately used in these conflict.
> If one military, which lack air power of its own, got its ground forces dispursed and majority of assets destroyed, use a short range mobile air defense system as a forward deployed defensive asset against hostile forces which have achieved air superiority, got advance recon & surveillance systems and have stand off strike capability, then under such circumstances what does poor Pantsir can do other than getting knocked down like a target practice?
> 
> 
> Agree, pics of Pakistan's VT4 will clear the remaining 10% doubt about authenticity of news.


Then why not buy HISAR-A AD from the folks who have established air superiority and destroyed rival AD systems...

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ali_raza

PanzerKiel said:


> We do not have AGM-114.
> 
> 
> 
> Nopes. In cobra family, AGM-114 can only be used by AH1W Super Cobras and AH1Z.


can these 40 ish old machines be upgraded to Z configuration 
and wouldn’t it a safer bet if we take em all to zulu standards 
once we receive zulu cobras in couple of months



PanzerKiel said:


> Elsewhere.


its in my city.
multan isn’t?



PanzerKiel said:


> Alright then. I'll delay the storms.


so u mean alote of storms were there lol

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

I think it is possible the ultimate numbers bought will be for about 600 units. I seem to be reading this from analyzing Ark Angel's posts. He seemed to allude to an additional buy of 296.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mansoor313

Dazzler said:


> Su25s are maintenance Hogs man
> 
> 
> 
> Yes info is there but you confirmed it.


 who dose,nt know , ? There are plenty of threads on the forum , even hinted by PA ,the indian has better intelligence than comming here for info , the roots of spy networks in both countries both are holding each other by neck


----------



## CHI RULES

Hakikat ve Hikmet said:


> After the Syrian and Libyan experience do you think Pantsir is still sought by PA?


Sir if u allow me, do you think it is fair to analyse a system in isolation, i.e Pantsir or S200 and other SAMs were though little bit upgraded in Syria yet they were pitted against the best Air forces and technology of the world with absolute no air support by Syrian air force. The SAMs or other anti aircraft systems cannot be effective on their own, it is a combo Air and ground systems which can prove to be effective in any war along with effective counter jamming measures. In Syria if one hundred missiles were fired by allied ships with extreme jamming of Syrian radars even if Syrian SAM batteries were able to counter half of the missiles then those systems have proven their worth, as Syrians claim that majority of Missiles were countered yet they faced significant damages by those attacks.

*@Hakikat ve Hikmet *
your views requested about some matters is it possible that we may go for one on one discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

waz said:


> Yes, the T-90S wasn’t tested though, considered I believe.


Sorry bro but T-90s were tested. Not sure how satisfied we were with it but the deal was not finalized because of related issues/details.



Ark_Angel said:


> Ahmed Ibrahim tweets after reading stuff From Defence.Pk.



He is a defence.pk user as well and a very respected one. Plus i guess he have some education background in/from military/defense related fields so his tweets/comments are usually very balanced and educated.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ali_raza



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

PanzerKiel said:


> Alright then. I'll delay the storms.


No plz don't


----------



## ali_raza

okay please anyone explain in depth difference between 125mmvs120 mm
and why pakistanis adopt the prior


----------



## vishwambhar

Is VT4 most advanced tank of Pakistan among Al Khalid, Al Zarrar, T80UD?


----------



## waz

vishwambhar said:


> Is VT4 most advanced tank of Pakistan among Al Khalid, Al Zarrar, T80UD?



Yes it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Tipu7 said:


> Agree, pics of Pakistan's VT4 will clear the remaining 10% doubt about authenticity of news.


*It sounds like we will be seeing a lot of these in Pakistan very soon. Inshallah*

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## maverick1977

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Sir the problem is we dont have much Heli or AD assets. India will be having about 100+LCHs and 24 Apaches and we can't even have a deal signed for Gunships. Our Cobras are now begging us to get retired and we haven't got any Gunship deal confirmed. gunships are vital for Anti Tank Warfare
> 
> Also we don't have much mobile Air Defence Assets for our ground forces. Our FM 90 only has 15 km whereas India's Akash has 30km range. MANPADs have lesser ranges



valid concern.. Pakistan needs to increase the efforts to mass produce a heli.. otherwise helis will be landing in fieldw like indian helis AH64 in fields

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

According to Norinco, the VT-4s are handed over to the customer on schedule.







Via @北方工业 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ark_Angel

maverick1977 said:


> valid concern.. Pakistan needs to increase the efforts to mass produce a heli.. otherwise helis will be landing in fieldw like indian helis AH64 in fields


Our policy is minimum credible deterrence. We don't have to match bullet for a bullet. LOMADs and SHORAD will cover the necessary VPs/VAs. While The Offensive Elements will have the necessary Rotorary Element where required. And Defensive Elements will be having their own Integral Rotory support.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Zarvan

LKJ86 said:


> According to Norinco, the VT-4s are handed over to the customer on schedule.
> View attachment 629055
> View attachment 629056
> 
> Via @北方工业 from Weixin


The camouflage on Tank in second picture could be of Pakistani VT 4. 

@Tipu7

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bananarepublic

Ark_Angel said:


> Our policy is minimum credible deterrence. We don't have to match bullet for a bullet. LOMADs and SHORAD will cover the necessary VPs/VAs. While The Offensive Elements will have the necessary Rotorary Element where required. And Defensive Elements will be having their own Integral Rotory support.



Joint venture with the South Africans or the turks with offset's could've done wonder's for Pakistan.
The Pakistan Geography demands a robust Heli for civilian and military use. Disaster management, S&R, COIN in areas of Balochistan and tribals and most importantly border management.
There is enough demand for a domestically sourced Heli and I cannot find any reason to why it isn't needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Zarvan said:


> The camouflage on Tank in second picture could be of Pakistani VT 4.
> 
> @Tipu7










LKJ86 said:


> According to Norinco, the VT-4s are handed over to the customer on schedule.
> View attachment 629055
> View attachment 629056
> 
> Via @北方工业 from Weixin


Maybe the VT-4s were shipped on April 23, 2020.

And the VT-4s left the factory on April 20, 2020.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## maverick1977

Ark_Angel said:


> Our policy is minimum credible deterrence. We don't have to match bullet for a bullet. LOMADs and SHORAD will cover the necessary VPs/VAs. While The Offensive Elements will have the necessary Rotorary Element where required. And Defensive Elements will be having their own Integral Rotory support.



completely know and understand the policy of credible conventional detrerance but, spares are not available for attack helis, canalization is happening as we speak. Pakistan needs to accelerate replacements

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maxpane

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 629061
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the VT-4s were shipped on April 23, 2020.
> 
> And the VT-4s left the factory on April 20, 2020.


sir whats written in chinese?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Maxpane said:


> sir whats written in chinese?


Just something about how Norinco worked hard to make sure that VT-4s can be handed over on time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## syed_yusuf

vishwambhar said:


> Is VT4 most advanced tank of Pakistan among Al Khalid, Al Zarrar, T80UD?


VT-4 or type99 are 4th gen tanks while AK is high 3rd gen, t-80ud of PA are 3rd gen while AZ is an upgrade of 2nd gen to 3rd gen capability. t-85upg is also a 3rd gen tank, rest of t59 and t69 are all 2nd gen at the best.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tipu7

Zarvan said:


> The camouflage on Tank in second picture could be of Pakistani VT 4.
> 
> @Tipu7


I don't think the cameo is the right answer because the paint scheme can be changed, and if VT4 are meant for North Punjab then it means they will have a new unique cameo of their own. So the credible proofs are the presence of VT4 within Pakistan's territory or the statement from officials.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> According to Norinco, the VT-4s are handed over to the customer on schedule.
> View attachment 629055
> View attachment 629056
> 
> Via @北方工业 from Weixin



Fy4 at hull front, fy2 over hull roof, that's a let down.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dreamer.

Dazzler said:


> Fy4 at hull front, fy2 over hull roof, that's a let down.


Would it have a significant impact on total weight of tank if all FY-2 is replaced by FY-4?


----------



## ali_raza

Dazzler said:


> Fy4 at hull front, fy2 over hull roof, that's a let down.


bro whts the difference in 120vs125 mm rounds
and so we have anything comparable to russian vacuum2 apfsds


----------



## Dazzler

ali_raza said:


> bro whts the difference in 120vs125 mm rounds
> and so we have anything comparable to russian vacuum2 apfsds



120mm rounds are unitary, single piece with round and propellant combined. These are usually longer but not always.
125mm are two piece rounds, propellant is loaded separately due to autoloader. AL can be a limiting factor. Thats is why they are usually smaller but not always. LD ratio can be different.



Dreamer. said:


> Would it have a significant impact on total weight of tank if all FY-2 is replaced by FY-4?


FY4 is nearly twice as heavy but offers better protection. Weight would increase but so would protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ali_raza

Dazzler said:


> 120mm rounds are unitary, single piece with round and propellant combined. These are usually longer but not always.
> 125mm are two piece rounds, propellant is loaded separately due to autoloader. AL can be a limiting factor. Thats is why they are usually smaller but not always. LD ratio can be different.


but wht is usefulness of both i mean which is better and more powerful 
and wht is most powerful apfsds in ur thoughts


----------



## Dazzler

ali_raza said:


> but wht is usefulness of both i mean which is better and more powerful
> and wht is most powerful apfsds in ur thoughts



There's no rule of thumb here. Too many factors to be considered from gun chamber to muzzle velocity to quality of metallurgy. LD ratio also counts. Modern 125mm rounds are indeed longer and better

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Dreamer. said:


> Would it have a significant impact on total weight of tank if all FY-2 is replaced by FY-4?








Each ERA in the pic is about 80 kg.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## JohnWick

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 629140
> 
> Each ERA in the pic is about 80 kg.


Why to use tanks when USA can do it effectively with Biological weapons?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Gentelman said:


> VT-4 only means we had problems with Oplot delivery timeframe and AK2 is still in trials.
> Moreover we also need numbers. Because VT4 is bringing not something considerable in terms of capability. In modern warfare its not Tank vs Tank but tank vs anti-tank and arieal threats and the raise in capabilities of VT4 (5-10%) vs AK1 isn't that significant to make a differance in battlefield neither worth the investment on support, ammunition etc.
> But its clear that PA is vary of Apaches and other attack helis deployment on the eastern front.



If you think tank vs tank is not main gonna happened then you are wrong, PA need tanks to fill the required numbers of modern tanks, as India is also upgrading its capabilities, also to tackle any enemy thrust tanks will be spearhead as they can move rapidly and provide deadly firepower with crew protection.

To tackle Apaches or attack helicopter threat PA have inducted LY-80Es and FM-90s which make current air defense network very capable, also if system like Tor or Pantsir are inducted then it will make deployment of Apaches difficult for India with out destroying PA air defense which changes whole attack plan too.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Readerdefence

Tipu7 said:


> I don't think the cameo is the right answer because the paint scheme can be changed, and if VT4 are meant for North Punjab then it means they will have a new unique cameo of their own. So the credible proofs are the presence of VT4 within Pakistan's territory or the statement from officials.


Hi if it’s possible to answer with the current camouflage which been for Pakistan where that can be used possible to use towards the Sind side 
And comparison wise which one is best suited under 5 core 
If possible to answer 
Thank you


----------



## Dreamer.

Dazzler said:


> FY4 is nearly twice as heavy but offers better protection. Weight would increase but so would protection.


Yes of course protection would be better, that's obvious but my question was how much of an increase in weight would it be considering the tanks total weight of ~52 ton. Enough to seriously impact the power/weight ratio of the tank, or just a minor impact?


----------



## ali_raza

Dazzler said:


> There's no rule of thumb here. Too many factors to be considered from gun chamber to muzzle velocity to quality of metallurgy. LD ratio also counts. Modern 125mm rounds are indeed longer and better


and wht about DU vs heat
which one is more useful


----------



## Dreamer.

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 629140
> 
> Each ERA in the pic is about 80 kg.


Which ERA is this? they look huge.


----------



## LKJ86

Dreamer. said:


> Which ERA is this? they look huge.


Maybe they are China's new-generation ERA...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mumm-Ra

ali_raza said:


> but wht is usefulness of both i mean which is better and more powerful
> and wht is most powerful apfsds in ur thoughts


These two vids should help in understanding today’s armour ammunition


----------



## Dazzler

ali_raza said:


> and wht about DU vs heat
> which one is more useful



Du is apfsds specifically used to penetrate armor including new gen composites. Heat rounds work well against RHA/ steel but they fall flat against composites.

Du is twice or thrice more effective due to it's density compared to tungsten. Quality du rounds achieve 20% or more penetration values. 

Indians don't have du apfsds, we have several types including our own naiza series.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> Fy4 at hull front, fy2 over hull roof, that's a let down.



I think FY4 not necessary for roof anyway. More heavy and more expensive and anyway applying FY4 on roof is pointless unless India using top attack missiles which I don't think they use now unless fired from helicopter or plane. FY4 or FY1 all cannot protect anyway. Maybe just good enough to repel RPG fired to roof is enough.



Dreamer. said:


> Which ERA is this? they look huge.



FY refer to the technology part and generation not all FY4 are identical. They can come in different layer thickness and size to fit different section. This one just looks much thicker.



Dazzler said:


> Du is apfsds specifically used to penetrate armor including new gen composites. Heat rounds work well against RHA/ steel but they fall flat against composites.
> 
> Du is twice or thrice more effective due to it's density compared to tungsten. Quality du rounds achieve 20% or more penetration values.
> 
> Indians don't have du apfsds, we have several types including our own naiza series.



Do you know what Indian army's Arjun 2 will use for apfsds? Length and penetration as reported?


----------



## monitor

serenity said:


> I think FY4 not necessary for roof anyway. More heavy and more expensive and anyway applying FY4 on roof is pointless unless India using top attack missiles which I don't think they use now unless fired from helicopter or plane.



India have Israeli spike in their inventory which i think have a top attack mode beside you need to be prepared for attach from attack helicopter too . so think Pakistani customized VT-4 should have roof applied with EY-4 too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

monitor said:


> India have Israeli spike in their inventory which i think have a top attack mode beside you need to be prepared for attach from attack helicopter too . so think Pakistani customized VT-4 should have roof applied with EY-4 too.



But you do not realize FY4 will not be enough also to stop such attacks. The front armor's main section has around 30cm of different ceramics and compositive materials to give over half meter of steel equivalent. Also the spacing between make it look like 40cm or so and filler ingredients in between. The purpose is to ask penetrator rod to puncture through newer layers everytime. With just steel, it actually can cut through like butter and rip ahead of rod. Nowadays some Korean and German L55 new penetrators can rip through and melt its way if double warhead stream. From above no tank can survive attack. Putting FY4 will be no different just heavier against Spike missile or Javelin. But FY4 compared to FY1 may be able to withstand some old RPG attack or penetrating rifles that's all.

I think whoever bought this VT-4 decided there is no difference for purposes of this tank to put heavier and more expensive FY4 on the roof. They expect purposeful designed top attack missiles will win and only chance to defeat is using GL5. For rifles or machine gun and RPG then FY1 is enough.

Anyway Russia, China, South Korea, and Israel all think defence system is way to defeat missile. Penetrator rod is best defeat using ERA according to Russian and Chinese decision because we prefer lighter tanks which can travel faster with longer range.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

serenity said:


> I think FY4 not necessary for roof anyway. More heavy and more expensive and anyway applying FY4 on roof is pointless unless India using top attack missiles which I don't think they use now unless fired from helicopter or plane. FY4 or FY1 all cannot protect anyway. Maybe just good enough to repel RPG fired to roof is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> FY refer to the technology part and generation not all FY4 are identical. They can come in different layer thickness and size to fit different section. This one just looks much thicker.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what Indian army's Arjun 2 will use for apfsds? Length and penetration as reported?



Arjun 2 is not yet developed, and they have no rounds for it. Arjun mk-1 has a 300mm penetrating apfsds round at 2000 meters at 0 degrees.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Basel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> LY80s are most probably to guard assets. We have Pantsir for it



No official confirmation of Pantsir yet, but Pakistan not show its true capability to world as SA-2 Chinese version was not announced officially.


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

serenity said:


> Do you know what Indian army's Arjun 2 will use for apfsds? Length and penetration as reported?


They have recently ordered 118 Arjun MK1A



PanzerKiel said:


> We have got PANTSIR for the reason that it is a hybrid system, it has 12 missiles on one vehicle with a range of 20 Kms and radio command guidance , the guns are secondary weapons with range of 4 Kms. Even in PANTSIR for firing of guns the system needs to be stopped and jacks lowered. However for missiles, it can fire while moving.


@Basel


----------



## Basel

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> They have recently ordered 118 Arjun MK1A
> 
> 
> @Basel



Its not official confirmation like PA did for LY-80s or FM-90s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> Arjun 2 is not yet developed, and they have no rounds for it. Arjun mk-1 has a 300mm penetrating apfsds round at 2000 meters at 0 degrees.



This penetration seems very poor for modern tank. Where is the information from? 2Km from perfect angle should usually be at least 700mm of steel for best NATO performance now. 300mm basically no point in shooting at front. Some Chinese claims in so many years ago when 99 came out claim close to 1m penetration of apfsds depleted uranium round. Claim testing on T-80 with ERA punch from front and come out the back and make damage to whatever is behind. But this is with ZPT-98 gun with crazy muzzle velocity and bore pressure. But everyone think these 1000mm penetration claim is made up.

VT-4 has most attractive feature with automatic gun tracing. Only some expensive modernized fourth generation tanks carry this and basically if cooperated with computer can properly calculate shooting and do everything automatically. Gunner only requires pressing a fire button to almost certainly hit target unless target makes unpredictable move and at long range. Modern tank without automatic following of targets is like modern fighter with AESA radar nowadays. But Oplot-M and T90MS also should have this feature. Of course more expensive tanks definitely too including Arjun upgrade.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

serenity said:


> Of course more expensive tanks definitely too including Arjun upgrade.


and AK-II


----------



## maverick1977

serenity said:


> But you do not realize FY4 will not be enough also to stop such attacks. The front armor's main section has around 30cm of different ceramics and compositive materials to give over half meter of steel equivalent. Also the spacing between make it look like 40cm or so and filler ingredients in between. The purpose is to ask penetrator rod to puncture through newer layers everytime. With just steel, it actually can cut through like butter and rip ahead of rod. Nowadays some Korean and German L55 new penetrators can rip through and melt its way if double warhead stream. From above no tank can survive attack. Putting FY4 will be no different just heavier against Spike missile or Javelin. But FY4 compared to FY1 may be able to withstand some old RPG attack or penetrating rifles that's all.
> 
> I think whoever bought this VT-4 decided there is no difference for purposes of this tank to put heavier and more expensive FY4 on the roof. They expect purposeful designed top attack missiles will win and only chance to defeat is using GL5. For rifles or machine gun and RPG then FY1 is enough.
> 
> Anyway Russia, China, South Korea, and Israel all think defence system is way to defeat missile. Penetrator rod is best defeat using ERA according to Russian and Chinese decision because we prefer lighter tanks which can travel faster with longer range.



Yes, Javlin is a scary weapon, the best way to stop will be to deploy coubter measure and then seek and destroy by computing ballistics where it came from

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yukihime

Tipu7 said:


> I don't think the cameo is the right answer because the paint scheme can be changed, and if VT4 are meant for North Punjab then it means they will have a new unique cameo of their own. So the credible proofs are the presence of VT4 within Pakistan's territory or the statement from officials.


how do u view the credibility of this media? do you believe the deal it said is true? thanks

        View this content on Instagram            View this content on Instagram


----------



## serenity

This is $4.88 million dollars for each tank plus weapons and maybe some parts. I think should be similar package to Thailand. Why is Thailand's tank lesser than Pakistan's received version? FY2 can easily refit as FY4 if Thai would like. They also purchased remote control machine gun system. 1500hp I find is possible only because 96B already can support it and 99 been using for so many years. But I think 1500hp should be too much because it is heavier and use more gas. 1300hp already offer top power for 52 tonnes. 1500hp I worry will cause transmission wear and require much more room in bays but the unit is more easy to repair and take out. If Thai VT-4 use 1300hp I suggest Pakistan VT-4 probably the same. Hard to imagine factory make two different types.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair

serenity said:


> This is $4.88 million dollars for each tank plus weapons and maybe some parts. I think should be similar package to Thailand. Why is Thailand's tank lesser than Pakistan's received version? FY2 can easily refit as FY4 if Thai would like. They also purchased remote control machine gun system. 1500hp I find is possible only because 96B already can support it and 99 been using for so many years. But I think 1500hp should be too much because it is heavier and use more gas. 1300hp already offer top power for 52 tonnes. 1500hp I worry will cause transmission wear and require much more room in bays but the unit is more easy to repair and take out. If Thai VT-4 use 1300hp I suggest Pakistan VT-4 probably the same. Hard to imagine factory make two different types.



If cost has been 900 million and 296 units bought, the per unit price is $3.04 million per vehicle. As for the engine - Ark Angel here suggests its 1500hp engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gryphon

Armchair said:


> If cost has been 900 million and 296 units bought, the per unit price is $3.04 million per vehicle. As for the engine - Ark Angel here suggests its 1500hp engine.



US$ 859 million has been mentioned as the cost of initial 176 pcs along with the spares/support package. 

For 300 pcs, that would be around US$ 1.5 bn.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xuxu1457

We may not know the details, but two things are certain.
1. The Pakistani government and military must know more than the rest of us, and what they need.
2. China will not sell tanks just to make money from Pakistan. Pakistan may pay less than Publicly available Amounts

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Gryphon said:


> For 300 pcs, that would be around US$ 1.5 bn.


India is getting 464 T90MS for $1.93 billion


----------



## IceCold

Tipu7 said:


> Yeah for a bit. It might create a bad impression.
> Number of people believing that Army is spending a lot on defense products despite of shortage of money for COVID-19, is increasing. There are even gems who want to sell off Pakistan existing military arsenal for sake of buying more ventilators.


And than these A holes will defend Pakistan with their ventilators once India attacks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mr Happy

HRK said:


> NO .... with Anza MK-I ....



You are a troll.
Blocked.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## luciferdd

serenity said:


> This is $4.88 million dollars for each tank plus weapons and maybe some parts. I think should be similar package to Thailand. Why is Thailand's tank lesser than Pakistan's received version? FY2 can easily refit as FY4 if Thai would like. They also purchased remote control machine gun system. 1500hp I find is possible only because 96B already can support it and 99 been using for so many years. But I think 1500hp should be too much because it is heavier and use more gas. 1300hp already offer top power for 52 tonnes. 1500hp I worry will cause transmission wear and require much more room in bays but the unit is more easy to repair and take out. If Thai VT-4 use 1300hp I suggest Pakistan VT-4 probably the same. Hard to imagine factory make two different types.



No,the VT4&99A actually use the same 150HB engine that the power is UP to 1500HP,and that engine in VT4 is adjusted to 1300HP for a longer lifetime while 1300HP is enouh for VT4's 52T weighht(original ver）.If pa want a higher power then they can adjust it back to 1500HP simplely,that is all up to the custumer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ARMalik

xuxu1457 said:


> We may not know the details, but two things are certain.
> 1. The Pakistani government and military must know more than the rest of us, and what they need.
> 2. China will not sell tanks just to make money from Pakistan. Pakistan may pay less than Publicly available Amounts



Good post. A lot of members need to also understand that for many years there have been intense INTEROPERABILITY process taking place between the China and Pakistan militaries. This is only going to intensify in the coming months and years due to grave geopolitical/geostrategic threats emerging in the region. For Interoperability to take place, the prerequisites are that there has to be synergies between Weapons, training and SOPs of both Militaries.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

Mr Happy said:


> You are a troll.
> Blocked.


@BHarwana 

Troll attack, take care of this member. This guy is mess up China military forum too. Check his past posting.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Falcon26

How does the VT-4 compare to the Indian T-90s


----------



## zhxy

Compare type-99 and VT-4

Type-99 is better than VT-4 in direct confrontation with enemy tanks because it has strong armor at the front.

VT-4 is better than Type-99 in urban battle because it is equipped with APS GL-5 and automatic control machine gun.


----------



## IblinI

zhxy said:


> Compare type-99 and VT-4
> 
> Type-99 is better than VT-4 in direct confrontation with enemy tanks because it has strong armor at the front.
> 
> VT-4 is better than Type-99 in urban battle because it is equipped with APS GL-5 and automatic control machine gun.


Heard that they are working on Type 99B urban version, all the things are off the shelve, whoever is interested be it PLA or foriegn buyers, just pay the bill.


----------



## Tomcats

serenity said:


> This is $4.88 million dollars for each tank plus weapons and maybe some parts. I think should be similar package to Thailand. Why is Thailand's tank lesser than Pakistan's received version? FY2 can easily refit as FY4 if Thai would like. They also purchased remote control machine gun system. 1500hp I find is possible only because 96B already can support it and 99 been using for so many years. But I think 1500hp should be too much because it is heavier and use more gas. 1300hp already offer top power for 52 tonnes. 1500hp I worry will cause transmission wear and require much more room in bays but the unit is more easy to repair and take out. If Thai VT-4 use 1300hp I suggest Pakistan VT-4 probably the same. Hard to imagine factory make two different types.


It could be costs or other factors but ultimately I guess its optimal for them given the conditions they have to operate in I suppose.


----------



## LKJ86

VT-4








Via @魅力一机 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dazzler

Turret cheek armor looks thicker, likely houses fy-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## IceCold

Bossman said:


> It was not a war, just a skirmish. Indian make a thing out of it. It was fought on Indian soil.


Never the less its still referred to as Kargil war.


----------



## Muhammad Omar

So it's confirmed Pakistan is inducting VT4??


----------



## maverick1977

Issam said:


> Not exactly, there is some strong evidence indicating so but no confirmation as of yet that I know of.




no official confirmation but Army is waiting for tanks to arrive.


----------



## Beast

Issam said:


> Not exactly, there is some strong evidence indicating so but no confirmation as of yet that I know of.


99% confirmed. Those who want to bet against it. Do it at your own cost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cuirassier

Joe Shearer said:


> In reporting a matter, I do so from the available information, and there is no desire nor attempt to sit in judgement. I make no comment on any of the three observations you have made.


Good - just presented my views nothing to prove and fight on. Have a nice day sir.


----------



## Pandora

@BHarwana
@Foxtrot Alpha
@Kambojaric
@krash
@LeGenD
@Moonlight
@PakSword
@Side-Winder
@Horus

Hi guys can you please clean up this thread or possibly create seperate thread for topic being discussed. This thread is about VT4 but i can hardly find anything about VT4 tanks because of off topic disscussions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Pandora said:


> @BHarwana
> @Foxtrot Alpha
> @Kambojaric
> @krash
> @LeGenD
> @Moonlight
> @PakSword
> @Side-Winder
> @Horus
> 
> Hi guys can you please clean up this thread or possibly create seperate thread for topic being discussed. This thread is about VT4 but i can hardly find anything about VT4 tanks because of off topic disscussions.



I'll keep an eye out.


*NO MORE POSTS OTHER THAN VT4 RELATED POSTS PLEASE*. Everything else faces deletion.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

No penetration by multiple HESH rounds..

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## waz

Dazzler said:


> No penetration by multiple HEAT rounds..
> 
> View attachment 630008



Nice find.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> No penetration by multiple HEAT rounds..
> 
> View attachment 630008


It was old ZTZ-99 hit by the explosion of howitzer's large caliber shells:













Source:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/NuPWNw6MQwAnhyiveDTFFg

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> It was old ZTZ-99 hit by HESH:
> View attachment 630014
> View attachment 630015
> View attachment 630016
> View attachment 630017
> 
> Source:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/NuPWNw6MQwAnhyiveDTFFg



Same family, many systems and armor modules shared.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

They are talking about fragmentation or high explosive type not HESH.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> They are talking about fragmentation or high explosive type not HESH.


ZTZ-99 hit by the explosion of howitzer's large caliber shells

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ali_raza

Dazzler said:


>


DU apfsds?


----------



## Dazzler

ali_raza said:


> DU apfsds?


Tungsten


----------



## ali_raza

Dazzler said:


> Tungsten


much more expensive isn’t it 
and half the strength of DU

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

ali_raza said:


> much more expensive isn’t it
> and half the strength of DU


DU is expensive, you have to refurbish DU regularly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair

Pak makes DU inhouse while Tungsten would need to be imported. Not sure how that plays out in the cost calculus.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ali_raza

viva_zhao said:


> DU is expensive, you have to refurbish DU regularly.


i don’t think so.
DU is well depleted useless and available in thousand of tons from power plants

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

ali_raza said:


> i don’t think so.
> DU is well depleted useless and available in thousand of tons from power plants



No it is not available in thousands of tons. Power plants can use just some grams everyday.


----------



## clibra

ali_raza said:


> much more expensive isn’t it
> and half the strength of DU


But DU is poisonous and radioactive, if you were defending the invasion of enemy on you own land, you never want to use DU ammunition because battlefield may turn to wasteland no matter you win or lose.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PanzerKiel

clibra said:


> But DU is poisonous and radioactive, if you were defending the invasion of enemy on you own land, you never want to use DU ammunition because battlefield may turn to wasteland no matter you win or lose.



Exactly, and that is why they are not issued in peacetime. Only once war is imminent.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## vi-va

ali_raza said:


> i don’t think so.
> DU is well depleted useless and available in thousand of tons from power plants


No, after several years, you have to refurbish DU APFSDS 

*A Comparison of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Depleted Uranium and Tungsten Alloy as Penetrator Material.*

*https://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Military_Tech/TAS_107/Tank_Ammo_Sec_107_JUN-1980.pdf*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ali_raza

viva_zhao said:


> No, after several years, you have to refurbish DU APFSDS
> 
> *A Comparison of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Depleted Uranium and Tungsten Alloy as Penetrator Material.*
> 
> *https://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Military_Tech/TAS_107/Tank_Ammo_Sec_107_JUN-1980.pdf*


sure



PanzerKiel said:


> Exactly, and that is why they are not issued in peacetime. Only once war is imminent.


exactly it is very very lethal 
thats the job of the tool in war time

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

Interesting. The links indicate vacuum solution treatment and slow quenching as part of the process gained from experience for better strength. @Bilal Khan (Quwa) you may want to check out the links posted, as this may interest you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## truthfollower

PanzerKiel said:


> Exactly, and that is why they are not issued in peacetime. Only once war is imminent.


Do we have DU rounds?


----------



## Armchair

truthfollower said:


> Do we have DU rounds?



Pakistan does. India doesn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthfollower

Armchair said:


> Pakistan does. India doesn't.


wow nice

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAIDER

If anyone read the reports about the use of DU rounds during First Gulf war ? ... if not then I summarize the report... these rounds cause more damage to the user then enemy.... brain damage and other physical related issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

PanzerKiel said:


> But then HESH is also not supposed to penetrate. Does the damage by spalling inside.
> 
> Would be interesting to see the damage inside.



AKs have Kevlar based spall liner to reduce the effect of impact of such rounds.



PanzerKiel said:


> Exactly, and that is why they are not issued in peacetime. Only once war is imminent.


DUs have their ups and downs but they can make a mess of incoming armor thrust. Quality penetrators can achieve up to 50% more penetration values in some cases.

Best part is all mbts in our inventory can fire these rounds.



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 629140
> 
> Each ERA in the pic is about 80 kg.


Don't look like fy4

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Dazzler said:


> AKs have Kevlar based spall liner to reduce the effect of impact of such rounds.


Kevlar based? I know the patent has expired bcuz as per US laws a patent is only effective for 20 years and cannot be renewed...but does that mean Pak can manufacture its own Kevlar based armor? Or does Pak have to acquire some sort of license to make it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TOTUU

在2014年珠海航展期间，VT4坦克总师冯益柏在介绍该坦克的防护性能时曾提到，VT4坦克上复合装甲的防护效果超过了500毫米均质钢装甲的水平，披挂爆炸反应装甲(FY2)时可超过700毫米。

受外贸政策的影响，可抗穿抗串联破甲战斗部的FY4爆炸反应装甲在当时还是我军99二期和96A等自用型坦克的独门绝技，VT4坦克实际上只能披挂有抗穿抗破效果的老式FY2爆炸反应装甲参与市场竞争，与采用了具备抗穿抗串联破甲战斗部效果的“匕首”聚能爆炸反应装甲模块的乌克兰“堡垒”M坦克相比之下，略输风采并不意外。在巴基斯坦军方的不断纠结中，从内蒙古一机主动曝光的照片展现的VT4改坦克炮塔和车首正面装甲模块的细微改变上，也印证了FY4E得到出口立项批复的传言。至于复合装甲是否也进行了升级，就只能等待时间的验证了。
google TRANSLATE : 
During the 2014 Zhuhai Air Show, Feng Yibai, chief engineer of the VT4 tank, mentioned the protective performance of the tank. The protective effect of the composite armor on the VT4 tank exceeded the level of 500 mm homogeneous steel armor, and the explosive reaction armor (FY2 ) Can exceed 700 mm. 
Affected by the foreign trade policy, the FY4 explosive reaction armor of the anti-wearing and anti-tandem armored warhead was still the unique skill of our army ’s 99 II and 96A self-use tanks at the time. VT4 tanks can only wear anti-wear resistance. The effect of the old FY2 explosive reaction armor participates in market competition. Compared with the Ukrainian "Fortress" M tank that uses the "dagger" shaped explosive reaction armor module with the effect of anti-penetration and anti-tandem armor-breaking warheads, it loses its style slightly. Not surprisingly. In the constant struggles of the Pakistani military, the subtle changes in the VT4 tank turret and the front armor module on the front of the vehicle from the photos of an actively exposed machine in Inner Mongolia also confirmed the rumors that the FY4E was approved for export project approval. As for whether the composite armor has also been upgraded, it can only wait for the verification of the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

Engine horsepower of 1500hp is subjective. I have not received any info from Chinese source the engine supply to Pakistan will be 1500hp.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Beast said:


> Engine horsepower of 1500hp is subjective. I have not received any info from Chinese source the engine supply to Pakistan will be 1500hp.


Both are 150HB turbo-charged diesel engine. 150HB can be adjusted to 1200, 1300 1500 horse power. It depends what you need, power vs life cycle.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

viva_zhao said:


> Both are 150HB turbo-charged diesel engine. 150HB can be adjusted to 1200, 1300 1500 horse power. It depends what you need, power vs life cycle.


Yes but increase HP will increase cost and lower lifecycle. It's is not recommended to do that unless the export VT-4 gained a massive weight to 60tons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

That dreadful button is still there...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zulfiqar

Dazzler said:


> That dreadful button is still there...



What does it do. Destroy FCS by a program or some chemicals to destroy the processing units?

I think it should be disabled in our tanks. You never know who might press it by mistake.


----------



## Dazzler

Zulfiqar said:


> What does it do. Destroy FCS by a program or some chemicals to destroy the processing units?
> 
> I think it should be disabled in our tanks. You never know who might press it by mistake.



Tank commander can detonate shells equipped with time delay fuse using this button.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

viva_zhao said:


> Both are 150HB turbo-charged diesel engine. 150HB can be adjusted to 1200, 1300 1500 horse power. It depends what you need, power vs life cycle.


There are 150HB series engines, but not meaning that they are exactly the same. And ZTZ-96B tank also uses a 150HB engine with 1000 HP.

The engine of ZTZ-99A is 12-cylinder, and that of ZTZ-96B is 8-cylinder. Maybe the engine of VT-4 is 10-cylinder???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

LKJ86 said:


> There are 150HB series engines, but not meaning that they are exactly the same. And ZTZ-96B tank also uses a 150HB engine with 1000 HP.
> 
> The engine of ZTZ-99A is 12-cylinder, and that of ZTZ-96B is 8-cylinder. Maybe the engine of VT-4 is 10-cylinder???


I guess VT-4 used the same engine of ZTZ-99A. 12 cylinder, but fine tuned to 1300 horse power. Pakistan is hotter than Northern China, 1300 horse power is in good balance of life cycle and power.


----------



## LKJ86

viva_zhao said:


> I guess VT-4 used the same engine of ZTZ-99A. 12 cylinder, but fine tuned to 1300 horse power. Pakistan is hotter than Northern China, 1300 horse power is in good balance of life cycle and power.


The size of ZTZ-99A is much bigger than that of VT-4.


----------



## Beast

LKJ86 said:


> The size of ZTZ-99A is much bigger than that of VT-4.
> View attachment 631089


More of the turret. Much bigger and bulky (Hint: Thicker armor protection)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthfollower

Dazzler said:


> Tank commander can detonate shells equipped with time delay fuse using this button.


after firing or before firing? How they going to get the time to think when to detonate after firing the shot?


----------



## Dazzler

truthfollower said:


> after firing or before firing? How they going to get the time to think when to detonate after firing the shot?



After firing. Seconds count


----------



## JohnWick

Dazzler said:


> After firing. Seconds count


If we are acquiring this then it means we are not satisfied with AK1?


----------



## truthfollower

Dazzler said:


> After firing. Seconds count


but shell is traveling so fast how the commander gonna click at the right time. It better be automatic proximity fuse?


----------



## Cookie Monster

JohnWick said:


> If we are acquiring this then it means we are not satisfied with AK1?


If there were problems with AK1...either they would've corrected that problem...or they would've stopped AK1 production. It wouldn't make sense for them to continue producing a tank that doesn't satisfy the requirements. Since AK1 is still being produced...it must mean it is doing an adequate job.

As for VT4 acquisition...as per rumors it was needed urgently to make up numbers...either to add as a new addition or to replace some older tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## luciferdd

LKJ86 said:


> The size of ZTZ-99A is much bigger than that of VT-4.
> View attachment 631089



NO，the weight of 99A is 55 tone while VT4 is 52 tone and the upgraded VT4+ is almost 55 tone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Cookie Monster said:


> If there were problems with AK1...either they would've corrected that problem...or they would've stopped AK1 production. It wouldn't make sense for them to continue producing a tank that doesn't satisfy the requirements. Since AK1 is still being produced...it must mean it is doing an adequate job.
> 
> As for VT4 acquisition...as per rumors it was needed urgently to make up numbers...either to add as a new addition or to replace some older tanks.



No problems. Alkhalid program will continue and close to 300 (AK-1) mbts are on their way. In all, Alkhalid series will become the most numerous third generation mbt in PA (nearing 800 mbts in different variants). VT4 is an incremental upgrade and shares technologies from Type-99A series. It offers much higher automation and better NCS capabilities. It can be procured at a much faster pace thanks to Norinco's speedy production capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Readerdefence

JohnWick said:


> If we are acquiring this then it means we are not satisfied with AK1?


Hi or may be HIT is constrained with supply of engines for AK thus PA need extra gadgets to combat their rivals 
Your thoughts please 
Thank you

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JohnWick

Readerdefence said:


> Hi or may be HIT is constrained with supply of engines for AK thus PA need extra gadgets to combat their rivals
> Your thoughts please
> Thank you


May be PA is not fully satisfied with AK1....otherwise PA armu wouldn't spend $1 billion on VT-4....There is not an issue of engines....These engines can also be provided by China....but in a positive sense PA is absorbing VT-4 technology....which can be incorporated in the future tanks....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

Readerdefence said:


> Hi or may be HIT is constrained with supply of engines for AK thus PA need extra gadgets to combat their rivals
> Your thoughts please
> Thank you


It is possible..... but if that was the case than why even do trials of Oplot? If PA needed another tank because of any engine supply issue for Alkhalid, Oplot would never even be considered. But still trials were held for it meaning it was in competition for the order that went to VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

JohnWick said:


> May be PA is not fully satisfied with AK1....otherwise PA armu wouldn't spend $1 billion on VT-4....There is not an issue of engines....These engines can also be provided by China....but in a positive sense PA is absorbing VT-4 technology....which can be incorporated in the future tanks....


Its not about Not Being Satisfied but Trying Buildup sufficient Armour in Time. HIT is unable to increase Production because of T-85 Upgrade and AZ Conversion and T-80 Upgrade Down the Line. These Tanks make a Huge Chunk of Our Forces we cant Ignore them they need to be updated to maintain Edge against the Enemy.

AKs Production rate is 20 Per Year Lets Suppose we Double its Production at the cost of the Previously mentioned Modernization Programs it would still take 15 years to make up for these 300 VT-4s which we we will be getting in the Next 3-4 years. As Mentioned Previously It Offers Better ERA, Automation and NCW Capability which would eventually make their Way into AK-2 But the Biggest Advantage it has is that it could be Procured in Large Quantities in Short time Frame. This number Game was one of the Reasons OPlot was Dumped. This was always meant to be an Off the shelf Program when its Rumors started a few years back.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Zarvan

LKJ86 said:


> There are 150HB series engines, but not meaning that they are exactly the same. And ZTZ-96B tank also uses a 150HB engine with 1000 HP.
> 
> The engine of ZTZ-99A is 12-cylinder, and that of ZTZ-96B is 8-cylinder. Maybe the engine of VT-4 is 10-cylinder???


Can you confirm or reject this 1500 HP engine claim


----------



## LKJ86

luciferdd said:


> NO，the weight of 99A is 55 tone while VT4 is 52 tone and the upgraded VT4+ is almost 55 tone.


Maybe you are just right to that of ZTZ-99, and ZTZ-99 is equpped with a 150HB engine about 1200 HP.

But ZTZ-99A and ZTZ-99 are two completely different tanks, just like KLJ-7A AESA radar and KLJ-7 radar.



Zarvan said:


> Can you confirm or reject this 1500 HP engine claim


No idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gentelman

HIT, POF and Kamra are proving to be disappointment.... 
R&D and supporting industries infastructure is needed to be built fast for localization and production of local and competitive technologies...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

truthfollower said:


> but shell is traveling so fast how the commander gonna click at the right time. It better be automatic proximity fuse?


FCC does the calculation brother. AK1 has a multi process FCC to perform complex calculations within milliseconds.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Armchair

I think current production of AK1s is at 40 per year. The facilities have been upgraded and capacity of 40 was always available. We may see even higher capacity in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Armchair said:


> I think current production of AK1s is at 40 per year. The facilities have been upgraded and capacity of 40 was always available. We may see even higher capacity in the future.


Some where in Mid 2000s HIT used to Produced 50 AKs a Year in 2008 it was 37. HIT itself had mentioned at that time that they could increase to 70-80 per year but at the cost of APC production and Tank overhauls.

People seem to forget HIT is not Just a Tank Manufacturer it also Also makes tank Barrels and Guns Bullet Proof Vests, its Site Repair Teams are Brought in to do Field Repairs to Tanks, it also Overhauls Tanks, APC, SPGs Modernizes Old T59/69 to AZs. Of Course HIT can increase the Production beyond 50 even without expansion of infrastructure but it would come at the cost of other projects. Its not a Cooperation at least not yet Its main job is to support Pakistan Army which it has done pretty well.

The Current decrease in Production is intentional due to T-85 Modernization Program and PA decision to wait for AK-2.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Some where in Mid 2000s HIT used to Produced 50 AKs a Year in 2008 it was 37. HIT itself had mentioned at that time that they could increase to 70-80 per year but at the cost of APC production and Tank overhauls.
> 
> People seem to forget HIT is not Just a Tank Manufacturer it also Also makes tank Barrels and Guns Bullet Proof Vests, its Site Repair Teams are Brought in to do Field Repairs to Tanks, it also Overhauls Tanks, APC, SPGs Modernizes Old T59/69 to AZs. Of Course HIT can increase the Production beyond 50 even without expansion of infrastructure but it would come at the cost of other projects. Its not a Cooperation at least not yet Its main job is to support Pakistan Army which it has done pretty well.
> 
> The Current decrease in Production is intentional due to T-85 Modernization Program and PA decision to wait for AK-2.



Yes, I remember those days where 50 was stated explicitly. Just gave my view as to the practical reality of production of AK1s. But I've no inside info, just a civilian commentator with no experience in building or driving tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## imranyounus

Dr. Strangelove said:


> has


a production rate of 70 to 80 is excellent. I guess we must shift repair and maintenance work to others sites. further now we should have sufficient infrastructure to shift upgrade to existing tanks and APC to other sites as well.


----------



## Dazzler

Published numbers of AKs are wrong, either on purpose i suppose.

Have seen many AKs at two different locations. No way they have less than 450, add 60 plus AK-1s and the number goes well above 500.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Arsalan

*42 posts deleted for being irrelevant and off-topic. Warning issued. *
*Please stick to topic which is VT-4 MBT.*

@ali_raza bro it is not an interview thread where you can discuss or ask anything you want to. Please stick to topic. 
@Joe Shearer @PanzerKiel please do not encourage such behavior by replying to such posts. 

Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## khanasifm

On fb not sure if recent or during trials but no unit insignia so does not look like in operational unit

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

khanasifm said:


> View attachment 632994
> 
> 
> On fb not sure if recent or during trials but no unit insignia so does not look like in operational unit



The front man is from the protection unit, the turret guy is from the testing armor uni .



khanasifm said:


> View attachment 632994
> 
> 
> On fb not sure if recent or during trials but no unit insignia so does not look like in operational unit


Moreover, since they are in the field, that's why no unit insignia.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dreamer.

khanasifm said:


> View attachment 632994
> 
> 
> On fb not sure if recent or during trials but no unit insignia so does not look like in operational unit


Are you *seriously* asking if it's a recent picture or did you just copy it from the *original post on page1* of this thread???

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

khanasifm said:


> View attachment 632994
> 
> 
> On fb not sure if recent or during trials but no unit insignia so does not look like in operational unit


old pic of first trial ... this pic was share first time at this forum in another thread and from there picked by different social media platforms ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

HRK said:


> old pic of first trail ... this pic was share first time at this forum in another thread and from there picked by different social media platforms ....


It's from the 2nd trial. First trial took place in 2015and the tank lacked muzzle sensor, rws, improved main gun, IFF sensor among other enhancements.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ali_raza

Dazzler said:


> It's from the 2nd trial. First trial took place in 2015and the tank lacked muzzle sensor, rws, improved main gun, IFF sensor among other enhancements.
> View attachment 633036


wht about all the equipment on side of turret

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

ali_raza said:


> wht about all the equipment on side of turret



AC and aux equipment if needed.






FY4

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## IblinI

still no pic..


----------



## GlobalVillageSpace

Global Village Space |
China has reportedly started delivering VT4 Main Battle Tanks (MBT) to Pakistan.

In 2019, the Pakistan Army Armoured Corps selected the Chinese VT4 tank also known as MBT-3000 to strengthen its armoured divisions.

In 10th International IDEAS defense exhibition in Karachi, Pakistan, a military analyst, Muzammil Hatami announced the selection of the Norinco VT4 to increase the Pakistani armoured vehicle fleet.

Muzammil Hatami said, “VT4 has confirmed for future Pakistan army tank and Alkhalid II main battle tank is in developing phase.”
A Chinese company called Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group has already started to deliver new VT4 main battle tanks to Pakistan which should receive at least 100 units.

On April 4, Global Times reported that China was delivering customized VT4 main battle tanks to an undisclosed foreign buyer.

While citing video released by NORINCO, China Central Television reported VT4 tanks were being transported by trucks.

In mid-April 2020, at the Chinese tank factory located in Baotou, Inner Mongolia province, the ceremony of shipping the first batch of VT4 main battle tanks fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA) to ‘a foreign customer’ obviously believed to be Pakistan.

The tanks are not the standard VT4 version and instead are equipped with a different turret boost design. The front design features a new explosive reactive armor.
Read full article...
*Is Pakistan receiving 100 Chinese main battle tanks?*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Salahuddin Ayyubi



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ali_raza

Dazzler said:


> AC and aux equipment if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FY4


i meant behind these welded grill 
i saw fan on the other side
and manu empty space
fy4 is at from right


----------



## tarrar

Why didn't PA opt for Type 99?


----------



## Fawadqasim1

When are we going to produce it locally?


----------



## MayaBazar

These are a serious threat to India. India should seriously think of procuring T-14 tanks now.


----------



## waz

It's over 300. We have an ongoing thread. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akh1112

MayaBazar said:


> These are a serious threat to India. India should seriously think of procuring T-14 tanks now.




The T-14, realistically, isnt even in active service in Russia, let alone being ready for export. India should focus on Arjun in an attempt to better that and then field them in larger numbers as the VT4 will more than likely be a glimpse into what Al-Khalid II will look like

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

MayaBazar said:


> These are a serious threat to India. India should seriously think of procuring T-14 tanks now.


We Know that India is buying 500+ T90s and Arjuns?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Pakistani Fighter said:


> We Know that India is buying 500+ T90s and Arjuns?



VT-4 is half a generation ahead of t-90S/M in virtually all domains.

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## waz

Dazzler said:


> VT-4 is half a generation ahead of t-90S/M in virtually all domains.



Yep certainly is and more heavily armoured, which adds an additional 4 tones of weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Beast

tarrar said:


> Why didn't PA opt for Type 99?


Type99a is not granted for export.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Beast said:


> Type99a is not granted for export.


Any idea who is receiving this lot of VT4s?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CriticalThinker02

Akh1112 said:


> The T-14, realistically, isnt even in active service in Russia, let alone being ready for export. India should focus on Arjun in an attempt to better that and then field them in larger numbers as the VT4 will more than likely be a glimpse into what Al-Khalid II will look like



Is he talking about T-14 armata?, there are hardly 20 odd in service in Russia and the Indians think they will get it in numbers?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akh1112

Waqas said:


> Is he talking about T-14 armata?, there are hardly 20 odd in service in Russia and the Indians think they will get it in numbers?




He is indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bossman

Waqas said:


> Is he talking about T-14 armata?, there are hardly 20 odd in service in Russia and the Indians think they will get it in numbers?


They should, they will make great trophies. One them broke down during big parade in Russia.


----------



## Dreamer.

@Waqas @Akh1112 @Bossman 

What's wrong with you guys? Can't you recognize trolling when you see it? Stop replying to troll posts intended to derail thread. Some things you have to *IGNORE*.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## mingle

India will procure more T90M


----------



## Dazzler

mingle said:


> India will procure more T90M



Long way to go. There is panic across the border on the news of PA acquiring vt-4.

Interesting details of GL-5 APS

Active protection complex "Raptor" (GL-5). The destruction of attacking ATGMs and heavier tactical missiles is carried out by specialized small-sized ultra-short-range anti-missiles, the launch of which is carried out by target designation of a small multifunctional radar operating in the Ka-band of millimeter waves.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Dazzler said:


> Long way to go. There is panic across the border on the news of PA acquiring vt-4.


Sir I think Order of 464 T90s and 118 Arjun MK1As was the reaction of PA procuring VT-4s



Dazzler said:


> Long way to go. There is panic across the border on the news of PA acquiring vt-4.
> 
> Interesting details of GL-5 APS
> 
> Active protection complex "Raptor" (GL-5). The destruction of attacking ATGMs and heavier tactical missiles is carried out by specialized small-sized ultra-short-range anti-missiles, the launch of which is carried out by target designation of a small multifunctional radar operating in the Ka-band of millimeter waves.


BTW there was the news of Indian Tanks to have Trophy System

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Pakistani Fighter said:


> Sir I think Order of 464 T90s and 118 Arjun MK1As was the reaction of PA procuring VT-4s
> 
> BTW there was the news of Indian Tanks to have Trophy System



Trophy ran into trouble. 

Order of additional mbts was placed prior to vt-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## mingle

Dazzler said:


> Long way to go. There is panic across the border on the news of PA acquiring vt-4.
> 
> Interesting details of GL-5 APS
> 
> Active protection complex "Raptor" (GL-5). The destruction of attacking ATGMs and heavier tactical missiles is carried out by specialized small-sized ultra-short-range anti-missiles, the launch of which is carried out by target designation of a small multifunctional radar operating in the Ka-band of millimeter waves.


What army Missing along is wheeled APC for troop protection along western border should actively pursue that

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

Dazzler said:


> Interesting details of GL-5 APS
> 
> Active protection complex "Raptor" (GL-5). The destruction of attacking ATGMs and heavier tactical missiles is carried out by specialized small-sized ultra-short-range anti-missiles, the launch of which is carried out by target designation of a small multifunctional radar operating in the Ka-band of millimeter waves.


What are we looking at, anything makes it different than other APS?


----------



## serenity

Bossman said:


> They should, they will make great trophies. One them broke down during big parade in Russia.



T-14 in parade didn't break down. It was shown that it was driver error because the new tank was so unfamiliar with the crew and complex systems sometimes cause confusion even if training has been provided. The tank drive off afterwards I remember seeing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

IblinI said:


> What are we looking at, anything makes it different than other APS?



Fires two missiles at the incoming threat instead of one as is the case with most APS systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Gryphon

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> Any idea who is receiving this lot of VT4s?



First batch of 2x VT-4 MBTs for Pakistan Army.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Gryphon said:


> First batch of 2x VT-4 MBTs for Pakistan Army.


This is excellent news, so we are going for the Green Colour scheme instead of the Brown one.!


----------



## Armchair

Gryphon said:


> First batch of 2x VT-4 MBTs for Pakistan Army.



camo suggests destined 4 azad kashmir / north punjab

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Foxtrot Delta



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Foxtrot Delta said:


> View attachment 635285
> View attachment 635286


I am amazed by the variety of colour schemes of VT4.


----------



## Foxtrot Delta

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> I am amazed by the variety of colour schemes of VT4.


First image is actually from a tank simulator called armored warfare. It also has alkhalid base variant in it for simulation.

Dessert color scheme for iraqi maps


----------



## Scorpiooo

As per news is past Pakistan will get 580 to 600 new MBTs, as VT4 order news its around 300.
So guys which other tank plateform will fill this gap,
Alkahlid slow production rate can only add 30 to max 50 in next few years.
Exports gap of 200 plus tanks exits that can totaly add option to have any other plateform like T90M , optus etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Scorpiooo said:


> As per news is past Pakistan will get 580 to 600 new MBTs, as VT4 order news its around 300.
> So guys which other tank plateform will fill this gap,
> Alkahlid slow production rate can only add 30 to max 50 in next few years.
> Exports gap of 200 plus tanks exits that can totaly add option to have any other plateform like T90M , optus etc


If the off-the-shelf buy is for 600 new tanks, then in all likelihood, the Army will just buy another 200 VT4. That, or (as @Armchair suggested) it can look into used/mothballed T-80UDs from other countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Scorpiooo

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> If the off-the-shelf buy is for 600 new tanks, then in all likelihood, the Army will just buy another 200 VT4. That, or (as @Armchair suggested) it can look into used/mothballed T-80UDs from other countries.


Sir adding 200 or 250 more VT4 will increase inductions time ?
In case of these used T80UD can be from Ukraine or Russia
@Bilal Khan (Quwa)


----------



## JohnWick

Armchair said:


> camo suggests destined 4 azad kashmir / north punjab


I think this Camo is for the forests of Indian punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Strangely, despite similarities with the Russian 2A46Mxx, Chinese ZPT-98 maingun is a bit of a mix bag. While it offers better firepower and barrel life, chrome platting, is auto fretagged, extra chamber pressure, the barrel is not front removable due to fixed cradle assembly. 

VT-4/ MBT 3000 with front removable barrel (probably HMC made).







Note: HMC made 125mm barrels are front removable, and feature double chrome platting as well. They seem to have borrowed the best features of both zpt-98 and KBA-3. (KBA-3 lacks chrome platting).

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Scorpiooo said:


> Sir adding 200 or 250 more VT4 will increase inductions time ?
> In case of these used T80UD can be from Ukraine or Russia
> @Bilal Khan (Quwa)


Not sure how good those used T-80UD becos Ukraine has lost most of the abilities to produced tank engine. A crucial component of the tank which can only import from Ukraine. That is the very reason for the very slow production rate for Al Khalid. Ukraine suffering a massive economy crisis becos of civil war. The factories are incapable of retaining skilled workers and maintain their factory facilities. Buying those tank are giving you further logistic nightmare.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Scorpiooo

Beast said:


> Not used how good those used T-80UD becos Ukraine has lost most of the abilities to produced tank engine. A crucial component of the tank which can only import from Ukraine. That is the very reason for the very slow production rate for Al Khalid. Ukraine suffering a massive economy crisis becos of civil war. The factories are incapable of retaining skilled workers and maintain their factory facilities. Buying those tank are giving you further logistic nightmare.


Aggree, Al khalid 2 specially suffered alot that why Pakistan opted for similar thing as VT-4,
Question arises they still have window of 250 +- tanks open as sir @Bilal Khan (Quwa) said can be filled with additional VT4 (quite logical to have same plateform )

0n other hand 2 point arises in mind 
First why dont they give fill order in front as we already behind due to Al khalid issues.

Second Pakistan want variations in tank fleet by adopting thr other plateform so limitations of VT4 or AK2 covered in it. Thinking to deply both plateform in different region according to requirements (_bcuz some people says Chinese tank are weak in desert areas_ ).

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Blacklight


----------



## Armchair

Scorpiooo said:


> Sir adding 200 or 250 more VT4 will increase inductions time ?
> In case of these used T80UD can be from Ukraine or Russia
> @Bilal Khan (Quwa)



After VT-4 buy, converting T80s to UDs is old story now. Seems Pak got a deal like what we would expect from US deals with Israel. VT-4s are the tanks to be imported in the near future, nothing else.

The Ukranians originally offered ToT for the engines as an option. At minimum PA should have capacity to build most common spare parts. 
The 6TD is a relatively simple design, uprated to 1200 hp but probably optimal at 700 hp. With ToT Pak could create a family of 300 - 1000 hp engines that would drive industrialization in Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Armchair said:


> After VT-4 buy, converting T80s to UDs is old story now. Seems Pak got a deal like what we would expect from US deals with Israel. VT-4s are the tanks to be imported in the near future, nothing else.
> 
> The Ukranians originally offered ToT for the engines as an option. At minimum PA should have capacity to build most common spare parts.
> The 6TD is a relatively simple design, uprated to 1200 hp but probably optimal at 700 hp. With ToT Pak could create a family of 300 - 1000 hp engines that would drive industrialization in Pakistan


Ukraine will not offer ToT, not even if you paid them money. Its their Lifeline and trump card. All high performance diesel high HP tank engine are not easy to build. Ask Turkey if you dont believe it why their Altay got delay. Or you can ask why their South Korea Black partner export got plenty of obstacles. But I do know SK recently got some breakthru for their domestic 1500HP engine. Anyway, SK is a developed and highly industries countries flood with cash. So its not fair to compare theirs with others situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Armchair

Beast said:


> Ukraine will not offer ToT, not even if you paid them money. Its their Lifeline and trump card. All high performance diesel high HP tank engine are not easy to build. Ask Turkey if you dont believe it why their Altay got delay. Or you can ask why their South Korea Black partner export got plenty of obstacles. But I do know SK recently got some breakthru for their domestic 1500HP engine. Anyway, SK is a developed and highly industries countries flood with cash. So its not fair to compare theirs with others situation.



irrelevant. wel known Ukraine originally offered tot from senior members here. whether the offer is still open is a different qtn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Armchair said:


> irrelevant. wel known Ukraine originally offered tot from senior members here. whether the offer is still open is a different qtn


ToT is a very loose term. India MKI AL-31FP engine are claim to be ToT. Turkey F-16 F110 engine are also claim to be ToT. But how much have they learn from those ToT to be self independent and make those engines without Russian or American external support? 

Be it western, UKraine, Russian or Chinese. Nobody will give you ToT for crucial propulsion system. Even our QC-280 gas turbine for our destroyer made by China offer very limited help from Ukraine. Their aim is to hold u hostage and keep squeezing money. But our years of research and modernization of our industries level paid off. Same as the our VT-4 engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Armchair

Beast said:


> ToT is a very loose term. India MKI AL-31FP engine are claim to be ToT. Turkey F-16 F110 engine are also claim to be ToT. But how much have they learn from those ToT to be self independent and make those engines without Russian or American external support?
> 
> Be it western, UKraine, Russian or Chinese. Nobody will give you ToT for crucial propulsion system. Even our QC-280 gas turbine for our destroyer made by China offer very limited help from Ukraine. Their aim is to hold u hostage and keep squeezing money. But our years of research and modernization of our industries level paid off. Same as the our VT-4 engine.



Ur vt 4 engine is hitech, made with a number of advanced alloys. it comes like an integrated unit, very impressive. Ukrainian engine is 1980s old school soviet engine. big difference. Pak will need to master a bit of metallurgy to produce these.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## HRK

Armchair said:


> wel known Ukraine originally offered tot from senior members here


officially confirm news ....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

Armchair said:


> Ur vt 4 engine is hitech, made with a number of advanced alloys. it comes like an integrated unit, very impressive. Ukrainian engine is 1980s old school soviet engine. big difference. Pak will need to master a bit of metallurgy to produce these.



Haha yes we have learned many things from Germans in diesel engine for trucks and construction vehicle engines. Also their ideas on how to build integrated unit.

How is Russia building T-14 engine? They must hold some very good engine expertise too to carry for T-90MS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Scorpiooo

Armchair said:


> irrelevant. wel known Ukraine originally offered tot from senior members here. whether the offer is still open is a different qtn


Sir then why PA and Kamra refused it ?, can be great help in AK1 and AK2 and future ahead any Armar vehicles.
Any specific reason other then money ?

@Armchair. Whats your opinion about still windoe of 200 to 250 tanks for PA , which plateform you think will actually cover it ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

Dazzler said:


> Strangely, despite similarities with the Russian 2A46Mxx, Chinese ZPT-98 maingun is a bit of a mix bag. While it offers better firepower and barrel life, chrome platting, is auto fretagged, extra chamber pressure, the barrel is not front removable due to fixed cradle assembly.
> 
> VT-4/ MBT 3000 with front removable barrel (probably HMC made).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: HMC made 125mm barrels are front removable, and feature double chrome platting as well. They seem to have borrowed the best features of both zpt-98 and KBA-3. (KBA-3 lacks chrome platting).



I think VT-4 uses slightly shorter gun than ZPT-98. The same gun used in Type 96B so basically same as Russian 2A46 original design but with modern manufacturing material and techniques like electroslag remelting and so Russian direction developed 2A46M versions for their's and ZPT-98 is same gun just 2 length longer so a bit heavier also using some technology from Type 89's main gun. All are very old and not much better than original 2A46 just small improvements everywhere. Ammunition is actually more important area and so our current tanks cannot match tanks using Rheinmetal L55 like K-2 and Leopard 2A7. Our ammunition is mystery but your tests will reveal enough information compared to Russian and Ukrainian tanks except Russia's best one 2A82 and 2A83 which is crazy 152mm.

Chinese next generation tank development may totally change this autoloader style and definitely new guns maybe bigger than 125mm. For Indian army their best tank for armor is Arjun and T-90S. 125mm ZPT-98 and smaller version may be enough. Hopefully Pakistan army receives the best Chinese ammunition not older versions otherwise front cannot be penetrated. Better to just HJ missiles because definitely more effective and cheaper costs if Pakistan army wants to target tanks. For VT-4 I think is for offensive movements.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

Scorpiooo said:


> Sir then why PA and Kamra refused it ?, can be great help in AK1 and AK2 and future ahead any Armar vehicles.
> Any specific reason other then money ?
> 
> @Armchair. Whats your opinion about still windoe of 200 to 250 tanks for PA , which plateform you think will actually cover it ?



I dont know why, maybe learned members like @Dazzler @Tipu7 can tell u the inside story of why it wasnt pursued.



serenity said:


> Haha yes we have learned many things from Germans in diesel engine for trucks and construction vehicle engines. Also their ideas on how to build integrated unit.
> 
> How is Russia building T-14 engine? They must hold some very good engine expertise too to carry for T-90MS.



No idea about Russian engines. My knowledge is limited to Pak procured items only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

MayaBazar said:


> These are a serious threat to India. India should seriously think of procuring T-14 tanks now.



Why?? Basically it is to counter Indian modern tank threat.


----------



## bananarepublic

Dazzler said:


> Strangely, despite similarities with the Russian 2A46Mxx, Chinese ZPT-98 maingun is a bit of a mix bag. While it offers better firepower and barrel life, chrome platting, is auto fretagged, extra chamber pressure, the barrel is not front removable due to fixed cradle assembly.
> 
> VT-4/ MBT 3000 with front removable barrel (probably HMC made).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: HMC made 125mm barrels are front removable, and feature double chrome platting as well. They seem to have borrowed the best features of both zpt-98 and KBA-3. (KBA-3 lacks chrome platting).



HMC made barrels are probably the best in the market and the French Blanks mated with Ukrainian engineering (correct me of i am wrong) provide it with amazing reliability.
Its well suited for Pakistan's environment and much better than the Chinese and Ukrainian offerings

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bossman

bananarepublic said:


> HMC made barrels are probably the best in the market and the French Blanks mated with Ukrainian engineering (correct me of i am wrong) provide it with amazing reliability.
> Its well suited for Pakistan's environment and much better than the Chinese and Ukrainian offerings


Blanks are local now. Peoples Steel Mills



serenity said:


> I think VT-4 uses slightly shorter gun than ZPT-98. The same gun used in Type 96B so basically same as Russian 2A46 original design but with modern manufacturing material and techniques like electroslag remelting and so Russian direction developed 2A46M versions for their's and ZPT-98 is same gun just 2 length longer so a bit heavier also using some technology from Type 89's main gun. All are very old and not much better than original 2A46 just small improvements everywhere. Ammunition is actually more important area and so our current tanks cannot match tanks using Rheinmetal L55 like K-2 and Leopard 2A7. Our ammunition is mystery but your tests will reveal enough information compared to Russian and Ukrainian tanks except Russia's best one 2A82 and 2A83 which is crazy 152mm.
> 
> Chinese next generation tank development may totally change this autoloader style and definitely new guns maybe bigger than 125mm. For Indian army their best tank for armor is Arjun and T-90S. 125mm ZPT-98 and smaller version may be enough. Hopefully Pakistan army receives the best Chinese ammunition not older versions otherwise front cannot be penetrated. Better to just HJ missiles because definitely more effective and cheaper costs if Pakistan army wants to target tanks. For VT-4 I think is for offensive movements.


Pakistan uses its own ammo most local research as well as collaboration with Europeans and Koreans.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

Bossman said:


> Blanks are local now. Peoples Steel Mills
> 
> 
> Pakistan uses its own ammo most local research as well as collaboration with Europeans and Koreans.




IIRC, collaboration with Koreans (Poongsang) was for arty shells only.



bananarepublic said:


> HMC made barrels are probably the best in the market and the French Blanks mated with Ukrainian engineering (correct me of i am wrong) provide it with amazing reliability.
> Its well suited for Pakistan's environment and much better than the Chinese and Ukrainian offerings



Very high quality barrels utilizing blanks manufactured using ESR steel. it leaves the Russian 2A46M series behind in barrel life and reliability.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## bananarepublic

Dazzler said:


> IIRC, collaboration with Koreans (Poongsang) was for arty shells only.
> 
> 
> 
> Very high quality barrels utilizing blanks manufactured using ESR steel. it leaves the Russian 2A46M series behind in barrel life and reliability.



And I believe in some aspects it perform better than the L/55 many western tanks use


----------



## Ali_Baba

Which company is HMC? Would help understand the conversation!


----------



## Dreamer.

Ali_Baba said:


> Which company is HMC? Would help understand the conversation!


Heavy Mechanical Complex. http://hmc.com.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

bananarepublic said:


> And I believe in some aspects it perform better than the L/55 many western tanks use



Which aspects? I think only because 125mm to allow heavier shells and higher chamber pressure and muzzle velocity for similar rounds. That's it.


----------



## bananarepublic

serenity said:


> Which aspects? I think only because 125mm to allow heavier shells and higher chamber pressure and muzzle velocity for similar rounds. That's it.



Depleted Uranium rounds and HEAT according to my speculation @Dazzler can shed more light on it

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZAC1

Did we received any?


----------



## Affanakad0t.

ZAC1 said:


> Did we received any?


No update so far


----------



## Arsalan

Dazzler said:


> Strangely, despite similarities with the Russian 2A46Mxx, Chinese ZPT-98 maingun is a bit of a mix bag. While it offers better firepower and barrel life, chrome platting, is auto fretagged, extra chamber pressure, the barrel is not front removable due to fixed cradle assembly.
> 
> VT-4/ MBT 3000 with front removable barrel (probably HMC made).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: HMC made 125mm barrels are front removable, and feature double chrome platting as well. They seem to have borrowed the best features of both zpt-98 and KBA-3. (KBA-3 lacks chrome platting).


AND Tested to the extreme! I was present at one of the trials and the "torture" these were subjected to was immense. Still held their shape. 
However please note that initially the order was of just 120 barrels and it was years back. Not sure if there were follow up orders for AK-I or others!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ali_raza

Arsalan said:


> AND Tested to the extreme! I was present at one of the trials and the "torture" these were subjected to was immense. Still held their shape.
> However please note that initially the order was of just 120 barrels and it was years back. Not sure if there were follow up orders for AK-I or others!


sir can u shed some light on ukrainian engines tot? 
was it ever on the table


----------



## Arsalan

ali_raza said:


> sir can u shed some light on ukrainian engines tot?
> was it ever on the table


I don't have the details. However as a fan i think that if ToT was available it is criminal on our part not to go for it. If possible and in my power i would still for for a 800hp and 1300hp engine from a proven supplier like Ukraine. 

Now this have been discussed in detail in the past and i have had long chats on this with @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777, the next MBT development by PA should be ARMATA style. A uniform platform with two engine variants that form the basis of multiple platforms like a tank, IFV with ATGM and AAM, recovery vehicle, a SPH etc etc. We have the engineering capability, we have off the shelf subsystems and locally produced ones too, what we need is a reliable engine to make it happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Hassan Guy

Arsalan said:


> I don't have the details. However as a fan i think that if ToT was available it is criminal on our part not to go for it. If possible and in my power i would still for for a 800hp and 1300hp engine from a proven supplier like Ukraine.
> 
> Now this have been discussed in detail in the past and i have had long chats on this with @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777, the next MBT development by PA should be ARMATA style. A uniform platform with two engine variants that form the basis of multiple platforms like a tank, IFV with ATGM and AAM, recovery vehicle, a SPH etc etc. We have the engineering capability, we have off the shelf subsystems and locally produced ones too, what we need is a reliable engine to make it happen.


Pakistan Army:
What a very logical idea you have proposed.

We ain't gonna do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Arsalan

Hassan Guy said:


> Pakistan Army:
> What a very logical idea you have proposed.
> 
> We ain't gonna do it.


Not the whole army but especially HIT guys. Now again, i may have to fight @Dazzler on this but having observed them for years, the HIT people are perhaps the most "had haram" and "kaam chor" lot! Yes they have produced some goodies, some pretty excellent ones in fact but there is a potential of LOT MORE. Just a little bit of dedication and visions and HIT can not only become the true back bone of our army but be a major defence exporter. POF surpass them in exports and this alone should be enough to shame these guys!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> According to Norinco, the VT-4s are handed over to the customer on schedule.
> View attachment 629055
> View attachment 629056
> 
> Via @北方工业 from Weixin


According to Norinco, maybe the VT-4s have reached Pakistan.





Via @北方工业 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Tipu7

Arsalan said:


> Not the whole army but especially HIT guys. Now again, i may have to fight @Dazzler on this but having observed them for years, the HIT people are perhaps the most "had haram" and "kaam chor" lot! Yes they have produced some goodies, some pretty excellent ones in fact but there is a potential of LOT MORE. Just a little bit of dedication and visions and HIT can not only become the true back bone of our army but be a major defence exporter. POF surpass them in exports and this alone should be enough to shame these guys!


I second your opinion.
Not only HIT dudes, but people from HMC, Chinab and Qadri Foundries have questionable credibility in my eyes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Arsalan

Tipu7 said:


> I second your opinion.
> Not only HIT dudes, but people from HMC, Chinab and Qadri Foundries have questionable credibility in my eyes.


Well my dad worked at HMC so i wont agree on this! 

No seriously, i know that organization very well, lived my life there. The problem with them is the classic civil-military issue! HMC is civilian and are usually quite pi55ed that people at SPD are making some unreasonable requests or a ignoring some excellent suggestion because of that bloody civi approach. HMC build AK gun barrels for HIT dudes. The batch of first 50 was rejected and it took engineer at HMC 8-10 months to explain that the test is flawed and there is nothing wrong with the gun. Eventually the leadership changed at HIT and they admitted (rather unwillingly) the mistake and accepted the barrels which were just fine. Two more batch (i have not checked with me dad) were made. No sure if they made any after that!!

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## waz

LKJ86 said:


> According to Norinco, maybe the VT-4s have reached Pakistan.
> View attachment 637914
> 
> Via @北方工业 from Weixin



Good morning Pakistan border region of Punjab, a new permanent resident has arrived.











I hope the crews play this track for the first test drive (sorry I can't help myself). Think 'overlord tank'

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> I hope the crews play this track for the first test drive (sorry I can't help myself). Think 'overlord tank'


What about this one:March of Steel Torrent (钢铁洪流进行曲)

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Tipu7

waz said:


> Good morning Pakistan border region of Punjab, a new permanent resident has arrived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope the crews play this track for the first test drive (sorry I can't help myself). Think 'overlord tank'


Play Command & Conquer Rise of Reds

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthfollower

waz said:


> Good morning Pakistan border region of Punjab, a new permanent resident has arrived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope the crews play this track for the first test drive (sorry I can't help myself). Think 'overlord tank'



In Pakistan again for more testing?


----------



## Mohsin A

waz said:


> Good morning Pakistan border region of Punjab, a new permanent resident has arrived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope the crews play this track for the first test drive (sorry I can't help myself). Think 'overlord tank'




I think the original old school c&c Hell March track would be ideal

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

truthfollower said:


> In Pakistan again for more testing?



Nope for induction and action now.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## truthfollower

waz said:


> Nope for induction and action now.



wow! Please post video whenever it is available of this new tank

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

waz said:


> *According to new pictures published on April 22, 2020, to the China Defense Blog, the latest version of Chinese-made Main Battle Tank (MBT) VT4 is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition. According to our previous analysis, the first version of the VT-4 MBT was fitted with ERA level FY-2.
> 
> The VT4 MBT (Main Battle Tank) is now in service with four armed forces in the world including China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand. The VT4 also called MBT-3000 is a third-generation Main Battle Tank (MBT) designed, developed and manufactured in China by NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation).
> 
> The VT4 MBT was unveiled by the Chinese defense industry in November 2019 during the China International Aviation & Aerospace or Zhuhai AirShow. The layout of this tank is very similar to the Russian tank with a crew of three including driver, commander and gunner and the use of an automatic loading system for the main armament.
> 
> The main armament of the VT4 / MBT-3000 consists of a 125 mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader that holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. One 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun is mounted to the right of the main armament, while on the commander's cupola is mounted a remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun that can be used to engage ground and aerial targets.
> 
> The hull and turret of the VT4 are of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. The first version of the tank was fitted with additional ERA (Explosive Reactive armor) Level FY-2 providing protection against HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammunition. According to the latest pictures released on the Internet, the latest variant of the VT4 is now fitted at the front of the hull with ERA armor Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead.
> 
> Currently, China produces four Level of ERA armour including the FY-I with protection against HEAT ammunition, the FY-II with protection against HEAT, APFSDS ammunition, the FY-III with protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition and the FY-IV providing protection against HEAT, APFSDS and tandem warhead ammunition but with 85 mm thick armour blocks for the FY-IV and only 75 mm for Level III. The ERA armour consists of steel blocks with C4 explosives inside.*
> 
> Reactive armour is a type of vehicle armour that reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened kinetic energy penetrators. The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour.
> 
> A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of kinetic energy penetrator ammunition used to attack modern vehicle armour. As an armament for main battle tanks, it succeeds armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition, which is still used in small or medium caliber weapon systems.
> 
> Tandem warheads are effective against reactive armour, which is designed to protect an armoured vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank ammunition, missiles and rocket. The first stage of the weapon is typically a weak charge that either pierces the reactive armour of the target without detonating it leaving a channel through the reactive armour so that the second warhead may pass unimpeded, or simply detonating the armour plates causing the timing of the counter-explosion to fail. The second detonation from the same projectile attacks the same location as the first detonation where the reactive armour has been compromised. Since the regular armour plating is often the only defence remaining, the main charge (second detonation) has an increased likelihood of penetrating the armour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.armyrecognition.com/wea...armour_against_tandem_warhead_ammunition.html



They also have FY5 but not for export

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

LKJ86 said:


> According to Norinco, maybe the VT-4s have reached Pakistan.
> View attachment 637914
> 
> Via @北方工业 from Weixin


Well let's hope you are right.



Tipu7 said:


> I second your opinion.
> Not only HIT dudes, but people from HMC, Chinab and Qadri Foundries have questionable credibility in my eyes.


Don't forget POF also. All Had Harams and doing nothing absolutely nothing. @Arsalan

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

kongn said:


> T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
> Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
> Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.


There is no 900Hp version of 150HB series engine. It has 1500, 1300 and 1000HP versions respectively. Stop making things out of your arse.



serenity said:


> VT-4 purchase by Pakistan army I said years ago. Dazzler I remember disagree with me and convinced Pakistan army will buy something else and develop own designs and how VT-4 is very flawed in some different ways. Of course no way you can buy perfect tank for export price of $5M each. Maybe Korean K2 for middle weight or Leopard a7 for heavy and Japanese tank 10 for light weight are best in most regard. But export price will be between $15M to $20M each with similar level of training and support.



What I said was based on PAs preferences and past trials when the UDs leapfrogged over the storm II. Chinese mbts have come a long way since then.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

Dazzler said:


> There is no 900Hp version of 150HB series engine. It has 1500, 1300 and 1000HP versions respectively. Stop making things out of your arse.
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was based on PAs preferences and past trials when the UDs leapfrogged over the storm II. Chinese mbts have come a long way since then.


If VT 4 have really arrived please post the pictures if you manage to get them.

@PanzerKiel

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

kongn said:


> Chinese engine has failed in tests before and in other trials.Lets see how it works in the field with PA,especially in the desert.Chinese are new to engine making and are not known for their quality.Fingers crossed.


Yeah koreans didnt know shit in 1990s either..now who owns the mobile/tv industry 
Chinese didnt know any thing either in 2000-2010 era....things have changed..only india has been asleep and world has moved on


----------



## Scorpiooo

I think few T15 (VT5) light weight 3rd generation tanks usefull for PA (Pakistan army) along VT4 for mountain regions in Pakistan.

As China is using in high number in laddakh standoff with india

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanasifm

Where is the official profile of vt-4 ??

Did I miss it ??


----------



## Dazzler

Zarvan said:


> If VT 4 have really arrived please post the pictures if you manage to get them.
> 
> @PanzerKiel



Photos will be available sooner or later.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Arsalan

Zarvan said:


> Well let's hope you are right.
> 
> 
> Don't forget POF also. All Had Harams and doing nothing absolutely nothing. @Arsalan


Yeah they are about there but HIT is at another level. Saying that everyone at POF is having haram and doing nothing is really not correct. I mean, at least they are meeting the ammo needs of entire army and in fact also exporting some. Yes there is potential of doing a lot more but then again, at least they are doing something. In fact, doing a lot to meet the ammo needs of this huge army. I wont say "they are doing nothing".

My problem with HIT have been that having observed them up close, they are least interested in doing anything and have to be pushed to do whatever they have done. If you study the machine shops they have, the equipment and the infrastructure in place, they could have been producing in-house APC, MRAP, IFV, SPH etc. An organization this huge producing a few hundred AK or even AK1 is not justified.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Scorpiooo said:


> As China is using in high number in laddakh standoff with india


How much?


----------



## Zarvan

Arsalan said:


> Yeah they are about there but HIT is at another level. Saying that everyone at POF is having haram and doing nothing is really not correct. I mean, at least they are meeting the ammo needs of entire army and in fact also exporting some. Yes there is potential of doing a lot more but then again, at least they are doing something. In fact, doing a lot to meet the ammo needs of this huge army. I wont say "they are doing nothing".
> 
> My problem with HIT have been that having observed them up close, they are least interested in doing anything and have to be pushed to do whatever they have done. If you study the machine shops they have, the equipment and the infrastructure in place, they could have been producing in-house APC, MRAP, IFV, SPH etc. An organization this huge producing a few hundred AK or even AK1 is not justified.


We need to change the administration and if not fully than privatize it half

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Pakistani Fighter said:


> How much?


Dont know the count, or nor China will disclose ever
But from different forum and videos shared on Chinese media can sea heavy movement of T15 on trucks on way to laddakh


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Both organizations are sitting around doing nothing. Waiting for the gora messiah to save the day. Useless and pathetic.


Arsalan said:


> Yeah they are about there but HIT is at another level. Saying that everyone at POF is having haram and doing nothing is really not correct. I mean, at least they are meeting the ammo needs of entire army and in fact also exporting some. Yes there is potential of doing a lot more but then again, at least they are doing something. In fact, doing a lot to meet the ammo needs of this huge army. I wont say "they are doing nothing".
> 
> My problem with HIT have been that having observed them up close, they are least interested in doing anything and have to be pushed to do whatever they have done. If you study the machine shops they have, the equipment and the infrastructure in place, they could have been producing in-house APC, MRAP, IFV, SPH etc. An organization this huge producing a few hundred AK or even AK1 is not justified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bossman

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Both organizations are sitting around doing nothing. Waiting for the gora messiah to save the day. Useless and pathetic.[/



what makes you to come to that conclusion?



Arsalan said:


> Yeah they are about there but HIT is at another level. Saying that everyone at POF is having haram and doing nothing is really not correct. I mean, at least they are meeting the ammo needs of entire army and in fact also exporting some. Yes there is potential of doing a lot more but then again, at least they are doing something. In fact, doing a lot to meet the ammo needs of this huge army. I wont say "they are doing nothing".
> 
> My problem with HIT have been that having observed them up close, they are least interested in doing anything and have to be pushed to do whatever they have done. If you study the machine shops they have, the equipment and the infrastructure in place, they could have been producing in-house APC, MRAP, IFV, SPH etc. An organization this huge producing a few hundred AK or even AK1 is not justified.


You better cool down otherwise your daddy will lose his job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Bossman said:


> what makes you to come to that conclusion?
> 
> 
> You better cool down otherwise your daddy will lose his job.


He is not at HIT of POF so its ok. Plus he is retired now, a couple of friends may be at risk but i wont name or mention them! 

Furthermore, these points were raised by my father when he was serving and i do not want to gloat but he was respected for his similar views back then. The issue is not something unknown to the people involved.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## pzfz

still no turret mantlet. pathetic.


----------



## jupiter2007

Government must encourage Privatization of defense industry and provide loans on low interest to small/startup defense companies.


----------



## Zarvan

*Pakistan Army’s New Generation Main Battle Tank & VT-4 MBT*





As per sources Pakistan evaluated three MBTs. Those Three are as follows:


T-90MS (Rejected by PA)
T-84 Oplot-M & Oplot-P




(First Pakistan



Evaluated Oplot-M & rejected it “Main issues were Weight, Fire Power & Fire Control System” then Ukraine customized it according to Pakistan’s needs that variant is known as Oplot-P. It also got rejected due to multiple reasons, but the main reason was the delivery on time since Ukraine has this issue with on time delivery. Pakistan also observed the Thailand



case in which Ukraine failed to deliver T-84 on time).
VT-4



(Selected After Extensive Tests Evaluations.)
*Pakistan’s Army VT-4 Deal with China*

Pakistan will be acquiring 300 VT-4 from Norinco China



. The delivery will be done in 2 stages/Phases.


a) Phase 1: 176 VT-4 MBT.
b) Phase 2: 124 VT-4 MBT.
Sources confirm that Pakistan’s VT-4 version will be the most capable version compared to Thailand’s



& Nigerian



Versions. The distinguished features are as follows:


Pakistan’s VT-4s will be equipped with 1500HP Engine rather than standard 1300HP Engine. Since Pakistan showed reservations with 1300HP Engine during Evaluation.
The Explosive Reactive Armor or ERA on Pakistan’s VT-4s will be “FY-4”. The Standard Version VT-4s has “FY-2”. FY-4 ERA is licensed version of “Relikt ERA”



. For the matter of fact Relikt is world’s most capable & advanced ERA.
Pakistan’s VT-4s will have better mobility (More powerful Engine 1500HP). Fire Power, Fire Control System & Optronics of Pakistan’s VT-4s are believed to be superior than all other existing variants.
*Important Note:* “Currently this is all the information we were able to gather regarding VT-4 MBT. As soon as we gather further data, we will write a complete Article on Pakistani VT-4 MBTs”.

#Entei
#DeltaFoxtrot
#Panzerjager

#TeamPakistanStrategicForum

https://pakstrategic.com/2020/06/13/pakistan-armys-new-generation-main-battle-tank-vt-4-mbt/

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akh1112

Zarvan said:


> *Pakistan Army’s New Generation Main Battle Tank & VT-4 MBT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As per sources Pakistan evaluated three MBTs. Those Three are as follows:
> 
> 
> T-90MS (Rejected by PA)
> T-84 Oplot-M & Oplot-P
> 
> 
> 
> (First Pakistan
> 
> 
> 
> Evaluated Oplot-M & rejected it “Main issues were Weight, Fire Power & Fire Control System” then Ukraine customized it according to Pakistan’s needs that variant is known as Oplot-P. It also got rejected due to multiple reasons, but the main reason was the delivery on time since Ukraine has this issue with on time delivery. Pakistan also observed the Thailand
> 
> 
> 
> case in which Ukraine failed to deliver T-84 on time).
> VT-4
> 
> 
> 
> (Selected After Extensive Tests Evaluations.)
> *Pakistan’s Army VT-4 Deal with China*
> 
> Pakistan will be acquiring 300 VT-4 from Norinco China
> 
> 
> 
> . The delivery will be done in 2 stages/Phases.
> 
> 
> a) Phase 1: 176 VT-4 MBT.
> b) Phase 2: 124 VT-4 MBT.
> Sources confirm that Pakistan’s VT-4 version will be the most capable version compared to Thailand’s
> 
> 
> 
> & Nigerian
> 
> 
> 
> Versions. The distinguished features are as follows:
> 
> 
> Pakistan’s VT-4s will be equipped with 1500HP Engine rather than standard 1300HP Engine. Since Pakistan showed reservations with 1300HP Engine during Evaluation.
> The Explosive Reactive Armor or ERA on Pakistan’s VT-4s will be “FY-4”. The Standard Version VT-4s has “FY-2”. FY-4 ERA is licensed version of “Relikt ERA”
> 
> 
> 
> . For the matter of fact Relikt is world’s most capable & advanced ERA.
> Pakistan’s VT-4s will have better mobility (More powerful Engine 1500HP). Fire Power, Fire Control System & Optronics of Pakistan’s VT-4s are believed to be superior than all other existing variants.
> *Important Note:* “Currently this is all the information we were able to gather regarding VT-4 MBT. As soon as we gather further data, we will write a complete Article on Pakistani VT-4 MBTs”.
> 
> #Entei
> #DeltaFoxtrot
> #Panzerjager
> 
> #TeamPakistanStrategicForum
> 
> https://pakstrategic.com/2020/06/13/pakistan-armys-new-generation-main-battle-tank-vt-4-mbt/




Seems suspicious, dont know why PA would reject the MS when it was the superior of the three. It probably is untrue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Akh1112 said:


> Seems suspicious, dont know why PA would reject the MS when it was the superior of the three. It probably is untrue.


How you reached the conclusion that MS is superior ????

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SSG_Commando

Zarvan said:


> How you reached the conclusion that MS is superior ????


May be smoking weeds. The T 90MS is reasonable but Chinese are far ahead in sensors than Russians. In fact Russians are feeling the heat from Chinese in sensors and electronics and soon Russians will be assembling Chinese military hardware.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## waz

Akh1112 said:


> Seems suspicious, dont know why PA would reject the MS *when it was the superior of the three.* It probably is untrue.



At the time of the trial, it flunked. 
The VT4 had issues but were fixed and it came for second trials and passed well.
Take a look back at this thread for some of the T-90MS v VT4 discussion, where the two were compared. The VT4 comes out tops.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Akh1112

waz said:


> At the time of the trial, it flunked.
> The VT4 had issues but were fixed and it came for second trials and passed well.
> Take a look back at this thread for some of the T-90MS v VT4 discussion, where the two were compared. The VT4 comes out tops.



Yep, did some more research, was wrong.



SSG_Commando said:


> May be smoking weeds. The T 90MS is reasonable but Chinese are far ahead in sensors than Russians. In fact Russians are feeling the heat from Chinese in sensors and electronics and soon Russians will be assembling Chinese military hardware.




Completely agree, heck, ive been saying this for long, the Chinese make far better electronics. However the MS makes use of a Thales FCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vi-va

Akh1112 said:


> Yep, did some more research, was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely agree, heck, ive been saying this for long, the Chinese make far better electronics. However the MS makes use of a Thales FCS.


You didn't know French has banned export to Russia? Russia is buying infrared detector from China instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Akh1112

vi-va said:


> You didn't know French has banned export to Russia? Russia is buying infrared detector from China instead.




Nope, did not know. I dont really follow tanks. Would make sense however.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Syed1.

Saw videos of GL5 active protection on the VT4..... looks amazing. I wish we incorporate it in AK1 and AK2.


----------



## LKJ86

Syed1. said:


> Saw videos of GL5 active protection on the VT4..... looks amazing. I wish we incorporate it in AK1 and AK2.


GL-5 on old ZTZ-96 tank

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

Akh1112 said:


> Seems suspicious, dont know why PA would reject the MS when it was the superior of the three. It probably is untrue.


It was not superior to others. Had unreliable vetronics and inferior fcs compared to VT4.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @Object-477 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Muhammad Omar

So Did Pakistan received this tank


----------



## dilpakistani

Muhammad Omar said:


> So Did Pakistan received this tank


nope... all this noise on just an unconfirmed report.. no VT-4 arrived Pakistan no Sh-15 has been bought so all cool


----------



## Figaro

dilpakistani said:


> nope... all this noise on just an unconfirmed report.. no VT-4 arrived Pakistan no Sh-15 has been bought so all cool


The VT-4 contract was confirmed to be signed


----------



## Armchair

Pakistan is doing something interesting and strange. Pak is buying stuff and getting them supplied quietly and not acknowledging them. Hmmm.... interesting strategy to avoid a tit for tat.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## PDF

Posted it in March, 2018 here on pdf. Just resharing what I photographed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## farooqbhai007

PDF said:


> Posted it in March, 2018 here on pdf. Just resharing what I photographed.



Nice catch , based on this route this vt4 demonstrator came in via air then i suppose

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## capricorn5192

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294082498809360384

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## IblinI

capricorn5192 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294082498809360384


The camo does look like the Thai version.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

IblinI said:


> The camo does look like the Thai version.



News is correct, pics are not. Thai VT-4s

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Dazzler said:


> News is correct, pics are not. Thai VT-4s


So you are implying they are for us!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> So you are implying they are for us!


Those pictures are of Thai VT4s , which were first shared by Dead District on twitter , whom i corrected on twitter but he did not remove his post but corrected it later on , in the time in between retards like that dude jimme chan quickly retweeted the tweet .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## farooqbhai007

The origin of this mistake actually dates back to a post a few months ago of new batch of Thai VT4s that were shipped from china , which first were mistaken as pakistani ones by some weibo user , and based on his mistake many people including army recognition made their articles that pak has received VT4s without verifying , however a few days later most of those articles were removed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kompromat

More testing.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

farooqbhai007 said:


> The origin of this mistake actually dates back to a post a few months ago of new batch of Thai VT4s that were shipped from china , which first were mistaken as pakistani ones by some weibo user , and based on his mistake many people including army recognition made their articles that pak has received VT4s without verifying , however a few days later most of those articles were removed.



Those were not Thai vt-4s. Camo and frontal ERA Coverage was different.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

farooqbhai007 said:


> The origin of this mistake actually dates back to a post a few months ago of new batch of Thai VT4s that were shipped from china , which first were mistaken as pakistani ones by some weibo user , and based on his mistake many people including army recognition made their articles that pak has received VT4s without verifying , however a few days later most of those articles were removed.


PA does have received the VT-4s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

LKJ86 said:


> PA does have received the VT-4s.


I hope not. I hope PA rejects it and continues with AK production.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hussain0216

Signalian said:


> I hope not. I hope PA rejects it and continues with AK production.



Ak production will continue anyway

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## farooqbhai007

LKJ86 said:


> PA does have received the VT-4s.


Yes i know PA has received VT4s, but i was just saying that those particular pictures were not of PA camo VT4s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> I hope not. I hope PA rejects it and continues with AK production.


Why? VT4 has proven it self to be far more capable than AK1. And Pakistan will very likely domestically produce VT4 as Al Haider in coming years just like it has domestically produced VT1 as Al Khalid in the past.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> Why? VT4 has proven it self to be far more capable than AK1. And Pakistan will very likely domestically produce VT4 as Al Haider in coming years just like it has domestically produced VT1 as Al Khalid in the past.


AK-1 should have been a better tank than VT-4. With all the experience on upgrading T-59 into AZ and working on Type-90 II, HIT should have been excelling by now in tank design and its capabilities.


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> AK-1 should have been a better tank than VT-4. With all the experience on upgrading T-59 into AZ and working on Type-90 II, HIT should have been excelling by now in tank design and its capabilities.


But AK-1 is not a better tank than VT4. And army views more evolutionary potential in Al Haider than in Al Khalid series. Possibility exists that there won't be any Al Khalid 2.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> HIT should have been excelling by now in tank design and its capabilities


That didn't happen. The Al Khalid project has suffered from delays and corruption, and thus the project didn't evolve the way we once hoped.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dreamer.

Tipu7 said:


> Why? VT4 has proven it self to be far more capable than AK1. And Pakistan will very likely domestically produce VT4 as Al Haider in coming years just like it has domestically produced VT1 as Al Khalid in the past.





Tipu7 said:


> But AK-1 is not a better tank than VT4. And army views more evolutionary potential in Al Haider than in Al Khalid series. Possibility exists that there won't be any Al Khalid 2.





Tipu7 said:


> That didn't happen. The Al Khalid project has suffered from delays and corruption, and thus the project didn't evolve the way we once hoped.


All round bad news this!

And if there's to be no alkhalid-2, than just make vt-4 as alkhalid-2 rather than call it alhaidar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SABRE

Tipu7 said:


> But AK-1 is not a better tank than VT4. And army views more evolutionary potential in Al Haider than in Al Khalid series. *Possibility exists that there won't be any Al Khalid 2*.



This now seems the likely case. The first prototype of AK-2 was supposed to roll out by the end of 2019. We are entering the end of 2020 & there is no evidence to suggest that even the work on the prototype has begun let alone roll it out for preliminary trials. News in the past couple of years of PA considering Oplot, T-90, & VT-4 MTBS sort of hinted that AK-2 project might not be going as intended.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

Tipu7 said:


> But AK-1 is not a better tank than VT4. And army views more evolutionary potential in Al Haider than in Al Khalid series. Possibility exists that there won't be any Al Khalid 2.


In my opinion there would be AL KHALID II only issue whether we make it on our own or will get from some where. Pakistan will be operating three main MBT in near future. VT 4 (AL HAIDER) and AL KHALID I and third either our indigenous AL KHALID II or a Tank like K 2 Black Panther or T 14 Armata will come.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SABRE

I would suggest that PA/HIT abandon the AK-2 and acquire ToT for VT-4MBT & VT-5 light tank (LT/LBT). From what it appears, Pakistan and China are the only two countries experimenting with high plateau tank deployments. VT-5 has been designed for that purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> That didn't happen. The Al Khalid project has suffered from delays and corruption, and thus the project didn't evolve the way we once hoped.


and JF-17 is a success that its evolving into Block III, even when PAF is bad mouthed for corruption and incompetency and what not, by members on PDF.


----------



## Trango Towers

Logic behind tankers wearing black?? Anyone?


----------



## Signalian

Trango Towers said:


> Logic behind tankers wearing black?? Anyone?


Oil, mud, dust


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> and JF-17 is a success that its evolving into Block III, even when PAF is bad mouthed for corruption and incompetency and what not, by members on PDF.


Yara there are plenty of contrasting characteristics of both institutes. 
On one side, we got PAC which is pretty flexible in its approach, give room to new lessons and in majority of cases successfully translate those lessons into reality. 
On other side, we got HIT. The Army dudes, who are under the impression that they know the best. And any one questioning their policies is either a traitor or an idiot. Hence, limited scope of learning, less experimentation and overall comparatively poor productivity...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Trango Towers

Signalian said:


> Oil, mud, dust


Shows up more on black.


----------



## Areesh

Al Khalid and Al Haider fighting side by side???

I can already see enemy forces of kufr getting demolished and defeated

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Trango Towers said:


> Shows up more on black.


Less susceptible to visible stains (especially oil and grease) compared to non-black fabric.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SABRE said:


> I would suggest that PA/HIT abandon the AK-2 and acquire ToT for VT-4MBT & VT-5 light tank (LT/LBT). From what it appears, Pakistan and China are the only two countries experimenting with high plateau tank deployments. VT-5 has been designed for that purpose.


Controversial, but a worthwhile thought. Unlike the PAF, the Army is flush with options, so it ought to leverage this flexibility to get the best solution at the lowest cost possible. That's the benefit of having options.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PAR 5

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Controversial, but a worthwhile thought. Unlike the PAF, the Army is flush with options, so it ought to leverage this flexibility to get the best solution at the lowest cost possible. That's the benefit of having options.



HIT is stuck with the AK Program like a cat on a tin roof on the hottest summer day.

NORINCO is currently in no mood to give Army ToT on the VT4 considering the mess they made of the AK manufacturing program

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PakFactor

PAR 5 said:


> HIT is stuck with the AK Program like a cat on a tin roof on the hottest summer day.
> 
> NORINCO is currently in no mood to give Army ToT on the VT4 considering the mess they made of the AK manufacturing program



This is the problem when you have military men with no business background handle operation(s). They should've delegated this to private sector and set up a consortium of sorts with military involved on the design and recommendation side and logistics and manufacturing in competent civilian hands.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

PAR 5 said:


> HIT is stuck with the AK Program like a cat on a tin roof on the hottest summer day.
> 
> NORINCO is currently in no mood to give Army ToT on the VT4 considering the mess they made of the AK manufacturing program


If that's the case, the only option is to buy MBTs off-the-shelf, but tie them to offsets that help Pakistani industries in other ways. But I doubt our negotiators have the depth to produce such complex deals.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PakFactor

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> If that's the case, the only option is to buy MBTs off-the-shelf, but tie them to offsets that help Pakistani industries in other ways. But I doubt our negotiators have the depth to produce such complex deals.



The issue with HIT is it tries to be a _one stop shop_ like a grocery store everything from tracks to engine to sensors, etc. This sort of controlled production limits any development on public side and national industries will not have any idea on what to do if requested to produce something in an urgent matter --

The scary part is that theirs no _National Defense Policy_ to roll the nation over if it comes down to it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAR 5

PakFactor said:


> The issue with HIT is it tries to be a _one stop shop_ like a grocery store everything from tracks to engine to sensors, etc. This sort of controlled production limits any development on public side and national industries will not have any idea on what to do if requested to produce something in an urgent matter --
> 
> The scary part is that theirs no _National Defense Policy_ to roll the nation over if it comes down to it.



The problem with HIT is that it’s managed by Uniform

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## JamD

PakFactor said:


> The scary part is that theirs no *National Defense Policy* to roll the nation over if it comes down to it.


@Bilal Khan (Quwa) kya hoa tera wada?


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

JamD said:


> @Bilal Khan (Quwa) kya hoa tera wada?


----------



## Pandora

PAR 5 said:


> The problem with HIT is that it’s managed by Uniform



Only reason it is working as much is bcz it is being run by Uniform. Not a single uniform run enterprise is running on a loss let it be PAC, POF, HIT, HMC and several others. We tried Civilians in Railway, PIA, steel mill, Ogra and hundreds of other public entities so let me know if even a single public enterprise being run by our civilians is not making a loss right now.


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Pandora said:


> Only reason it is working as much is bcz it is being run by Uniform. Not a single uniform run enterprise is running on a loss let it be PAC, POF, HIT, HMC and several others. We tried Civilians in Railway, PIA, steel mill, Ogra and hundreds of other public entities so let me know if even a single public enterprise being run by our civilians is not making a loss right now.


Those were run by political appointees. We don't want any entity run by PPP/PML folks, rather, we want the armed forces to delegate the day-to-day of PAC, HIT, etc, to actual engineers and other industry professionals. In fact, the generals can form the board of directors and hold the civilian executive accountable for timelines, output, etc. It's not an 'either/or' scenario, there's actually a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc way to do things.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## SABRE

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> If that's the case, the only option is to buy MBTs off-the-shelf, but *tie them to offsets that help Pakistani industries in other ways*. But I doubt our negotiators have the depth to produce such complex deals.



How do you propose to do the bold?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakFactor

Pandora said:


> Only reason it is working as much is bcz it is being run by Uniform. Not a single uniform run enterprise is running on a loss let it be PAC, POF, HIT, HMC and several others. We tried Civilians in Railway, PIA, steel mill, Ogra and hundreds of other public entities so let me know if even a single public enterprise being run by our civilians is not making a loss right now.



Brother what you mentioned are bureaucratic appointed run public entities and that will always be a failure.
The thing about Uniform men they have a straight line of sight they follow, I've rarely seen in Pakistan them having a collaborative mindset. What HIT and other industries need to do is take into confidence public (privately) run enterprises.

Like @Bilal Khan (Quwa) mentioned and I like the idea have the military as Board of Director's -- but no role in day to day management and collaboration agreement interference.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Xone

men in uniforms are not free from faults and blunders. the need is to find the reason for failure and make a fault-free plan to boost our industry. if uniform can perform better then, make it compulsory for the entire masses of Pakistan


----------



## JamD

Pandora said:


> Only reason it is working as much is bcz it is being run by Uniform. Not a single uniform run enterprise is running on a loss let it be PAC, POF, HIT, HMC and several others. We tried Civilians in Railway, PIA, steel mill, Ogra and hundreds of other public entities so let me know if even a single public enterprise being run by our civilians is not making a loss right now.


Sorry to be the contrarian here but that's not true. You have taken 5 examples of your choosing. Look at this list of Pakistani companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Pakistan. A majority of these successful companies are civilian owned/managed. There are several issues with expertise, accountability, incentive structures, and getting lucky with making uniforms head every damn thing but let's not derail this thread about VT-4. We can discuss the merits and demerits elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SABRE said:


> How do you propose to do the bold?


We basically push for a 90-100% offset by having China source inputs for various items -- be it cars, machinery, civilian aircraft, freighters, trains, etc -- from Pakistan. They can either source it directly from Pakistani suppliers, or they can engage in carefully monitored FDI, specifically through partnerships with Pakistani companies (but with our companies owning 51%). If they falter at any point, we impose penalty fees on the Chinese.

And to be frank, we shouldn't be applying this to just the Chinese, but also the Turks, Europeans, Americans, etc.

The problem here is that executing this takes tight regulatory controls, willing enforcers, and oversight, and of course good negotiators. We lack all of that in Pakistan (or to be more accurate, we suppress and displace it).


JamD said:


> Sorry to be the contrarian here but that's not true. You have taken 5 examples of your choosing. Look at this list of Pakistani companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Pakistan. A majority of these successful companies are civilian owned/managed. There are several issues with expertise, accountability, incentive structures, and getting lucky with making uniforms head every damn thing but let's not derail this thread about VT-4. We can discuss the merits and demerits elsewhere.


To be fair, he was referring to state-owned enterprises. He's right in that they're generally mismanaged, but the ones -- while civilian in skin -- are actually political appointees at heart.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SABRE

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Those were run by political appointees. We don't want any entity run by PPP/PML folks, rather, we want the armed forces to delegate the day-to-day of PAC, HIT, etc, to actual engineers and other industry professionals. In fact, the generals can form the board of directors and hold the civilian executive accountable for timelines, output, etc. It's not an 'either/or' scenario, there's actually a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc way to do things.



We don't want political appointees but the best civilian engineers you can find would also find it difficult to work under the uniformed personnel and under BPS paygrade. We need to create a corporate and contractual management culture. In short, maintain the state ownership and regulation over defence industry but delegate management, R&D and production to civilian contractors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SABRE said:


> We don't want political appointees but the best civilian engineers you can find would also find it difficult to work under the uniformed personnel and under BPS paygrade. We need to create a corporate and contractual management culture. In short, maintain the state ownership and regulation over defence industry but delegate management, R&D and production to civilian contractors.


Absolutely. The uniform needs to scale back, all the way back to a BoD. But the entity's culture, pay-scale, etc, must be oriented for civilian employees, with the management and executive team also civilian. The Turks are a good model to take a look at... TAI, STM, et. al have uniform BoDs, but the day-to-day is all civilian experts.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakFactor

SABRE said:


> How do you propose to do the bold?



One possible way is to start incubator programs with R&D Universities and researchers which can then be spun of a independent businesses that can then grow while working with the defense industry; and raising capital from outside investors, who will then be held accountable for profitability etc.

One such example is _Integrated Dynamics Ltd_. making UAVs and what not could be pulled into various program(s).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SABRE

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Absolutely. The uniform needs to scale back, all the way back to a BoD. But the entity's culture, pay-scale, etc, must be oriented for civilian employees, with the management and executive team also civilian. The Turks are a good model to take a look at... TAI, STM, et. al have uniform BoDs, but the day-to-day is all civilian experts.



Yes. But what I fear is that the military might develop anxiety for having let go of operations of the defence industry. This could lead them to develop a tendency for obsessive-compulsive intrusions in civilian operations on a regular basis, leading to the eventual breakdown of operations. Of course, if that happens then the defence industry would completely roll back to the military, back to square one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SABRE said:


> Yes. But what I fear is that the military might develop anxiety for having let go of operations of the defence industry. This could lead them to develop a tendency for obsessive-compulsive intrusions in civilian operations on a regular basis, leading to the eventual breakdown of operations. Of course, if that happens then the defence industry would completely roll back to the military, back to square one.


I agree. There's a collective psychological block at play.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pandora

JamD said:


> Sorry to be the contrarian here but that's not true. You have taken 5 examples of your choosing. Look at this list of Pakistani companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Pakistan. A majority of these successful companies are civilian owned/managed. There are several issues with expertise, accountability, incentive structures, and getting lucky with making uniforms head every damn thing but let's not derail this thread about VT-4. We can discuss the merits and demerits elsewhere.



I was actually talking about state run institutions which despite some very competent people failed run or had political appointment at the top. If it was just the issue of have incompetent heads at the top then situation might be remedied but the problem is entire column hierarchy in these institution are corrupt and untouchables. Only reason serving Military officers are successful is because they can with stand political pressures. I am well aware not to indulge in 100 pages long discussion on an irrelevant topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pandora

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Those were run by political appointees. We don't want any entity run by PPP/PML folks, rather, we want the armed forces to delegate the day-to-day of PAC, HIT, etc, to actual engineers and other industry professionals. In fact, the generals can form the board of directors and hold the civilian executive accountable for timelines, output, etc. It's not an 'either/or' scenario, there's actually a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc way to do things.



Totally agree with it . Just need people who can with stand political pressure and blackmailing from within and outside the institution.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ

PakFactor said:


> The issue with HIT is it tries to be a _one stop shop_ like a grocery store everything from tracks to engine to sensors, etc. This sort of controlled production limits any development on public side and national industries will not have any idea on what to do if requested to produce something in an urgent matter --
> 
> The scary part is that theirs no _National Defense Policy_ to roll the nation over if it comes down to it.


If Pakistan wants efficiency and innovation than have two competing organizations... have them produce competing prototypes on certain deadlines and set parameters and funding. Let these organizations form their own respective ecosystems and supply chains.
Dedicated small teams with talented individuals produce timely results and innovative designs/ideas.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## JamD

Pandora said:


> I was actually talking about state run institutions which despite some very competent people failed run or had political appointment at the top. If it was just the issue of have incompetent heads at the top then situation might be remedied but the problem is entire column hierarchy in these institution are corrupt and untouchables. Only reason serving Military officers are successful is because they can with stand political pressures.


Sorry I misread your post and that you were only talking about state-run enterprises. There are certainly benefits of danda.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SABRE

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> I agree. There's a collective psychological block at play.



Perhaps, mitigate the problem with liability and arbitration clause. The military should approach governmental arbitration body (legislative and judicial committee, or Senate's standing committee) and prove that the certain aspects of the operations are contrary to national interests or defence policies or that the production is not congruent with the military's issued contract. If the military's concerns are found to be correct then the arbitration body should hold civilian management liable and penalise it. If the military bypasses the arbitration body then the military should pay the liability. Having said that, this is, of course, like tying the bell around the cat's neck.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Trango Towers

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Less susceptible to visible stains (especially oil and grease) compared to non-black fabric.


Bro is that really why they wear black??? Surely not

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Trango Towers said:


> Bro is that really why they wear black??? Surely not


Part of it is probably due to tradition as well, going back to the British etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tomcats

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Part of it is probably due to tradition as well, going back to the British etc.


I thought British tankers wore Khaki-like uniforms for those in Armoured formations, but the berets were black (WW2). Although the Wehrmacht Panzer formations used black uniforms.


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> But AK-1 is not a better tank than VT4. And army views more evolutionary potential in Al Haider than in Al Khalid series. Possibility exists that there won't be any Al Khalid 2.


Doesn't help with cost neither with technology and seems any sort of R&D was not useful. Addition of one more type of MBT. If VT-4 is better than AK-1, then its better than T-80 UD, Type-85 and other lot too. This is disappointing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PAR 5

Pandora said:


> Only reason it is working as much is bcz it is being run by Uniform. Not a single uniform run enterprise is running on a loss let it be PAC, POF, HIT, HMC and several others. We tried Civilians in Railway, PIA, steel mill, Ogra and hundreds of other public entities so let me know if even a single public enterprise being run by our civilians is not making a loss right now.



Huh!!??

HIT, PAC, POF, HMC, NRTC etc are highly subsidized military factories. Only recently NRTC has shown some promise by coming out of the red. HIT has not sold a single tank or APC to any foreign country. PAC is struggling to remain afloat with its large manufacturing and overhauling factories (sales of JF17 are not covering the costs of running this establishment). Same is the case with other uniform run factories. Recently a Senator from PTI refused to approve subsidies for these factories saying that should learn to earn for themselves.

Railways, PIA, PSM etc are political orphanages & not business conglomerates. Unfortunately, Generals, AVM's and Rear Admirals don't know there elbow from their proverbial back side on how business is run. They just ride for the perks and privileges that come with the post

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Armchair

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> If that's the case, the only option is to buy MBTs off-the-shelf, but tie them to offsets that help Pakistani industries in other ways. But I doubt our negotiators have the depth to produce such complex deals.



Another option is to build a simple tank that can be mass produced. Keep it simple, no need to play the world beater game but rather the "quantity is a quality" all its own game. Perhaps something out of the box. 

Here is an idea: a two seat tank, with driver and commander, each having HMDs that can cue weapons. Armed with a 40mm gun and 8x ATGMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shabi1

PAR 5 said:


> Huh!!??
> 
> HIT, PAC, POF, HMC, NRTC etc are highly subsidized military factories. Only recently NRTC has shown some promise by coming out of the red. HIT has not sold a single tank or APC to any foreign country. PAC is struggling to remain afloat with its large manufacturing and overhauling factories (sales of JF17 are not covering the costs of running this establishment). Same is the case with other uniform run factories. Recently a Senator from PTI refused to approve subsidies for these factories saying that should learn to earn for themselves.
> 
> Railways, PIA, PSM etc are political orphanages & not business conglomerates. Unfortunately, Generals, AVM's and Rear Admirals don't know there elbow from their proverbial back side on how business is run. They just ride for the perks and privileges that come with the post



Military production facilities in Pakistan are not meant to make profit, if they do it's a bonus. The primary objective in creating this infrastructure is to meet local demand and save foreign exchange as well as create self reliance. 

One can argue this is a unorthodox approach as it is very rare that a military makes products, usually production is private sector driven as it creates competition and promotes innovation. But in Pakistan's case things are different and military making its own hardware works brilliant. We get reliable sourcing and products are made cheaper as profit not involved at the same time we don't face procurement delays or complications (India is a case example of procurement complications). Yes our products are not very innovative but we acquire TOTs/licenses for production of off the shelf products from proven systems in existing, so they are very reliable and proven, also uncertainties and risks of failed projects eliminated.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Signalian said:


> Doesn't help with cost neither with technology and seems any sort of R&D was not useful. Addition of one more type of MBT. If VT-4 is better than AK-1, then its better than T-80 UD, Type-85 and other lot too. This is disappointing.


I would be extremely surprised if the VT-4 was not widely superior to 80s/90s MBTs. Note the VT-4 was developed in the 2010s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## farooqbhai007

PAR 5 said:


> Huh!!??
> 
> HIT, PAC, POF, HMC, NRTC etc are highly subsidized military factories. Only recently NRTC has shown some promise by coming out of the red. HIT has not sold a single tank or APC to any foreign country. PAC is struggling to remain afloat with its large manufacturing and overhauling factories (sales of JF17 are not covering the costs of running this establishment). Same is the case with other uniform run factories. Recently a Senator from PTI refused to approve subsidies for these factories saying that should learn to earn for themselves.
> 
> Railways, PIA, PSM etc are political orphanages & not business conglomerates. Unfortunately, Generals, AVM's and Rear Admirals don't know there elbow from their proverbial back side on how business is run. They just ride for the perks and privileges that come with the post



ohh bhai kis dunya mey rehta hai tu -
HIT exported 44 Talha's & 60 Mohafiz to Iraq.
HIT's Talha LEA (addon armour) is being used en masse by Police in Punjab & Sindh. HIT Dragoon is also being used by ASF & Police.

POF has sold numerous weapons over seas both commercial & military, and a number of countries including Vietnam use POF's MP9s in large numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> Doesn't help with cost neither with technology and seems any sort of R&D was not useful. Addition of one more type of MBT. If VT-4 is better than AK-1, then its better than T-80 UD, Type-85 and other lot too. This is disappointing.


I agree. But if a program produce 60 Tanks in a decade due to power & economic crisis, then such changes are inevitable.

Imagine if AK1 program had run smoothly. We must had 600 of them by now. But that didn't happen. 

Now the situation is, for producing a 'high end' tank like VT4, HIT tank production facility is in need of upgradation...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tipu7

J-10 P Firebird said:


> Another option is to build a simple tank that can be mass produced. Keep it simple, no need to play the world beater game but rather the "quantity is a quality" all its own game. Perhaps something out of the box.
> 
> Here is an idea: a two seat tank, with driver and commander, each having HMDs that can cue weapons. Armed with a 40mm gun and 8x ATGMs.


What you are suggesting is not a tank, but an anti tank vehicle. It's application is different from that of standard MBT.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## alimobin memon

No need to produce more tanks. Instead focus on vehicle medium armored or light armed vehicles with ATGM but with NLOS night fighting capability and 40 mm for anti light armor or infantry is enough. No matter how good tank you make its an easy target and we very well know the quantity of Anti tank material available to our enemies its just not possible to produce such quantity. Make small number of tanks for offensive purpose but as infantry and vehicle support system that just works to destroy tanks from behind lightly armored vehicles. IMHO light armored vehicles are cheaper and also can be affordable to install low range thermal sights to counter infantry and vehicles hiding in cover. remember 40 mm guns are also good against helicopters and other low flying aircraft. I don't see or am impressed with Tank technology like Active protection they just cant in real time protect the tanks. Captain obvious says no one in right mind would shoot single anti tank rocket or missile rather now tactics are different shoot tank multiple times and from different angles. with 10's of 1000's of atgm available both side active systems will face so many challenges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kursed

Importing VT-4, and still making those 110x AK1s. Once the first order finishes, I believe they'd order more of both?


----------



## Arsalan

PAR 5 said:


> Huh!!??
> 
> HIT, PAC, POF, HMC, NRTC etc are highly subsidized military factories. Only recently NRTC has shown some promise by coming out of the red. HIT has not sold a single tank or APC to any foreign country. PAC is struggling to remain afloat with its large manufacturing and overhauling factories (sales of JF17 are not covering the costs of running this establishment). Same is the case with other uniform run factories. Recently a Senator from PTI refused to approve subsidies for these factories saying that should learn to earn for themselves.
> 
> Railways, PIA, PSM etc are political orphanages & not business conglomerates. Unfortunately, Generals, AVM's and Rear Admirals don't know there elbow from their proverbial back side on how business is run. They just ride for the perks and privileges that come with the post





PAR 5 said:


> Huh!!??
> 
> HIT, PAC, POF, HMC, NRTC etc are highly subsidized military factories. Only recently NRTC has shown some promise by coming out of the red. HIT has not sold a single tank or APC to any foreign country. PAC is struggling to remain afloat with its large manufacturing and overhauling factories (sales of JF17 are not covering the costs of running this establishment). Same is the case with other uniform run factories. Recently a Senator from PTI refused to approve subsidies for these factories saying that should learn to earn for themselves.
> 
> Railways, PIA, PSM etc are political orphanages & not business conglomerates. Unfortunately, Generals, AVM's and Rear Admirals don't know there elbow from their proverbial back side on how business is run. They just ride for the perks and privileges that come with the post


Actually, HMC is not run by army and their main products/production is also not defense related. Just because they work for some military project at times do not make it a uniform run organization. It is not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

If we look at the history of tanks, they are an evolving concept. Instead of just copying the dominant paradigm of the day, perhaps we can think more flexibly.

The Nazi Panzers were some of the most successful vehicles of WW2. yet they would not be rated as an MBT in modern terms. When they were first conceived, there was no equivalent to them. The Germans were willing to think outside the box and come up with an effective solution.

Tanks in the Indian subcontinent need to:

1. Destroy other tanks
2. Destroy softer skinned vehicles
3. Destroy bunkers
4. Provide infantry fire support

The vehicle I've outlined can do all these things and would be far more simpler to manufacture, cost significantly less, and allow mass production easily. In other words, there is a chance, if we all put our minds together and dare to imagine, that such a vehicle could be an asset for Pak armoured forces. Just my 0.02.


Tipu7 said:


> What you are suggesting is not a tank, but an anti tank vehicle. It's application is different from that of standard MBT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

The infantry to armour ratio of both India and Pakistan are extremely poor. Neither country can afford a large armoured force. It is like a person who is eating a lot of rice but very little meat. His diet and health can be significantly improved with greater meat, even if it is chicken and not his favorite beef. The main issue for him is to get to a more optimal rice to meat ratio, otherwise he will not be as effective in a kushti contest.

Now imagine that the trainer of our wrestler is insisting he has high quality beef only. He is not allowing the wrestler to succeed within the given resource constraints. Similarly, by having a french this, and a ukrainian that, and a german this and a chinese that, the Al Khalid is trying to compete with top tanks rather than making a low cost solution and allowing the wrestler to get enough meat to compete effectively.

It is similar to the German mistake of focusing on Tiger tank production rather than mass producing a simplified Panzer to counter the Soviet T-34. Fortunately for Pak, India has made an even bigger mistake with the Arjunk so both wrestlers are in suboptimal form. The opportunity is for either wrestler to up the game and take the cup.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tipu7

J-10 P Firebird said:


> If we look at the history of tanks, they are an evolving concept. Instead of just copying the dominant paradigm of the day, perhaps we can think more flexibly.
> 
> The Nazi Panzers were some of the most successful vehicles of WW2. yet they would not be rated as an MBT in modern terms. When they were first conceived, there was no equivalent to them. The Germans were willing to think outside the box and come up with an effective solution.
> 
> Tanks in the Indian subcontinent need to:
> 
> 1. Destroy other tanks
> 2. Destroy softer skinned vehicles
> 3. Destroy bunkers
> 4. Provide infantry fire support
> 
> The vehicle I've outlined can do all these things and would be far more simpler to manufacture, cost significantly less, and allow mass production easily. In other words, there is a chance, if we all put our minds together and dare to imagine, that such a vehicle could be an asset for Pak armoured forces. Just my 0.02.


You can have my thoughts here. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...anks-in-the-battlefield-a-perspective.666893/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

Tipu7 said:


> You can have my thoughts here. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...anks-in-the-battlefield-a-perspective.666893/



Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> I agree. But if a program produce 60 Tanks in a decade due to power & economic crisis, then such changes are inevitable.
> 
> Imagine if AK1 program had run smoothly. We must had 600 of them by now. But that didn't happen.
> 
> Now the situation is, for producing a 'high end' tank like VT4, HIT tank production facility is in need of upgradation...



An armored formation of division sized plus a brigade force of VT-4 would be 350-400. The same numbers of other types of MBTs are already there. Few hundred AK, few hundred AZ and few hundred T-80 UD. The plan doesn't seem to head towards making a coherent armored force neither a type of MBT that can form the backbone PA armor. This is becoming similar to the situation of towed artillery and aviation where as M-113 and M-109 form the mainstay of MIB and SP Arty.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## PAR 5

Shabi1 said:


> Military production facilities in Pakistan are not meant to make profit, if they do it's a bonus. The primary objective in creating this infrastructure is to meet local demand and save foreign exchange as well as create self reliance.
> 
> One can argue this is a unorthodox approach as it is very rare that a military makes products, usually production is private sector driven as it creates competition and promotes innovation. But in Pakistan's case things are different and military making its own hardware works brilliant. We get reliable sourcing and products are made cheaper as profit not involved at the same time we don't face procurement delays or complications (India is a case example of procurement complications). Yes our products are not very innovative but we acquire TOTs/licenses for production of off the shelf products from proven systems in existing, so they are very reliable and proven, also uncertainties and risks of failed projects eliminated.



Even Communist China and Russia have given up this failed thinking of military in Business being a booming success. Can you tell me one thing that these state weapon factories have made that they can call 100% PAKISTAN designed and manufactured and it being used by anyone? These factories are assembly plants for foreign supplied parts and vehicles at best

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

alimobin memon said:


> No need to produce more tanks. Instead focus on vehicle medium armored or light armed vehicles with ATGM but with NLOS night fighting capability and 40 mm for anti light armor or infantry is enough. No matter how good tank you make its an easy target and we very well know the quantity of Anti tank material available to our enemies its just not possible to produce such quantity. Make small number of tanks for offensive purpose but as infantry and vehicle support system that just works to destroy tanks from behind lightly armored vehicles. IMHO light armored vehicles are cheaper and also can be affordable to install low range thermal sights to counter infantry and vehicles hiding in cover. remember 40 mm guns are also good against helicopters and other low flying aircraft. I don't see or am impressed with Tank technology like Active protection they just cant in real time protect the tanks. Captain obvious says no one in right mind would shoot single anti tank rocket or missile rather now tactics are different shoot tank multiple times and from different angles. with 10's of 1000's of atgm available both side active systems will face so many challenges.


MRAP in large numbers is an immediate requirement.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

Figaro said:


> I would be extremely surprised if the VT-4 was not widely superior to 80s/90s MBTs. Note the VT-4 was developed in the 2010s.


and when was AK-1 developed ? 
Today, M1 Abrams has its upgraded M1A2 variant in service in 2020, where as M1 was made in late 70's, early 80's. Same thoughts for Leopard-2 series, upgraded 2A6 in service now, leading to 2A7.

Point being, once a design has been finalised and accepted, modern variants continue to come in. If this is not about production lapse only but a technological gap also, then the situation looks miserable.


----------



## waz

@PanzerKiel Anything new you heard brother on this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

waz said:


> @PanzerKiel Anything new you heard brother on this?



There always is, but in this case, I wouldn't like to be the one who breaks it. Let's wait for someone else... 😀

Reactions: Like Like:
15 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1 | Sad Sad:
1 | Angry Angry:
1


----------



## waz

PanzerKiel said:


> There always is, but in this case, I wouldn't like to be the one who breaks it. Let's wait for someone else... 😀



Haha no problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ghost 125

PanzerKiel said:


> There always is, but in this case, I wouldn't like to be the one who breaks it. Let's wait for someone else... 😀


you are a heartbreaker...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> I hope not. I hope PA rejects it and continues with AK production.



Unlikely


----------



## Dazzler

PanzerKiel said:


> There always is, but in this case, I wouldn't like to be the one who breaks it. Let's wait for someone else... 😀



Did you see the first four?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Dazzler said:


> Did you see the first four?



Am a bit deaf in this age, happens normally once you are standing near a big muzzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
6


----------



## ali_raza

PanzerKiel said:


> Am a bit deaf in this age, happens normally once you are standing near a big muzzle.


they were shipped lol open knowledge

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthfollower

PanzerKiel said:


> Am a bit deaf in this age, happens normally once you are standing near a big muzzle.


you were in artillery?


----------



## Stealth

PDF said:


> Posted it in March, 2018 here on pdf. Just resharing what I photographed.



You're talking picture while standing in front of Shaheen Chemist lol near DHA Chowk Rawalpindi  (Ayub park)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Stealth said:


> You're talking picture while standing in front of Shaheen Chemist lol near DHA Chowk Rawalpindi  (Ayub park)


Do they still have surveillance and radar stuff at Ayub Park back in the day they used to have batteries parked next to the Mount Rushmore of Nishan e Haider recipients. I used to see them there as kids. Or maybe they were just jammers. Signals were never good in Ayub Park.


----------



## Signalian

truthfollower said:


> you were in artillery?


You think so ?

Though one could argue that TOW ATGM has a calibre of 152mm and a tank's cannon is 125mm, so pretty close to muzzle calibre of artillery guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

truthfollower said:


> you were in artillery?


Nopes dear.... Not artillery.... And it's not were, I'm still into something

Reactions: Like Like:
13 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Ghost 125

Signalian said:


> You think so ?
> 
> Though one could argue that TOW ATGM has a calibre of 152mm and a tank's cannon is 125mm, so pretty close to muzzle calibre of artillery guns.


trust me there's no arguing about bang of artillery ... calibres aside, all arguments are invalid in front of 130 mm medium guns bang 🥴

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## farooqbhai007

Stealth said:


> You're talking picture while standing in front of Shaheen Chemist lol near DHA Chowk Rawalpindi  (Ayub park)


OPSEC exsists ,


----------



## truthfollower

Signalian said:


> You think so ?
> 
> Though one could argue that TOW ATGM has a calibre of 152mm and a tank's cannon is 125mm, so pretty close to muzzle calibre of artillery guns



yes that's where my mind went first. Artillery is dangerous you cant see it coming and will hit you from above 


PanzerKiel said:


> Nopes dear.... Not artillery.... And it's not were, I'm still into something


hehehe sorry

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

*Pakistan Reportedly Begin Receiving VT4 Tanks from Norinco*





North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is reportedly starting to deliver new VT4 main battle tanks fitted with explosive reactive armor (ERA) to Pakistan. Pakistan Army had selected the VT4 tank in the framework of the acquisition program of at least 100 new MBTs. It is an upgraded variant of the Al-Khalid tank (VT-1) and the latest tank model from the Type 90-II tank family, and uses technology from the Type 99A currently fielded by the People’s Liberation Army.

The VT-4 main battle tank, also known as the MBT3000, is a Chinese third generation main battle tank built by Norinco for overseas export. The VT-4 has a 125mm smoothbore cannon capable of firing APFSDS, HESH, HEAT and HE rounds and guided missiles. There is also a remote weapon station on the turret armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun. The fire control system has hunter-killer capabilities, laser rangefinder, panoramic sight, and a third generation thermal imaging system.


The overall layout of the VT4 is conventional with the driver’s compartment at the front, fighting compartment in the center and power pack at the rear. The tank appears to have composite and explosive reactive armor. The turret front has wedge shaped armor and the hull sides have armored sideskirts. The tank is equipped with an active protection system designated GL5, defensive grenade launchers, and a laser warning device. The vehicle also has an IFF system, NBC protection, explosion suppression system, fire extinguishing system, and air conditioning.

The 52-tonnes VT-4 is motorized with a water-cooled turbocharged electronic-controlled diesel engine developing 1,300 hp. The suspension is of the torsion bar type with hydraulic shock absorbers and either side consists of six large dual rubber-tired roadwheels with the drive sprocket at the front, idler at the rear and track return rollers. To extend the operational range of the MBT-3000, two additional diesel fuel drums can be mounted externally at the rear. The tank can run a maximum road speed of 70 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 500 km.









Pakistan Reportedly Begin Receiving VT4 Tanks from Norinco


In April 2020, Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is ...




militaryleak.com

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> *Pakistan Reportedly Begin Receiving VT4 Tanks from Norinco*
> View attachment 670674
> 
> 
> North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is reportedly starting to deliver new VT4 main battle tanks fitted with explosive reactive armor (ERA) to Pakistan. Pakistan Army had selected the VT4 tank in the framework of the acquisition program of at least 100 new MBTs. It is an upgraded variant of the Al-Khalid tank (VT-1) and the latest tank model from the Type 90-II tank family, and uses technology from the Type 99A currently fielded by the People’s Liberation Army.
> 
> The VT-4 main battle tank, also known as the MBT3000, is a Chinese third generation main battle tank built by Norinco for overseas export. The VT-4 has a 125mm smoothbore cannon capable of firing APFSDS, HESH, HEAT and HE rounds and guided missiles. There is also a remote weapon station on the turret armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun. The fire control system has hunter-killer capabilities, laser rangefinder, panoramic sight, and a third generation thermal imaging system.
> 
> 
> The overall layout of the VT4 is conventional with the driver’s compartment at the front, fighting compartment in the center and power pack at the rear. The tank appears to have composite and explosive reactive armor. The turret front has wedge shaped armor and the hull sides have armored sideskirts. The tank is equipped with an active protection system designated GL5, defensive grenade launchers, and a laser warning device. The vehicle also has an IFF system, NBC protection, explosion suppression system, fire extinguishing system, and air conditioning.
> 
> The 52-tonnes VT-4 is motorized with a water-cooled turbocharged electronic-controlled diesel engine developing 1,300 hp. The suspension is of the torsion bar type with hydraulic shock absorbers and either side consists of six large dual rubber-tired roadwheels with the drive sprocket at the front, idler at the rear and track return rollers. To extend the operational range of the MBT-3000, two additional diesel fuel drums can be mounted externally at the rear. The tank can run a maximum road speed of 70 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 500 km.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan Reportedly Begin Receiving VT4 Tanks from Norinco
> 
> 
> In April 2020, Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> militaryleak.com


Some have already reached their destination.
These beasts have adapted to their new home.

Reactions: Like Like:
31 | Love Love:
6


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

PanzerKiel said:


> Some have already reached their destination.
> These beasts have adapted to their new home.


Mashallah I am elated, hopefully they will prove their mettle to the enemy in due course.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## SD 10

PanzerKiel said:


> Some have already reached their destination.
> These beasts have adapted to their new home.


how would you rate vt4 as compared to t90?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

SD 10 said:


> how would you rate vt4 as compared to t90?


On a personal note, I always rate crew training over the technical characteristics of a piece of equipment. 

As an old Cold War Era Soviet manual clearly states..... 

The weakest part of a tank is the mind of the crew inside.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
28 | Love Love:
6


----------



## waz

SD 10 said:


> how would you rate vt4 as compared to t90?



The VT-4 is better, and it's been covered well in this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

PanzerKiel said:


> The weakest part of a tank is the mind of the crew inside.


What a great quote, as we say it "its the man behind the machine that matters".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHI RULES

PanzerKiel said:


> Some have already reached their destination.
> These beasts have adapted to their new home.


Thanks for confirmation Sir, now at least PA is making all efforts like PN to counter emerging threats from India however PAF looks little bit lagging behind despite the confidence shown by them,

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

CHI RULES said:


> Thanks for confirmation Sir, now at least PA is making all efforts like PN to counter emerging threats from India however PAF looks little bit lagging behind despite the confidence shown by them,


Dear, all the services are giving in their best, whatever is humanely possible within our resources. If we were having infinite cash and resources, then sky would have been the limit.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Sal12

100 units is a low number. Pak needs more.


----------



## PanzerKiel

Sal12 said:


> 100 units is a low number. Pak needs more.


Its more than three times of this number. Exact details already covered in VT4 thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Ghost 125

PanzerKiel said:


> Its more than three times of this number. Exact details already covered in VT4 thread.


that mns a whole armd division will be equipped atleast, if not an additional brigade too

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PakFactor

PanzerKiel said:


> Its more than three times of this number. Exact details already covered in VT4 thread.



Have any pictures how our camo scheme looks like?
Or what we see on the 1st page is what we are sticking with? Is special paint applied to reduce heat signature? I think it was being applied to AK1 according to another thread.


----------



## farooqbhai007

PakFactor said:


> Have any pictures how our camo scheme looks like?
> Or what we see on the 1st page is what we are sticking with? Is special paint applied to reduce heat signature? I think it was being applied to AK1 according to another thread.


That specific al khalid variant had more than just special paint applied to it , it also had extended side skirts to reduce heat signature from wheels , and the Coating applied overall is called INTERMAT coating . Much better than the Indian ones , who use a add on spectral camo sheet for their T-90s which doesn't cover the wheels ,

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## waz

"Cold start here we come......
Wait who the hell is that guy"?







"Oh not to worry just some Chinese junk"










"Hey everything went black, there's flames and smoke everywhere. Are we in Lahore yet"? 
"No sir, we never got started in the first place. I think we need to get rid of the word cold and maybe have something less menacing, how about 'might' start"?

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
12


----------



## syed_yusuf

Pakistan's tank logistics must be a challenge with AZ, AK, T80UD, Type85, Type59 and Type69 tanks plus now VT4

7 DIFFERENT TANKS IN in a army of 650000 troops

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## monitor

syed_yusuf said:


> Pakistan's tank logistics must be a challenge with AZ, AK, T80UD, Type85, Type59 and Type69 tanks plus now VT4
> 
> 7 DIFFERENT TANKS IN in a army of 650000 troops



Pakistan need to convert all type 85 59 69 into track IFV or AK standard and mass produce VT-4 . it will reduced logistics nightmare.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

syed_yusuf said:


> Pakistan's tank logistics must be a challenge with AZ, AK, T80UD, Type85, Type59 and Type69 tanks plus now VT4
> 
> 7 DIFFERENT TANKS IN in a army of 650000 troops



It's to the contrary as AK and UD use 6td series while Chinese mbts use variants of the same engine. We also rebuild and maintain them all in-house

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## PakFactor

monitor said:


> Pakistan need to convert all type 85 59 69 into track IFV or AK standard and mass produce VT-4 . it will reduced logistics nightmare.





Dazzler said:


> It's to the contrary as AK and UD use 6td series while Chinese mbts use variants of the same engine. We also rebuild and maintain them all in-house



Their should be a gradual phasing out of Type 59 & 69 by shifting it to our Rangers and Border Forces they can act as armor/artillery against militants especially in Baluchistan. We need to better equip them and get rid of those Toyota trucks etc.

@PanzerKiel

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## PanzerKiel

syed_yusuf said:


> Pakistan's tank logistics must be a challenge with AZ, AK, T80UD, Type85, Type59 and Type69 tanks plus now VT4
> 
> 7 DIFFERENT TANKS IN in a army of 650000 troops


It has more to do with the varied terrain our country has. Different types of terrain require different types of tanks having different characteristics.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ

waz said:


> View attachment 670928
> 
> 
> "Cold start here we come......
> Wait who the hell is that guy"?



This color must glow in the dark... didn't know there was such a thing as neon-sand.

It reads "hit me!" All over it...


----------



## Cookie Monster

syed_yusuf said:


> Pakistan's tank logistics must be a challenge with AZ, AK, T80UD, Type85, Type59 and Type69 tanks plus now VT4
> 
> 7 DIFFERENT TANKS IN in a army of 650000 troops


I remember reading in some thread a while back about the in-house upgrades/maintenance of all these tank types PA operates. There seems to be at least some degree of commonality in some parts. If I find it...I'll link it. I think it's a sticky thread and the posts were by @Dazzler or was it @HRK ...it's been a while.


monitor said:


> Pakistan need to convert all type 85 59 69 into track IFV or AK standard and mass produce VT-4 . it will reduced logistics nightmare.


Pak operates hundreds of M113s already. Depleting tank strength rn wouldn't be good. Tensions are high...and if Pak would convert it's hundreds of type 85/69/59 into IFV...I doubt Pak can afford to replace those numbers with new acquisitions of either AK1 or VT4.

It would be better to rebuild/upgrade the M113 IFVs into Viper...little by little. The remaining type 59/69 that didn't get upgraded to AZ standard should be upgraded to AZ standard. AZ can probably go toe to toe with Indian T72s.


PanzerKiel said:


> It has more to do with the varied terrain our country has. Different types of terrain require different types of tanks having different characteristics.


IMO two types should suffice...a heavier one like VT4 and an AK like or slightly lighter tank(like AZ) should suffice for a majority of Pak's terrain towards the eastern border.

To put numbers...
Heavy tank: e.g. VT4 is IIRC 52 tons
Light tank: e.g. AK(46 tons) OR AZ(44 tons)

It doesn't have to be these tanks specifically...I'm just using these bcuz they are currently serving in the PA in various terrains. For the lighter tank(e.g. AK) a 1200hp engine is sufficient IMO(perhaps can use increased torque)...
...for the heavier tank a 1500hp engine would be better IMO.

If Pak can streamline its various tanks to just two types(in the long term) as discussed above...I think it should cover a majority of the terrain types.


----------



## alimobin memon

__





Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition | weapons defence industry military technology UK | analysis focus army defence military industry army


latest version of Chinese-made VT4 Main Battle Tank (MBT) is now protected with new armor ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition




www.armyrecognition.com





What variant are we having, ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) Level FY-4 providing protection against Tandem Warhead ammunition or FY-2 Non Tandem protection ERA ?


----------



## ziaulislam

syed_yusuf said:


> Pakistan's tank logistics must be a challenge with AZ, AK, T80UD, Type85, Type59 and Type69 tanks plus now VT4
> 
> 7 DIFFERENT TANKS IN in a army of 650000 troops


i believe type 59 & 69 will be go as soon as they replacement are available, AZ may also leave if replacement available 
so it is going to be t80, t85, AK, AZ and vt4

still too many types..AK numbers need to be reamped up so it can replace all old types with VT4 being the the heavy type

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pandora

PakFactor said:


> Their should be a gradual phasing out of Type 59 & 69 by shifting it to our Rangers and Border Forces they can act as armor/artillery against militants especially in Baluchistan. We need to better equip them and get rid of those Toyota trucks etc.
> 
> @PanzerKiel



Type 59 and 69 are already making their way to FC and border forces in Pak Afghan region. Nowadays you can see tanks stationed near some check posts to teach Afghans their place. With 100mm gun both these tanks are perfect to keep afghan in place. Funny thing is that some older tanks have been converted into stationary gun positions on pak afghan border.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## PanzerKiel

Cookie Monster said:


> IMO two types should suffice...a heavier one like VT4 and an AK like or slightly lighter tank(like AZ) should suffice for a majority of Pak's terrain towards the eastern border.


We have to look for armor requirements of western borders of FATA and Balochistan as well. Thats where old tanks become handy.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## The Accountant

syed_yusuf said:


> Pakistan's tank logistics must be a challenge with AZ, AK, T80UD, Type85, Type59 and Type69 tanks plus now VT4
> 
> 7 DIFFERENT TANKS IN in a army of 650000 troops


Maintaining tanks and its supply chain is not as difficult as aircrafts. Aircrafts requires highly trained maintenance staff and even a minute fault can result in loss of whole machine. On the contrary tank is much less sophisticated systems when comes to maintenance (In comparison to aircraft). Furthermore, contrary to aircrafts tanks shares alot of common items irrespective of the make.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

dilpakistani said:


> nope... all this noise on just an unconfirmed report.. no VT-4 arrived Pakistan no Sh-15 has been bought so all cool


Both are being bought and you may never hear anything until shown in some parade or exercise. Pakistan has now this new policy of keep weapons procurement kept secret specially ones bought from China and Russia and few more countries which are not that big on democracy and other such sensibilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PAR 5

US Army has the M1A1 and A2 Abrams as mainstay tanks

British Army has the Challenger as the mainstay tank

French Army has the Leclerc as the mainstay tank

Above powerful Armies aside, Pakistan Army has 07 mainstay tanks!!! What a bloody Mess we have in Armoured Corps!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

PAR 5 said:


> US Army has the M1A1 and A2 Abrams as mainstay tanks
> 
> British Army has the Challenger as the mainstay tank
> 
> French Army has the Leclerc as the mainstay tank
> 
> Above powerful Armies aside, Pakistan Army has 07 mainstay tanks!!! What a bloody Mess we have in Armoured Corps!!!!


Again, their tanks or armored corps doesn't have to face the varied nature of threats or terrain which we are facing simultaneously.

Otherwise, back in c Cold War days, once these countries did have multifarious threats in different terrains, these countries also resorted to multiple tank types.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

*VT4 - Pakistan's new battle tanks** 





*


VT4 deal and Pakistan.

1: Pakistan is acquiring 300 VT-4 from Norinco China. It has paid $860 Million for initial batch of 176 MBTs. The payment of 124 MBTs will be done in later stages.

2: Pakistan's VT-4 is most capable version compared to that of Thailand and Nigeria. Unlike other VT-4 version which are equipped with 1300HP engine and FY2 ERA, Pakistan's VT4 are equipped with 1500HP engine and FY-4 ERA. The tank is believed to be superior than Russian T90MS.

3: The Al Khalid tank project will continue alongside induction of VT4 which Pakistan is acquiring off the shelf. However, HIT will posses ability to maintain, overhaul and even modify these tanks when necessary.

4: VT4 are likely to deploy in Punjab and may replace AZ from 6th Armored Division.

5: Purchase of VT4 is one component of a comprehensive upgradation package which also includes artillery, APCs and air defense system.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/PakistaniMilitary/comments/gazcev

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## IceCold

PanzerKiel said:


> We have to look for armor requirements of western borders of FATA and Balochistan as well. Thats where old tanks become handy.


You would probably remember the old T series took a beating from the RPGs during WOT. I am talking about Musharraf era. In fact there is a whole documentry on that. I remember tank T 59 i believe went ahead and than all the sudden it came rushing back, the crew was like they saw hell and than Cobras were call to clear. 
The threat level may not be same now but are we sure to still carry these old tanks. Why not the older Al-khalids? While the new ones and this V4 remains to kick Indian asses.


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

These might be our beauties or similar!


----------



## HRK

Cookie Monster said:


> here seems to be at least some degree of commonality in some parts.





> *Type-59 **Link*
> 
> This is basically a close evolution of the Type 59, with a 580 hp diesel engine, Type 69 100 mm smoothbore gun (still similar in appearance with the former with its characteristic muzzle fume extractor), an IR searchlight, and a 1st generation laser rangefinder. Therefore first hit capabilities is improved, although with its basic stabilization system there is limited accuracy when firing on the move. NBC protection is individual. This model was only produced as a prototype, as after capturing a T-62 new prospects for upgrades were drawn off.



*Type-85* is second generation tank based on second generation Chinese Type-80 tank Chassis which itself was based on Type-79 and Type-79 is the further evolution of *Type-69* tank of China, as far as commonality is concern Type-59 and Type-69 share 50%-60% components while Type-85 share around 10%-15% components of Type-59/69

_[NOTE: these figures of commonality of subcomponents are stated based on memory as read about these tanks some years ago currently do not have ready reference to attached it here, so plz check these figures before to quote these figures] _

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## PanzerKiel

IceCold said:


> You would probably remember the old T series took a beating from the RPGs during WOT. I am talking about Musharraf era. In fact there is a whole documentry on that. I remember tank T 59 i believe went ahead and than all the sudden it came rushing back, the crew was like they saw hell and than Cobras were call to clear.
> The threat level may not be same now but are we sure to still carry these old tanks. Why not the older Al-khalids? While the new ones and this V4 remains to kick Indian asses.


Tanks getting hit by 300 m range RPGs is tactically a failure of the supporting Infantry which is responsible for denying enemy anti tank teams a tactically superior firing position.

WOT is like any other war. Casualties of not only tanks, but Infantry and other arms also occurred.

Casualties are part of war. Though not completely avoidable, but they can be minimized by superior tactics.

Effective range of RPG against static targets is 300 m. If an enemy RPG team manages to reach within 300 m of a tank, then either the enemy anti tank team or the tank deserves to be roasted.

It's a failure of tactics, not the equipment.

We were going through a learning phase at that time.

You can judge this from the fact that.... When was the last time you even heard that we lost a tank to terrorists.

These older tanks, however, still possess some characteristics which even the latest tanks don't have even now....... Simplicity, maintenance and ease of operating being the first.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## farooqbhai007

PAR 5 said:


> US Army has the M1A1 and A2 Abrams as mainstay tanks
> 
> British Army has the Challenger as the mainstay tank
> 
> French Army has the Leclerc as the mainstay tank
> 
> Above powerful Armies aside, Pakistan Army has 07 mainstay tanks!!! What a bloody Mess we have in Armoured Corps!!!!



The USMC which is the branch which is always at the front of a US invasion retired all its MBTs recently , only US Army has M1A1/A2 tanks
The brits have 227 challengers and are also going to be retiring all soon , and not replacing them with newer tanks
The French have only 406 leclerc -

now compare Pak and see which one is better,Within Al-khalids , T80Us and T85UGs we have 1000+ tanks . Do you want us to retire them all as well ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

PanzerKiel said:


> We have to look for armor requirements of western borders of FATA and Balochistan as well. Thats where old tanks become handy.


Right...there's no reason why older tanks can't be relegated to the western front. However still 7 different types can be reduced. I still think PA can meet most of its criteria for tanks(in terms of different terrains, roads and bridges and the load they can handle) with two different weight classes of tanks.

Having too much fragmentation may be manageable now...during peace time...and maybe even during wartime for a bit...
...eventually though it will become increasingly hard as various tanks are damaged/destroyed, industrial capacity related to supporting these various tanks would become significantly reduced in a drawn out conflict.

I understand that Pakistan is a poor country...and there's a thousand other things where money can be spent to meet the threat of a much larger neighbor...but at the very least IMO PA planners should have this in the back of their minds that this much fragmentation is a potential drawback. So at least in the long term it can be solved.

Thanks to @HRK for that informative post.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## volatile

i have read some where that Pakistan VT-4 has active protection system (is it Trophy type) or some thing else .

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

volatile said:


> i have read some where that Pakistan VT-4 has active protection system (is it Trophy type) or some thing else .

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Haha Haha:
10


----------



## volatile

PanzerKiel said:


> View attachment 671023
















TROPHY Active Protection System for Armored Vehicles | Leonardo DRS


By proactively detecting, locating, and (if necessary) neutralizing anti-armor threats, TROPHY™ dramatically increases platform survivability, and creates a new paradigm of networked threat awareness for maneuver forces.



www.leonardodrs.com






*TROPHY™ Active Protection System (APS)*






*The World’s First and Only Fully Operational, Combat-Proven APS*
By proactively detecting, locating, and (if necessary) neutralizing anti-armor threats, TROPHY™ dramatically increases platform survivability, and creates a new paradigm of networked threat awareness for maneuver forces.
*BENEFITS:*

Defeats all known anti-armor, shaped charge weapons (missiles, rockets, tank-fired HEAT) before they strike the platform
Enables networked threat awareness by pinpointing and Reporting shooter location across the battle management system
Greatly improves platform protection, with very low risk of collateral injury, without increasing armor or sacrificing vehicle performance 
Networked Threat Awareness ensures freedom of movement and maneuver, retaining the initiative and maintaining offensive momentum.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## volatile

The *GL5 Active Protection System* is an active protection system developed in China by NORINCO designed for main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. The system can detect incoming warheads such as anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) with a range of 100m and within a 360-degree horizontal and 20-degree band. Upon detection, two defensive rockets are fired at the incoming threat.


FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> It has paid $860 Million for initial batch of 176 MBTs.


wooping 4.8 Mil US$ per Tank OMG we thought Russians were ripping off Indians


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

volatile said:


> The *GL5 Active Protection System* is an active protection system developed in China by NORINCO designed for main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. The system can detect incoming warheads such as anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) with a range of 100m and within a 360-degree horizontal and 20-degree band. Upon detection, two defensive rockets are fired at the incoming threat.
> 
> wooping 4.8 Mil US$ per Tank OMG we thought Russians were ripping off Indians


Including Supplies maybe!


----------



## HRK

Members who are questioning this many number of different tanks need to understand one more thing that
- Type-59/69 are 2nd gen tanks,

- Type-85-II are much improve 2nd gen tanks,

- T-80UD and AK series are 3rd gen Tanks,

- As far AZ is concern we can say its an attempt to bring it closer to 3gen tank or it is somewhat equivalent 2+ gen tank

- OTOH upgraded Type-85UG with AK gun control and fire control system should consider near to baseline 3rd gen tanks if not equivalent to 3rd gen tanks






therefore AK series+T-80UD+Type-85UG give 3rd gen capabilities, while Al-Zarrar Series give +2nd gen capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1


----------



## volatile

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> Including Supplies maybe!


Still it is a rip off unless some thing else is there .M1 Abraham cost 4.3 Million a piece ,Armata is less at 3.8 Mill per unit ,Russian T99 is less than this amount . Al Khalid has 4.9 Million price tag (development cost incorporated)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Pandora

volatile said:


> The *GL5 Active Protection System* is an active protection system developed in China by NORINCO designed for main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. The system can detect incoming warheads such as anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) with a range of 100m and within a 360-degree horizontal and 20-degree band. Upon detection, two defensive rockets are fired at the incoming threat.
> 
> wooping 4.8 Mil US$ per Tank OMG we thought Russians were ripping off Indians



Cost is for 300 Tanks for now they only made a partial payment for 124. There could also be some sort of TOT involved which we will be using in Alkhalid 2 series.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## volatile

Pandora said:


> Cost is for 300 Tanks for now they only made a partial payment for 124. There could also be some sort of TOT involved which we will be using in Alkhalid 2 series.


Its not the price of 300 ,Avg contract for V4 ranges from 3.2 Million to 3.7 Million US$ .So please dont make up things and do some research


----------



## Pandora

volatile said:


> Its not the price of 300 ,Avg contract for V4 ranges from 3.2 Million to 3.7 Million US$ .So please dont make up things and do some research



I am not making up things at least do a bit a research yourself rather than preaching other to do the same and go through entire thread. Also i would advise to not accuse other people of lying bcz you are not Akal Kul here. Try to be respectful to other members rather than being a pompous asss.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## volatile

Pandora said:


> I am not making up things at least do a bit a research yourself rather than preaching other to do the same and go through entire thread. Also i would advise to not accuse other people of lying bcz you are not Akal Kul here. Try to be respectful to other members rather than being a pompous asss.


what are links for your 300 tank payment or order ?


----------



## Pandora

volatile said:


> what are links for your 300 tank payment or order ?



Start from page 1 of this thread and keep going.


----------



## PakFactor

PanzerKiel said:


> View attachment 671023



Lol. If I could I would have given you a positive point for that one.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## maverick1977

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> *Pakistan Reportedly Begin Receiving VT4 Tanks from Norinco*
> View attachment 670674
> 
> 
> North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is reportedly starting to deliver new VT4 main battle tanks fitted with explosive reactive armor (ERA) to Pakistan. Pakistan Army had selected the VT4 tank in the framework of the acquisition program of at least 100 new MBTs. It is an upgraded variant of the Al-Khalid tank (VT-1) and the latest tank model from the Type 90-II tank family, and uses technology from the Type 99A currently fielded by the People’s Liberation Army.
> 
> The VT-4 main battle tank, also known as the MBT3000, is a Chinese third generation main battle tank built by Norinco for overseas export. The VT-4 has a 125mm smoothbore cannon capable of firing APFSDS, HESH, HEAT and HE rounds and guided missiles. There is also a remote weapon station on the turret armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun. The fire control system has hunter-killer capabilities, laser rangefinder, panoramic sight, and a third generation thermal imaging system.
> 
> 
> The overall layout of the VT4 is conventional with the driver’s compartment at the front, fighting compartment in the center and power pack at the rear. The tank appears to have composite and explosive reactive armor. The turret front has wedge shaped armor and the hull sides have armored sideskirts. The tank is equipped with an active protection system designated GL5, defensive grenade launchers, and a laser warning device. The vehicle also has an IFF system, NBC protection, explosion suppression system, fire extinguishing system, and air conditioning.
> 
> The 52-tonnes VT-4 is motorized with a water-cooled turbocharged electronic-controlled diesel engine developing 1,300 hp. The suspension is of the torsion bar type with hydraulic shock absorbers and either side consists of six large dual rubber-tired roadwheels with the drive sprocket at the front, idler at the rear and track return rollers. To extend the operational range of the MBT-3000, two additional diesel fuel drums can be mounted externally at the rear. The tank can run a maximum road speed of 70 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 500 km.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan Reportedly Begin Receiving VT4 Tanks from Norinco
> 
> 
> In April 2020, Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> militaryleak.com



i couldnt find GL5 defensive videos on the net. can anyone explain, is it a projectile sharpnels sent in direction of Incoming projectiles or something different ?


----------



## PakFactor

PanzerKiel said:


> Tanks getting hit by 300 m range RPGs is tactically a failure of the supporting Infantry which is responsible for denying enemy anti tank teams a tactically superior firing position.
> 
> WOT is like any other war. Casualties of not only tanks, but Infantry and other arms also occurred.
> 
> Casualties are part of war. Though not completely avoidable, but they can be minimized by superior tactics.
> 
> Effective range of RPG against static targets is 300 m. If an enemy RPG team manages to reach within 300 m of a tank, then either the enemy anti tank team or the tank deserves to be roasted.
> 
> It's a failure of tactics, not the equipment.
> 
> We were going through a learning phase at that time.
> 
> You can judge this from the fact that.... When was the last time you even heard that we lost a tank to terrorists.
> 
> These older tanks, however, still possess some characteristics which even the latest tanks don't have even now....... Simplicity, maintenance and ease of operating being the first.



Battlefield tactics between enemy RPG team and opposing team put aside. Wouldn’t you say crew protection and and survivability should be at the top. Often times you’ll not find the enemy and need to absorb multiple hits to readjust weapons to a target, as we’ve seen in Gulf War 1 & 2? I often feel we lack this approach as in the West the mind set is to survive to fight another day.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

PakFactor said:


> Battlefield tactics between enemy RPG team and opposing team put aside. Wouldn’t you say crew protection and and survivability should be at the top. Often times you’ll not find the enemy and need to absorb multiple hits to readjust weapons to a target, as we’ve seen in Gulf War 1 & 2? I often feel we lack this approach as in the West the mind set is to survive to fight another day.


That will not be just a statement.

By giving crew protection and survivability paramount importance means changing our whole doctrine, way of thinking, tactics, equipment manufacturing and procurement.

Take the example of Merkava... It heavily focuses on crew protection, hence they got the engine at the front, heavy armor, APS...... In the end though they got a very heavy tank but it assures crew survivability.... It's costly as well, but then it follows their doctrine.

Our doctrine also focuses on mobility, keeping in view the terrain available to us, enemy threats, the terrain objectives required to be achieved etc. Mobility has some inherent protection in itself as well. 

To put it bluntly....
The value of life, any life, in our region is very less compared to the the West.

Our doctrines and tactics heavily focus on attainment of designated objectives at ALL COSTS.

We do not have such a concept that you should save your life whenever required,, no problem about the objective, will achieve it tomorrow provided we are alive.

Manpower resources are plentiful hence they can be easily replaced.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Broccoli

maverick1977 said:


> i couldnt find GL5 defensive videos on the net. can anyone explain, is it a projectile sharpnels sent in direction of Incoming projectiles or something different ?



It's similar to Russian ARENA where small explosive charge is fired and the blast destroys incoming rocket/missile. So far noboy has deployed that kinda system because it could pose a threat for infantry if they are near front of the tank when enemy missiles is destroyed.


----------



## Ghost 125

PanzerKiel said:


> That will not be just a statement.
> 
> By giving crew protection and survivability paramount importance means changing our whole doctrine, way of thinking, tactics, equipment manufacturing and procurement.
> 
> Take the example of Merkava... It heavily focuses on crew protection, hence they got the engine at the front, heavy armor, APS...... In the end though they got a very heavy tank but it assures crew survivability.... It's costly as well, but then it follows their doctrine.
> 
> Our doctrine also focuses on mobility, keeping in view the terrain available to us, enemy threats, the terrain objectives required to be achieved etc. Mobility has some inherent protection in itself as well.
> 
> To put it bluntly....
> The value of life, any life, in our region is very less compared to the the West.
> 
> Our doctrines and tactics heavily focus on attainment of designated objectives at ALL COSTS.
> 
> We do not have such a concept that you should save your life whenever required,, no problem about the objective, will achieve it tomorrow provided we are alive.
> 
> Manpower resources are plentiful hence they can be easily replaced.


cold facts

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Stealth



Reactions: Like Like:
14 | Love Love:
2


----------



## waz

Dear brothers can we please go through the thread and not keep asking questions that have already been answered e.g. is it better than the T-90MS, does it have APS etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

maverick1977 said:


> i couldnt find GL5 defensive videos on the net. can anyone explain, is it a projectile sharpnels sent in direction of Incoming projectiles or something different ?














GL5 APS Chinese hard-kill active protection system for combat vehicles and tanks


Chinese Defense Company NORINCO unveils GL5 local-made APS (Active Protection System) for combat armored vehicle at AirShow China 2018. The Chinese system seems very similar to the Israeli-made Trophy including radar panels and launcher tubes to fire the countermeasures.




www.defensewebtv.com









. (from 11.30 onwards).

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## waz

Some good videos on the VT-4, bare in mind Pakistan's version is a notch above. 


In Nigeria;






Thai tanker about the VT-4;

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## maverick1977

waz said:


> GL5 APS Chinese hard-kill active protection system for combat vehicles and tanks
> 
> 
> Chinese Defense Company NORINCO unveils GL5 local-made APS (Active Protection System) for combat armored vehicle at AirShow China 2018. The Chinese system seems very similar to the Israeli-made Trophy including radar panels and launcher tubes to fire the countermeasures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensewebtv.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . (from 11.30 onwards).




Thanks for sharing !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## POPEYE-Sailor

WHY Pakistan army did not consider to buy Japanese tank Type-10 its similar to German leopard 2.
German and Japanese both are expert in manufacturing tank as they showed tank-power in world war 2.
















Type 10 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Figaro

POPEYE-Sailor said:


> WHY Pakistan army did not consider to buy Japanese tank Type-10 its similar to German leopard 2.
> German and Japanese both are expert in manufacturing tank as they showed tank-power in world war 2.
> 
> 
> View attachment 671537
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type 10 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Actually Japanese tanks had a very bad reputation in World War II ... they couldn't even perform well in China against an opponent with no tanks and minimal anti-tank weaponry. The Type 10 is a good tank but for a 8.4 million dollar unit cost, it for sure is not worth it. I think the T-14 Armata would be a good choice but there are definitely significant problems with its design or subsystems since the Russians have barely inducted them and have decided instead on spending massive sums of money on modernizing their T-72s. This sounds to me that the 3.8 million dollar per unit price tag is a smokescreen rather than a reality - you get what you pay for.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## mingle

What APCs PA is looking from China??


----------



## farooqbhai007

Indeed the type 10 has its drawbacks and is simply too expensive. The japanese are themselves not buying anymore Type 10s and instead producing more Type 16s since those are much cheaper and full fill the roles in Japan much easily due to much better mobility such as urban warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

Call me a non believer.. But spending two billion dollars on 300 tanks and another billion on 20 gunships..thats 3billion dollars..

In the grand scheme of events it wont come to tanks..better spend that moeny on getting something better for the airforce and sticking with alkhalid till monetary situation improves

If anything febuary 29 just proved that

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CHI RULES

PanzerKiel said:


> Dear, all the services are giving in their best, whatever is humanely possible within our resources. If we were having infinite cash and resources, then sky would have been the limit.


Sir any future conflict if happens shall depend on AF capabilities and despite limited resources their utilization is optimal by PA and PN, however on one hand it is my personal view based on some skimming of write up by ex PAF pro that Pak should now work on two areas one PAF jets i.e block III JF17 with superior capabilities along with least V upgrade for limited number of F16s from existing fleet along with stability/ induction of more capable SAMs for protection of our major cities. In the end induction of VT-IV as per reported capabilities looks superior to Indian T90s so far and a good/ in time decision by PA.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

CHI RULES said:


> Sir any future conflict if happens shall depend on AF capabilities and despite limited resources their utilization is optimal by PA and PN, however on one hand it is my personal view based on some skimming of write up by ex PAF pro that Pak should now work on two areas one PAF jets i.e block III JF17 with superior capabilities along with least V upgrade for limited number of F16s from existing fleet along with stability/ induction of more capable SAMs for protection of our major cities. In the end induction of VT-IV as per reported capabilities looks superior to Indian T90s so far and a good/ in time decision by PA.


If you dont own the sky, tanks dont matter..this is known to everyone since 1990s desert storm..
Army should stuck to alkhalid and siphoned off extra money to either airdefense or the airforce

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

*Can we please keep talk of fighter jets off here.*

This is about the VT-4, and no, Pakistan had critical armour shortages that are now being addressed. No matter how great your airforce is, you simply can't rely on that to stem mass armoured thrusts, especially with a more numerous IAF which the PAF will be busy with, and the fact that weather can stem the effectiveness of any CAS, but weather won't do squat to hundreds of tanks speeding in with their infantry compliments. Also once they take ground it would be virtually impossible to dislodge them without massed ground forces.
The army needs at least 2,800 modern tanks to counter the IA alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Figaro

waz said:


> *Can we please keep talk of fighter jets off here.*
> 
> This is about the VT-4, and no, Pakistan had critical armour shortages that are now being addressed. No matter how great your airforce is, you simply can't rely on that to stem mass armoured thrusts, especially with a more numerous IAF which the PAF will be busy with, and the fact that weather can stem the effectiveness of any CAS, but weather won't do squats to hundreds of tanks speeding in with their infantry compliments. Also once they take ground it would be virtually impossible to dislodge them without massed ground forces.
> The army needs at least 2,800 modern tanks to counter the IA alone.


The PAF, even if more capable than the IAF, does not possess a decisive advantage. As such, it will be very difficult for the PAF to conduct extensive airstrikes against the massed Indian formations like the Americans did against the Iraqis when the Indians are also contesting the skies. Of course this is not to say the air force won't be available for strike roles, it just means the bulk of the fighting will still have to be done by tanks and artillery, especially the A-100 MLRS. But the good news is that Indians operate their armor in Soviet formation, which primarily relies on massive force concentration to break through an objective, meaning they will be very vulnerable to massed artillery (bringing back the A-100MLRS again) and PAF airstrikes.


ziaulislam said:


> If you dont own the sky, tanks dont matter..this is known to everyone since 1990s desert storm..
> Army should stuck to alkhalid and siphoned off extra money to either airdefense or the airforce


It will be very hard for either side to achieve a decisive aerial advantage in war. India will continually be resupplied by its foreign backers while Pakistan too will be resupplied and manufacture more Thunders and what not. The fact that Pakistan can even hold its own against a neighbor 7 times more populous is already a huge accomplishment ... but to say it will have a decisive aerial advantage is stretching it too far. Regarding the Al-Khalid, the reasons why the PA decided to purchase the VT-4, if I had to surmise, was because the Al-Khalids would not perform too well against the top of the line Indian T-90s. And the purchase also considered the possible scenario of India acquiring the Russian Armatas later on, which would be an even bigger threat. As such, the VT-4 being a very modern heavy tank in its own right is a good countermeasure against these future developments.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Stealth

POPEYE-Sailor said:


> WHY Pakistan army did not consider to buy Japanese tank Type-10 its similar to German leopard 2.
> German and Japanese both are expert in manufacturing tank as they showed tank-power in world war 2.
> 
> 
> View attachment 671537
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type 10 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Pakistan fedup with arm blackmailing ... Japanese are American puppet..


----------



## ziaulislam

waz said:


> *Can we please keep talk of fighter jets off here.*
> 
> This is about the VT-4, and no, Pakistan had critical armour shortages that are now being addressed. No matter how great your airforce is, you simply can't rely on that to stem mass armoured thrusts, especially with a more numerous IAF which the PAF will be busy with, and the fact that weather can stem the effectiveness of any CAS, but weather won't do squat to hundreds of tanks speeding in with their infantry compliments. Also once they take ground it would be virtually impossible to dislodge them without massed ground forces.
> The army needs at least 2,800 modern tanks to counter the IA alone.


So does VT-4 has active protection ?


----------



## ziaulislam

Figaro said:


> It will be very hard for either side to achieve a decisive aerial advantage in war.


Disagree but will not derail the VT 4 thread.
IAF holds an advantage which is widening with new procurements

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Reichmarshal

Figaro said:


> Regarding the Al-Khalid, the reasons why the PA decided to purchase the VT-4, if I had to surmise, was because the Al-Khalids would not perform too well against the top of the line Indian T-90s. And the purchase also considered the possible scenario of India acquiring the Russian Armatas later on, which would be an even bigger threat.


Wrong assessment bro.
Al Khalid and now Al Khalid 1 are very capable machines and will hold their own against t90. That is the reason it forms the tier 1 of our armour capability.
The only reason for buying vt4 off the shelf was that at the moment HIT is working on full tilt and has its hand's full. But the no. Of tanks to be replaced in PA is huge and HIT simply can't do all by its self.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Figaro

ziaulislam said:


> Disagree but will not derail the VT 4 thread.
> IAF holds an advantage which is widening with new procurements


There is no doubt about this advantage the IAF possesses ... but there are ways to overcome it. For example, look at the performance of the Iranian air force vs the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq War. Practically no one was supplying the Iranians with aircraft and they still countered the Iraqis pretty well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

Reichmarshal said:


> Wrong assessment bro.
> Al Khalid and now Al Khalid 1 are very capable machines and will hold their own against t90. That is the reason it forms the tier 1 of our armour capability.
> The only reason for buying vt4 off the shelf was that at the moment HIT is working on full tilt and has its hand's full. But the no. Of tanks to be replaced in PA is huge and HIT simply can't do all by its self.


if thats a reason, than not a good reason

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pandora

[QU


ziaulislam said:


> Call me a non believer.. But spending two billion dollars on 300 tanks and another billion on 20 gunships..thats 3billion dollars..
> 
> In the grand scheme of events it wont come to tanks..better spend that moeny on getting something better for the airforce and sticking with alkhalid till monetary situation improves
> 
> If anything febuary 29 just proved that



You cant capture enemy territory with Infantry alone hence tanks play a crucial role in defeating enemy armor and fortifications. Our airpower will be busy countering enemy's air power which is almost twice the size of our own.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

ziaulislam said:


> So does VT-4 has active protection ?



Bro see my post 1,919, I’ve put up several impressive videos of it (GL5).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ziaulislam

waz said:


> Bro see my post 1,919, I’ve put up several impressive videos of it (GL5).


I know if GL-5 but any confirmation reports that export version will have it? I haven't came across any


----------



## waz

ziaulislam said:


> I know if GL-5 but any confirmation reports that export version will have it? I haven't came across any



The Pakistani version does yes. Reports are hard to come by. I believe the Thais have also ordered their tanks to be also outfitted with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

ziaulislam said:


> if thats a reason, than not a good reason



U just saying "not a good reason" is in reality not good enough.

We need to under stand we have a resource constraint n can do so much.....unless ppl like u who think it's all not good enough can give modp a few billion $ to expand their capability, so we don't have to buy off the shelf.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

ziaulislam said:


> I know if GL-5 but any confirmation reports that export version will have it? I haven't came across any

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

ziaulislam said:


> Call me a non believer.. But spending two billion dollars on 300 tanks and another billion on 20 gunships..thats 3billion dollars..
> 
> In the grand scheme of events it wont come to tanks..better spend that moeny on getting something better for the airforce and sticking with alkhalid till monetary situation improves
> 
> If anything febuary 29 just proved that




Looking at work horses of branches of Pak Armed Forces. Foreign MBT (VT-4) for PA. Foreign Frigates (054) and Subs (039) for PN.
At least JF-17 is not completely foreign. PAF is ahead in this case. Had AK production continued, PA would have been on par with PAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## PDF

PanzerKiel said:


> That will not be just a statement.
> 
> By giving crew protection and survivability paramount importance means changing our whole doctrine, way of thinking, tactics, equipment manufacturing and procurement.
> 
> Take the example of Merkava... It heavily focuses on crew protection, hence they got the engine at the front, heavy armor, APS...... In the end though they got a very heavy tank but it assures crew survivability.... It's costly as well, but then it follows their doctrine.
> 
> Our doctrine also focuses on mobility, keeping in view the terrain available to us, enemy threats, the terrain objectives required to be achieved etc. Mobility has some inherent protection in itself as well.
> 
> To put it bluntly....
> The value of life, any life, in our region is very less compared to the the West.
> 
> Our doctrines and tactics heavily focus on attainment of designated objectives at ALL COSTS.
> 
> We do not have such a concept that you should save your life whenever required,, no problem about the objective, will achieve it tomorrow provided we are alive.
> 
> Manpower resources are plentiful hence they can be easily replaced.


Inspired by Russian/Soviet comrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> Looking at work horses of branches of Pak Armed Forces. Foreign MBT (VT-4) for PA. Foreign Frigates (054) and Subs (039) for PN.
> At least JF-17 is not completely foreign. PAF is ahead in this case. Had AK production continued, PA would have been on par with PAF.


The roots of all issues are lack financial support and poor policy framework related to indigenous tank project (Al Khalid) 
We acquired T-85IIP because our indigenous tank project failed to even start in 80s despite numerous initial attempts in 60s-70s. India was raising fleet of T-72M and a counterbalance was needed, which happened in shape of 
T-85.

Then we acquired T-80UD because Al Khalid project failed to achieve the requisite timeline of production initiation in the 90s. Main issue was the availability of engines. 

And now we are acquiring VT-4 because Al Khalid production number has failed to hit even the minimum target limit. 

If we had handled this project with competency and some added financial support, our fleet would have been much uniform. By now (randomly estimating) our entire Tank fleet had comprised of some 1200 Al Khalid and 1200 Al Zarrar in different configurations. 

A homogeneous fleet of 2400+ MBTs with domestic support infrastructure! But alas...

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## nomi007

The best part of VT-4 is
*GL5 Active Protection System




*

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Khan vilatey

nomi007 said:


> The best part of VT-4 is
> *GL5 Active Protection System
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



holy sh$&&t that is amazing 

k


----------



## Dreamer.

Reichmarshal said:


> U just saying "not a good reason" is in reality not good enough.
> 
> We need to under stand we have a resource constraint n can do so much.....unless ppl like u who think it's all not good enough can give modp a few billion $ to expand their capability, so we don't have to buy off the shelf.


Ummm.....perhaps you could give modp the same few billion $ that will be used tho buy the off the shelf equipment??

At least _try_ to make sense by giving proper reasoning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHI RULES

Stealth said:


> Pakistan fedup with arm blackmailing ... Japanese are American puppet..


It is strange that Japanese have had policy not to cooperate with countries having nuclear weapons with exception of USA but now they are openly dealing with India and their defense minister even contacted with Gen Bajwa in recent past. Still even if Pak likes they cannot afford expensive Japanese tech. The VT-4 reportedly with FY4 ERA and GL5 hard kill active protection system is best option, I have read that perhaps Pak VT-4s have extra feature of upgraded engine also.

May be if GL5 is effective enough should also be deployed on AKs and up coming AK versions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

Tipu7 said:


> The roots of all issues are lack financial support and poor policy framework related to indigenous tank project (Al Khalid)
> We acquired T-85IIP because our indigenous tank project failed to even start in 80s despite numerous initial attempts in 60s-70s. India was raising fleet of T-72M and a counterbalance was needed, which happened in shape of
> T-85.
> 
> Then we acquired T-80UD because Al Khalid project failed to achieve the requisite timeline of production initiation in the 90s. Main issue was the availability of engines.
> 
> And now we are acquiring VT-4 because Al Khalid production number has failed to hit even the minimum target limit.
> 
> If we had handled this project with competency and some added financial support, our fleet would have been much uniform. By now (randomly estimating) our entire Tank fleet had comprised of some 1200 Al Khalid and 1200 Al Zarrar in different configurations.
> 
> A homogeneous fleet of 2400+ MBTs with domestic support infrastructure! But alas...


I remember that alkhalid project was kicked off by Gen. Aslam Beg! I still remember pictures of him riding in a prototype that appeared in the newspapers around 1990. *THIRTY* years later we have ONLY ~400 or so Alkhalid tanks and now buying off the shelf again! The ALkhalid project (the project, not the tank) if not a failure is certainly not a glaring success either.

But it's a lot more than lack of finances that are responsible. Lack of vision, lack of will, lack of execution aswell. But most importantly lack of *WILL. *That alone was a factor why nuclear/missile/JF-17 programmes etc. were successfull.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Raja Porus

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> : VT4 are likely to deploy in Punjab and may replace AZ from 6th Armored Division.


I think that AZ is a quiye capable third gen tank so instead of replacing them all we should raise a new armoured div under either Gujranwala corps or Karachi.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

IceCold said:


> You would probably remember the old T series took a beating from the RPGs during WOT. I am talking about Musharraf era. In fact there is a whole documentry on that. I remember tank T 59 i believe went ahead and than all the sudden it came rushing back, the crew was like they saw hell and than Cobras were call to clear.
> The threat level may not be same now but are we sure to still carry these old tanks. Why not the older Al-khalids? While the new ones and this V4 remains to kick Indian asses.


The tank crews were especially ordered by gen Tariq khan to avoid being hit as it would undermine the capabilities of Pakistani armoured Corps if they were destroyed by some rag tag terrorists in a greater number. More over tanks were used not as an armored punch but to close mobile provide fire support to the
infantry and also to strengthen the morale of jawans

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

PanzerKiel said:


> Tanks getting hit by 300 m range RPGs is tactically a failure of the supporting Infantry which is responsible for denying enemy anti tank teams a tactically superior firing position.
> 
> WOT is like any other war. Casualties of not only tanks, but Infantry and other arms also occurred.
> 
> Casualties are part of war. Though not completely avoidable, but they can be minimized by superior tactics.
> 
> Effective range of RPG against static targets is 300 m. If an enemy RPG team manages to reach within 300 m of a tank, then either the enemy anti tank team or the tank deserves to be roasted.
> 
> It's a failure of tactics, not the equipment.
> 
> We were going through a learning phase at that time.
> 
> You can judge this from the fact that.... When was the last time you even heard that we lost a tank to terrorists.
> 
> These older tanks, however, still possess some characteristics which even the latest tanks don't have even now....... Simplicity, maintenance and ease of operating being the first.





PanzerKiel said:


> Tanks getting hit by 300 m range RPGs is tactically a failure of the supporting Infantry which is responsible for denying enemy anti tank teams a tactically superior firing position.
> 
> WOT is like any other war. Casualties of not only tanks, but Infantry and other arms also occurred.
> 
> Casualties are part of war. Though not completely avoidable, but they can be minimized by superior tactics.
> 
> Effective range of RPG against static targets is 300 m. If an enemy RPG team manages to reach within 300 m of a tank, then either the enemy anti tank team or the tank deserves to be roasted.
> 
> It's a failure of tactics, not the equipment.
> 
> We were going through a learning phase at that time.
> 
> You can judge this from the fact that.... When was the last time you even heard that we lost a tank to terrorists.
> 
> These older tanks, however, still possess some characteristics which even the latest tanks don't have even now....... Simplicity, maintenance and ease of operating being the first.





PanzerKiel said:


> Tanks getting hit by 300 m range RPGs is tactically a failure of the supporting Infantry which is responsible for denying enemy anti tank teams a tactically superior firing position.
> 
> WOT is like any other war. Casualties of not only tanks, but Infantry and other arms also occurred.
> 
> Casualties are part of war. Though not completely avoidable, but they can be minimized by superior tactics.
> 
> Effective range of RPG against static targets is 300 m. If an enemy RPG team manages to reach within 300 m of a tank, then either the enemy anti tank team or the tank deserves to be roasted.
> 
> It's a failure of tactics, not the equipment.
> 
> We were going through a learning phase at that time.
> 
> You can judge this from the fact that.... When was the last time you even heard that we lost a tank to terrorists.
> 
> These older tanks, however, still possess some characteristics which even the latest tanks don't have even now....... Simplicity, maintenance and ease of operating being the first.


Yes thats my point

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> These might be our beauties or similar!
> View attachment 671014
> 
> 
> View attachment 671015
> 
> 
> View attachment 671017


I hope the gun will not have that olive green colour but it wish it'll have a uniform colour


----------



## IceCold

PanzerKiel said:


> o put it bluntly....
> The value of life, any life, in our region is very less compared to the the West.


Even with the concept of Jiahd Fi sabilillah and Martyrdom, i still feel this to be cold janab. Men like you put your lives at stake, you Sir deserve better.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## nomi007

VT-4 will be great induction but more important is to induct more anti-tank weapon systems.
Like 
*AFT-10*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

nomi007 said:


> VT-4 will be great induction but more important is to induct more anti-tank weapon systems.
> Like
> *AFT-10*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Reichmarshal

Dreamer. said:


> Ummm.....perhaps you could give modp the same few billion $ that will be used tho buy the off the shelf equipment??
> 
> At least _try_ to make sense by giving proper reasoning.


HIT has been retooled and brought to the latest standard. It is working on max capacity to produce AK 1.
a major over haul of t80 ud. In addition to the m113/ Saad project . work on t85.
Plus the m109 sp etc etc.
That's a lot of work id say.

Like I stated earlier we are facing a very clear n present danger. So we needed to place tanks urgently and a lot of them, thats where vt4 comes in.

Now friend if this does not meet ur fancy than let's leave it at that.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Reichmarshal

To our friends who blame HIT or modp for the slow production, during the ppp times the than govt dried the funding for the al khalid production, production had slowed down to single figures. There even came a stage when it stopped all together.
So lots of factors in the mix

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Ark_Angel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> I hope the gun will not have that olive green colour but it wish it'll have a uniform colour


PA VT-4s have uniform dark green colour. Hopefully You'll get the Gilmpse of it soon enough. *Within Days*. The machines a beast. They are here and kicking! 
Regards

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
16


----------



## syed_yusuf

PanzerKiel said:


> Again, their tanks or armored corps doesn't have to face the varied nature of threats or terrain which we are facing simultaneously.
> 
> Otherwise, back in c Cold War days, once these countries did have multifarious threats in different terrains, these countries also resorted to multiple tank types.


I don't agree PA and IAF have similar problem , too many tank types i think this is piss poor planning . I think PA should just adopt this tank or a new 4th gen tank and just mass produce it for next 10 years and replace all legacy numbers


----------



## PanzerKiel

IceCold said:


> Even with the concept of Jiahd Fi sabilillah and Martyrdom, i still feel this to be cold janab. Men like you put your lives at stake, you Sir deserve better.


Yes you are right dear. 

However, this harsh reality does, mostly, affect doctrines and conduct of operations of the countries in our region.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Raja Porus

Ark_Angel said:


> PA VT-4s have uniform dark green colour. Hopefully You'll get the Gilmpse of it soon enough. *Within Days*. The machines a beast. They are here and kicking!
> Regards


Won't they have camouflage


Ark_Angel said:


> PA VT-4s have uniform dark green colour. Hopefully You'll get the Gilmpse of it soon enough. *Within Days*. The machines a beast. They are here and kicking!
> Regards


Like this?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

PanzerKiel said:


> Yes you are right dear.
> 
> However, this harsh reality does, mostly, affect doctrines and conduct of operations of the countries in our region.


And, it's the greatest strength of the Pak _Ordu_!!! Others have all the weapons, but no _Merts_....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## volatile

Even though we remain in US camp some how our policies are more Red Hammer ones .States doesn't do all things by them selves ,States provides environment and funding's to development of local industry .
Our lack of understanding coupled with unskilled labor on top of that no sense of business and economics have lead to disaster in these type of home grown projects .
A classical example being 1990 to 2020 we have 400 Al Khalid tanks means we are capable to produce 1.1 Tank per month (Irrespective of fact) you killed the project here . 
Second example is JF17 with almost no exports to its belt even though we have a wonderful product and Chinese partner just bcas i said it i know doesn't mean i know actually every thing . Alas a sad day

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Desert Fox 1 said:


> The tank crews were especially ordered by gen Tariq khan to avoid being hit as it would undermine the capabilities of Pakistani armoured Corps if they were destroyed by some rag tag terrorists in a greater number. More over tanks were used not as an armored punch but to close mobile provide fire support to the
> infantry and also to strengthen the morale of jawans


I don't think gen Tariq would make such a statement or issue such an order, knowing fully well that he has to clear built up area...even if u reduce bult up areas to rubble it would make more ambush friendly and provide excellent cover for opposing forces. In addition to that they had to clear passes and valleys where ttp held the heights.
Plus our forces held very little ground and to capture it all back tooth and nail.
Gen tariq was at it at the very start when it was the toughest and the bloodiest. Casualties and loss of material was a given.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Reichmarshal

syed_yusuf said:


> I don't agree PA and IAF have similar problem , too many tank types i think this is piss poor planning . I think PA should just adopt this tank or a new 4th gen tank and just mass produce it for next 10 years and replace all legacy numbers


The only reason we have "too many" tanks is the simply fact that we don't have the luxury to replace them all when they become obsolete or old, due to our financial situation.
PA would love to replace them as soon as new once become available but alas our financial woes hold them back.
So the only option that remain (other than committing suicide as some friends here suggest) is to make the best use of wt u got and that wt our three services are doing.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Desert Fox 1 said:


> I think that AZ is a quiye capable third gen tank so instead of replacing them all we should raise a new armoured div under either Gujranwala corps or Karachi.


AZ project has been discontinued for some years now.


----------



## Ark_Angel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Won't they have camouflage
> 
> Like this?
> View attachment 672048


No camo. It's Dark Green.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Umar Nazir

So VT4 is coming ????????????


----------



## Pakistan Ka Beta

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414006277832704

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414009411022848

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414011898200081

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414014062579718

Reactions: Like Like:
32 | Love Love:
14 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Cuirassier



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cuirassier

6 Lancers with the demo. After such a long time the Armoured Corps gets something new. Thrilled.

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Rajput_Pakistani

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Areesh

Pakistan Ka Beta said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414006277832704
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414009411022848
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414011898200081
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414014062579718
> View attachment 672174





Zarvan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## HalfMoon



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Areesh

Name it Al Haider. Put it along with Al Khalid in the battlefield

And see enemy melting like an ice cube in 50 Celsius

Reactions: Like Like:
20 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Ghost 125

cant see any APS on it

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Let's see whether the viewers of these videos can spot something special as far as VT4 is concerned.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## HalfMoon

Areesh said:


> Name it Al Haider. Put it along with Al Khalid
> 
> And see enemy melting like an ice cube



Indians are shitting in their pants.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Rajput_Pakistani said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968


Finally...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Congratulations to all fellows, including those who were mocking the credibility of VT4 deliveries to Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
21 | Love Love:
1


----------



## HaMoTZeMaS

Agility while rotation is freaking cool..


----------



## The Eagle

time to hit them hard. Congratulations everyone.... the long evaluation, analysis, examinations & trials finally paying off well. The key feature is.... VT-4 is compatible with any modern tank in the world integrating advanced armour protection, maneuverability, fire power capabilities and state of the art technology ...... and you can just imagine the picture of a modern & technological advance battlefield formation. I am not going into details of planned ammunition but I will say that, those brasses are going to hit enemy that they wouldn't even expect.

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1


----------



## HaMoTZeMaS

PanzerKiel said:


> Let's see whether the viewers of these videos can spot something special as far as VT4 is concerned.


im surprised with its agility

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zulfiqar

PanzerKiel said:


> Let's see whether the viewers of these videos can spot something special as far as VT4 is concerned.




@LKJ86 @Dazzler 

Analysis people


----------



## The Eagle

PanzerKiel said:


> Let's see whether the viewers of these videos can spot something special as far as VT4 is concerned.



From a general prospective, not much of a Tank guy, that speed in such terrain/landscape, fast turret movement & aiming and fire accuracy. Loved it.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## maverick1977

Zarvan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968




love the "gheesi" move, where turret stay stationary and the lower body skirts the ground in a rotation..

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Syed1.

Sir please do something for the boys we are losing on a daily basis in Waziristan and Baluchistan. Chances of a conventional war against India are low at the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Pandora

Looks like APS is not included or is it removeable?


----------



## Arsenal Caan

Does anybody know how many of these beautiful beasts we already have?


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Mabroook. Alhamdolillah

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Does Pakistani version of VT4 has 1500 HP Engine?


----------



## Tair-Lahoti

high quality video on VT-4

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
5


----------



## Zarvan

One of our members on twitter said eight good news are on the way. One confirmed let's wait for others

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## El Observer

That Turret Traverse rate is unbelievable.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ghazi52

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968


...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Crystal-Clear

Zarvan said:


> One of our members on twitter said eight good news are on the way. One confirmed let's wait for others


who ?


----------



## Hassan Imtiaz

Pakistan Ka Beta said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414006277832704
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414009411022848
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414011898200081
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414014062579718
> View attachment 672174
> 
> View attachment 672176
> 
> View attachment 672180
> 
> View attachment 672175


MashAllah...🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰🥰🥰

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## ghazi52

Great addition..........

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

*The VT4 has come to spoil the Cold Start party. 





*



Congrats to all Pakistanis and our Chinese allies. 
These tanks will go into a 1,000 at least!

Reactions: Like Like:
22 | Love Love:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

3 Member crew , Turbo Charged 4 Stroke engine 1200hp with 70km/H speed , and 53 ton weight
RCWS + APU & Autoloader

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## V. Makarov

Syed1. said:


> Sir please do something for the boys we are losing on a daily basis in Waziristan and Baluchistan. Chances of a conventional war against India are low at the moment.


We have accepted that as a norm in Baluchistan and Waziristan. so close to perfection, yet, the left over scumbags still cannot be exterminated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## Pakistan Space Agency

Masha'Allah and congratulations to Pakistan.


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Crystal-Clear said:


> who ?


This guy Ahmad Tipu 
@Tipu7

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968

*The turrent turned at 0.25 as if a T-90MS column was coming there and then. *

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

El Observer said:


> That Turret Traverse rate is unbelievable.


And speed as well

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

farooqbhai007 said:


> 3 Member crew , Turbo Charged 4 Stroke engine 1200hp with 70km/H speed , and 53 ton weight
> RCWS + APU & Autoloader



*Correction 1,300HP *, but Pakistan's versions are rumoured to be 1,500HP....

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## waz

52 tonnes of raw steel grit hitting Punjab.....Be scared, be very scared.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Jungibaaz

Fantastic! We’ve known for some time now, but it’s always nice to get official confirmation.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## The Eagle

waz said:


> *Correction 1,300HP *, but Pakistan's versions are rumoured to be 1,500HP....



I can fall for the rumor given its speed/fast movement/Turret as seen during demonstration.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1


----------



## waz

The Eagle said:


> I can fall for the rumor given its speed/fast movement/Turret as seen during demonstration.



Looks it bro, crazy movement from a tank near mid 50 tonnes.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Comfortably Numb

PanzerKiel said:


> Let's see whether the viewers of these videos can spot something special as far as VT4 is concerned.


Park assist?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Reichmarshal

6 lancers all the way

6 on 6

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Bratva

Ark_Angel said:


> PA VT-4s have uniform dark green colour. Hopefully You'll get the Gilmpse of it soon enough. *Within Days*. The machines a beast. They are here and kicking!
> Regards



Your predication came true Within hours. As if you attended todya VT-4 MBT demonstration. Any update on AH-1Z vipers?

Lets give credit where it is due who broke the news of VT-4 finally coming to Pakistan. @PanzerKiel and @Ark_Angel after chinese media outlet confirmed VT-4 for unknown customer

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
17 | Love Love:
1


----------



## PakFactor

Congrats on the tank but disappointed on the lack of use of available space on the turret to increase armor and space within. This limits the upgradability of the tank in the future --

It's still in my opinion a soviet style shit --


----------



## The Eagle

waz said:


> Looks it bro, crazy movement from a tank near mid 50 tonnes.



Agreed Chief... I was surprised as well. Since the official account will say 1300hp, I will keep it that way so the one at receiving end keeps guessing and then comes a surprising hammer.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Zephyrus



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

Areesh said:


> Name it Al Haider. Put it along with Al Khalid in the battlefield
> 
> And see enemy melting like an ice cube in 50 Celsius


Aren't we developing Al Haider ourselves ? Or will this VT4/MBT3000 be the base for Al Haider like MBT2000 is for Al Khalid ?


----------



## ziaulislam

Reichmarshal said:


> To our friends who blame HIT or modp for the slow production, during the ppp times the than govt dried the funding for the al khalid production, production had slowed down to single figures. There even came a stage when it stopped all together.
> So lots of factors in the mix


So expect this to happen again in 2023
Hopefully alkhalid production is now smooth

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

Zarvan said:


> One of our members on twitter said eight good news are on the way. One confirmed let's wait for others


8 ? Can you give something before the are officially announced? 🙄

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CrazyZ

Both VT-4 and Al Khalid-1 are being acquired at the same time. T-80's will be upgraded as well. Most of our tank fleet will be on par or better than T-90 in the near future.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Raja Porus

Reichmarshal said:


> 6 lancers all the way
> 
> 6 on 6


A great regiment with a decorated history 😍

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

farooqbhai007 said:


> 3 Member crew , Turbo Charged 4 Stroke engine 1200hp with 70km/H speed , and 53 ton weight
> RCWS + APU & Autoloader


The formation sign is of 6th armd div which was originally equipped with AZ so is VT 4 going to replace them?


----------



## Dazzler

PanzerKiel said:


> Let's see whether the viewers of these videos can spot something special as far as VT4 is concerned.



Should I start?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Raja Porus

Bratva said:


> Your predication came true Within hours. As if you attended todya VT-4 MBT demonstration. Any update on AH-1Z vipers?
> 
> Lets give credit where it is due who broke the news of VT-4 finally coming to Pakistan. @PanzerKiel and @Ark_Angel after chinese media outlet confirmed VT-4 for unknown customer


Yes they do

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabotar

Dazzler said:


> Should I start?


Please! [emoji3166][emoji3166]


----------



## Cuirassier

I reckon we're looking at 7 regiments to reequip the entire I Corps/ARN. Would appreciate any insight/comments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khan vilatey

This is amazing news 
K

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

For starters

It has a CITV or commanders independent thermal sight.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Dazzler

Desert Fox 1 said:


> The formation sign is of 6th armd div which was originally equipped with AZ so is VT 4 going to replace them?


Yes. AZs will move to the western front.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> One of our members on twitter said eight good news are on the way. One confirmed let's wait for others


what are the 7 others secrets?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

It has auto boresight 

All electric turret control

Enhanced stabilizers

GP5 ATGM 

Satcom

Datalink

1500hp engine with electric transmission

Fy4 ERA and front removable maingun

Rcws

Reactions: Like Like:
21 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## LeGenD

POPEYE-Sailor said:


> WHY Pakistan army did not consider to buy Japanese tank Type-10 its similar to German leopard 2.
> German and Japanese both are expert in manufacturing tank as they showed tank-power in world war 2.
> 
> 
> View attachment 671537
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type 10 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Although one of the most advanced Main Battle Tanks in existence, it is very expensive to procure as well. It also contain technologies which might not be approved for sale to Pakistan in the present since it was not approved for export to Turkey.

---

VT-4 is also packing impressive technologies/capabilities, and could be procured in large numbers. This is much better than not getting anything decent.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Looks like the Indian fantasy of 2.5 fronts is coming true!!! They got bored with 1 front....

This Winter will remain damn hot! The IA is stretched from the Runn of Kutch to the Burma border! Couple it with COVID-19, worsening economy, divided populace, fanatic leadership, “treachery” of BD, Nepal, Bhutan etc.! A perfect storm is about to be brewing.....

Reactions: Like Like:
19 | Love Love:
3 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## POPEYE-Sailor

LeGenD said:


> Although one of the most advanced Main Battle Tanks in existence, it is very expensive to procure as well. It also contain technologies which might not be approved for sale to Pakistan in the present since it was not approved for export to Turkey.
> 
> ---
> 
> VT-4 is also packing impressive technologies/capabilities, and could be procured in large numbers. This is much better than not getting anything decent.



Thanks for updating me, any hope for AL-khalid version 3 or VT-4 is alkhalid 3 ?


----------



## POPEYE-Sailor

Pak army always give surprises to defense lovers as they give A-100 MLRS surprise during exercise.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
3


----------



## kursed

Z10ME, Chinese IFV and VT-4 means quite a revamp of Armor, with high speed DLs and a complete integration of these two arms.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## The Ronin

Zarvan said:


> One of our members on twitter said eight good news are on the way. One confirmed let's wait for others





Muhammad Omar said:


> This guy Ahmad Tipu
> @Tipu7



I hope @Tipu7 meant eight S-20/26 sub from China you are supposed to receive. 😉 Really want to see how the export version tun out. 😉

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LeGenD

POPEYE-Sailor said:


> Thanks for updating me, any hope for AL-khalid version 3 or VT-4 is alkhalid 3 ?


You're welcome.

VT-4 is a separate procurement from Al-Khalid series to my knowledge. VT-4 platform have sufficient flexibility to serve as the tip of the spear (leading role in armored thrusts) as well as a force-multiplier (alongside latest variants of Al-Khalid) in different sectors of the country and across the border.

Al-Khalid version 1 is a recent rollout. 
Al-Khalid version 2 is in development - a challenging undertaking given desired specifications and performance parameters.

@Dazzler and @PanzerKiel happen to be very well informed members of the forum. You may reach out to both for potential queries.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Crystal-Clear

Muhammad Omar said:


> This guy Ahmad Tipu
> @Tipu7


areey wo phir se shuru . khafee wali dastaan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Path-Finder

Dazzler said:


> It has auto boresight
> 
> All electric turret control
> 
> Enhanced stabilizers
> 
> GP5 ATGM
> 
> Satcom
> 
> Datalink
> 
> 1500hp engine with electric transmission
> 
> Fy4 ERA and front removable maingun
> 
> Rcws


I am not doubting your info because you are credible, but is the engine really 1500hp? that is a massive +++

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Great to see these mighty VT4s operated by Pak Army. Very soon we will get the SH15s and VN1s as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Sal12

Is there any plan to raise new armored division of PA or these tanks will be used to strengthen the existing armored divisions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

@Dazzler notice the Indian Tanks and equipment on the posters!


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Bratva said:


> Your predication came true Within hours. As if you attended todya VT-4 MBT demonstration. Any update on AH-1Z vipers?
> 
> Lets give credit where it is due who broke the news of VT-4 finally coming to Pakistan. @PanzerKiel and @Ark_Angel after chinese media outlet confirmed VT-4 for unknown customer


That's what actual breaking news looks like.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## appliedfor

Congrats 

How many this lethal weapon we have in our inventory?


----------



## Cuirassier

look at LTG Shaheen's right arm formation patch - it's for the Central Command; first time I've seen it! He has a formation patch for I Corps on his left arm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xyx007

8 round per min, it will crush our enemy like a piece of cake . Masahllah. For reactive armor not sure we are using depleted urinamium armor and how it integrate with NBC filtering componante and soft kill/hard kill mechnasim.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LeGenD

xyx007 said:


> 8 round per min, it will crush our enemy like a piece of cake . Masahllah. For reactive armor not sure we are using depleted urinamium armor and how it integrate with NBC filtering componante and soft kill/hard kill mechnasim.


Armor = Steel + Composite + ERA (FY-4)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ziaulislam

Pakistan Ka Beta said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414006277832704
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414009411022848
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414011898200081
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308414014062579718
> View attachment 672174
> 
> View attachment 672176
> 
> View attachment 672180
> 
> View attachment 672175


how many are being procured?


----------



## waz

ziaulislam said:


> how many are being procured?



Current batch 300. More batches to follow, again in 300 groups. We're looking at 1,000 tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
3


----------



## waz

Sal12 said:


> Is there any plan to raise new armored division of PA or these tanks will be used to strengthen the existing armored divisions.



Brother @PanzerKiel can answer this one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ziaulislam

waz said:


> Current batch 300. More batches to follow, again in 300 groups. We're looking at 1,000 tanks.


do we know the price? and whether its upfront payment or typical chinese financing? 
what i am really interested is whether the active protection system is included or not.? i know the general consensus is , GLS-% is included but dont know whether any pictures shown would suggets that

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Sleek.


----------



## JohnWick

LeGenD said:


> Armor = Steel + Composite + ERA (FY-4)


plzzz compare it with M1A1 Abrams tanks....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Caprxl

Alhumdulillah

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Caprxl

Alhumdulillah

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> what are the 7 others secrets?


No clue. But he is very trustable guy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

ziaulislam said:


> do we know the price? and whether its upfront payment or typical chinese financing?
> what i am really interested is whether the active protection system is included or not.? i know the general consensus is , GLS-% is included but dont know whether any pictures shown would suggets that



Not sure about finance bro. The GL5 APS is 100% with these tanks, don't worry. Pictures will emerge soon.

Check out this video at 0.44, this is the layout of the GL5. Look out for it.





__





GL5 APS Chinese hard-kill active protection system for combat vehicles and tanks


Chinese Defense Company NORINCO unveils GL5 local-made APS (Active Protection System) for combat armored vehicle at AirShow China 2018. The Chinese system seems very similar to the Israeli-made Trophy including radar panels and launcher tubes to fire the countermeasures.




www.defensewebtv.com

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
4


----------



## PakFactor

waz said:


> Not sure about finance bro. The GL5 APS is 100% with these tanks, don't worry. Pictures will emerge soon.



Brother knowing Pakistan _minimum deterrence_ mindset I'm sure they left this feature out --
We'll wait for further confirmation

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## python-000

Hmmm So finaly they come Alhamdulillah & now what next Z-10ME, J-31

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Eagle

Sal12 said:


> Is there any plan to raise new armored division of PA or these tanks will be used to strengthen the existing armored divisions.



Even if I know, such informations shall never be talked in public. Op Sec and surprise element. @PanzerKiel

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

PakFactor said:


> Brother knowing Pakistan _minimum deterrence_ mindset I'm sure they left this feature out --
> We'll wait for further confirmation



Bro fear not, it will be there. There is no way this version which has the most advanced armour on it i.e. better than the Thai and Nigerian versions, would not come with the system, especially with the level of ATGM's operated by the IA.
So far the video doesn't show it.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## The Eagle

waz said:


> Not sure about finance bro. The GL5 APS is 100% with these tanks, don't worry. Pictures will emerge soon.
> 
> Check out this video at 0.44, this is the layout of the GL5. Look out for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GL5 APS Chinese hard-kill active protection system for combat vehicles and tanks
> 
> 
> Chinese Defense Company NORINCO unveils GL5 local-made APS (Active Protection System) for combat armored vehicle at AirShow China 2018. The Chinese system seems very similar to the Israeli-made Trophy including radar panels and launcher tubes to fire the countermeasures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensewebtv.com



You, bro, sending heartaches to other side. 

Last time, it was discussed that one in the public having observations will know the quality of such transformation by way that PA has been evaluating lot of stuff and sent back for upgrades by many levels of any international equipment in market. 

Every new gadget making its way to our inventory, shall be inducted in view of future battle scenarios and that's not defensive only but defensive offensive.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## The Eagle

python-000 said:


> Hmmm So finaly they come Alhamdulillah & now what next Z-10ME, J-31



Don't want to derail but couple of surprises might shock many of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
15 | Love Love:
1


----------



## khansaheeb

Pakistan's army inducts new battle tank


Chinese-origin VT-4 'integrates armor protection, maneuverability, fire power capabilities and technology' - Anadolu Agency




www.aa.com.tr






*Pakistan's army inducts new battle tank*
*Chinese-origin VT-4 'integrates armor protection, maneuverability, fire power capabilities and technology'*
Aamir Latif |22.09.2020





FILE PHOTO


*KARACHI, Pakistan *
Pakistan's army on Tuesday inducted a Chinese-origin main battle tank in its armored division, the military said.
The VT-4 integrates advanced armor protection, maneuverability, firepower capabilities and state-of-the-art technology, it said in a statement.
Gen. Qamar Bajwa, Pakistan's army chief, visited field firing ranges near northeastern Jhelum district -- 116 Kilometers (72 miles) from the capital Islamabad -- to witness demonstration of the “potent war fighting machine."
He said Pakistan Army is cognizant of emerging challenges and regional threats. “We are completely focused towards internal and external challenges to the defense of our country, and prepared with matching response against all threats to sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Pakistan,“ he said in a thinly-veiled reference to arch-rival India.
Pakistan and India have long been locked in an intense arms race, with several "successful" missile tests in recent years.
Their armies, for decades, have faced off across the Line of Control, a de facto border that divides the disputed Kashmir region between the two neighbors.
In July, Pakistan inducted in its Armored Corps an improved version of the indigenously developed Al-Khalid-1, a main battle tank developed in a joint venture with China and Ukraine.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Eagle

For the eyes, one can guess what it holds beneath.

Imagine, camouflaged in dark night, enemy thinks that they are out of reach and hidden, you are using day/night vision while your net-centricity screen and scope gives you battle Field view and still connected with pack all around and so in the air, the castle in the air gives you coordinates with trajectory helping firing solution and you just get them with surprise without any chance for them to escape. Abhinandan was the prey of only 1 text book trick.






52 tonnes, high speed with surprisingly fast moving turret along with all the RC gun and automatic fire/reload and all the battle picture like a Radar installed tank, can't be powered with simple 1300 hp engine I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
14 | Love Love:
5


----------



## Blacklight

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> That's what actual breaking news looks like.


I will go with the guy who broke it 5mnths ago

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Crystal-Clear

The Eagle said:


> Don't want to derail but couple of surprises might shock many of us.


PAF??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Blacklight said:


> I will go with the guy who broke it 5mnths ago


IIRC it was Muzammil Hatami in 2018, but @Ark_Angel and @PAR 5 confirmed the info in April/May, and it was @PAR 5 who brought up pricing.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## The Eagle

Crystal-Clear said:


> PAF??



No please. The scope is wider and involves all branches. Wait for the right time.

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Blacklight

The Eagle said:


> No please. The scope is wider and* involves all branches*. Wait for the right time.


Well Said

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Goenitz

waz said:


> The GL5 APS is 100% with these tanks


----------



## Bratva

Blacklight said:


> I will go with the guy who broke it 5mnths ago



If you are referring to a guy who broke the news on 27th April, then you're wrong. The actual guy who broke the news on 24th April on this very thread . His 24th April Post still exist here in this thread. He even toldthe actual numbers of tank purchased . The same actual guy once again predicted we will see the tanks in few days and we saw it in few hours. Lets not take away the credit from "the actual guy" on this thread

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Blacklight

Zarvan said:


> One of our members on twitter said eight good news are on the way. One confirmed let's wait for others





Path-Finder said:


> what are the 7 others secrets?



Wild guess,  

1a. SSK
1b. SSN
1c. SSBN - 8 silo
2. Z10ME
3. AH-1Z
4. F16- Blk70/72
5. J15
6. J10
7. Jh-7

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Dreamer.

Ark_Angel said:


> PA VT-4s have uniform dark green colour. Hopefully You'll get the Gilmpse of it soon enough. *Within Days*. The machines a beast. They are here and kicking!
> Regards





Ark_Angel said:


> No camo. It's Dark Green.


I think the ISPR video and and the pictures from the demonstration clearly show that it is *NOT* Uniform dark green rather its is indeed a *CAMO. *The dominant color in the camo is dark green though.

I think the pattern looks the same as the one that appeared in the pictures when news of delivery to unknown customer from China came out. The tanks being carried on trucks in those picture look the same as the one that appeared in today's ISPR video.

But then who cares about the color?  It's good news and thanks for breaking it to us here and it came true not within days but within *HOURS*.

This purchase does give PA armour a boost and VT-4 looks like a formidable foe for anything India has. However, I do hope this is not the end of the Alkhalid.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## mingle

I think things start moving towards culmination one news after another according to @Tipu7 on twitter total good news about procurement are 8 let's count we know tank, artillery,Z10 ME, still 5 to go let's wait

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Caprxl

Blacklight said:


> Wild guess,
> 
> 1a. SSK
> 1b. SSN
> 1c. SSBN - 8 silo
> 2. Z10ME
> 3. AH-1Z
> 4. F16- Blk70/72
> 5. J15
> 6. J10
> 7. Jh-7



Fatwa coming your way .. Brace yourself

Reactions: Haha Haha:
6 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Blacklight

Caprxl said:


> Fatwa coming your way ..

Reactions: Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Signalian

T-59 should completely exit from PA now.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bossman

Signalian said:


> T-59 should completely exit from PA now.


T59s are all gone. What looks like T59s are in fact T69s. They are responsible light tanks. They have a defensive role to play in areas where mobility is limited.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Dreamer.

Dazzler said:


> It has auto boresight
> 
> All electric turret control
> 
> Enhanced stabilizers
> 
> *GP5 ATGM*
> 
> Satcom
> 
> Datalink
> 
> 1500hp engine with electric transmission
> 
> Fy4 ERA and front removable maingun
> 
> Rcws


GP5 ATGM? Do you mean GL-5 APS?


----------



## Raja Porus

Dazzler said:


> Yes. AZs will move to the western front.


I think they should raise a new armd div because AZ are too good for the western front. They can also raise new armd independent armd brigades

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## monitor

> Pakistan is purchasing #VT4 directly from #Norinco. In meantime, production of #AK1 will continue at #HIT. In total, Pakistan will be acquiring 300 #VT4 and 220 #AK1 by 2025.
> 
> (#AK1 plans may vary depending upon budget availability)


Collected

If comes true it will be a nightmare for Indian

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Dazzler

monitor said:


> Collected
> 
> If comes true it will be a nightmare for Indian


HIT is upgrading it's facility to continue the production of AKs. 300 more needed to facilitate the replacement of 59s/69s.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Dazzler

Dreamer. said:


> I think the ISPR video and and the pictures from the demonstration clearly show that it is *NOT* Uniform dark green rather its is indeed a *CAMO. *The dominant color in the camo is dark green though.
> 
> I think the pattern looks the same as the one that appeared in the pictures when news of delivery to unknown customer from China came out. The tanks being carried on trucks in those picture look the same as the one that appeared in today's ISPR video.
> 
> But then who cares about the color?  It's good news and thanks for breaking it to us here and it came true not within days but within *HOURS*.
> 
> This purchase does give PA armour a boost and VT-4 looks like a formidable foe for anything India has. However, I do hope this is not the end of the Alkhalid.



Nigerians were seen wearing olive green paint.


----------



## Dazzler

xyx007 said:


> 8 round per min, it will crush our enemy like a piece of cake . Masahllah. For reactive armor not sure we are using depleted urinamium armor and how it integrate with NBC filtering componante and soft kill/hard kill mechnasim.



It's 9 rounds a minute.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Dreamer. said:


> GP5 ATGM? Do you mean GL-5 APS?


No, it can fire GP5 guided missile up to a range of 5kms. Ours don't have a hardkill aps as of now. It uses laser and IR sensors plus cameras for threat detection.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

Blacklight said:


> Wild guess,
> 
> 1a. SSK
> 1b. SSN
> 1c. SSBN - 8 silo
> 2. Z10ME
> 3. AH-1Z
> 4. F16- Blk70/72
> 5. J15
> 6. J10
> 7. Jh-7


INSHALLAH I make dua that all of your list comes to be true. May ALLAH gives Pakistan all these weapons systems and in seriously large numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cuirassier

Signalian said:


> T-59 should completely exit from PA now.


only possible if we get large numbers of AK-1s too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

waz said:


> The GL5 APS is 100% with these tanks, don't worry. Pictures will emerge soon.


Not according to @Dazzler.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IceCold

Blacklight said:


> Wild guess,
> 
> 1a. SSK
> 1b. SSN
> 1c. SSBN - 8 silo
> 2. Z10ME
> 3. AH-1Z
> 4. F16- Blk70/72
> 5. J15
> 6. J10
> 7. Jh-7


Kahin per ICBM be daal deta. Khata khata thak ga.


----------



## Super Falcon

Snt pak interested in turkish altay and russian T 90s


----------



## Cool_Soldier

Even though, members were discussing presence of vT-4 in Pakistan but its good to see official presence of machine.300 numbers are good too to enhance our strike capability.

Looking forward to hear about Gunship helicopter.

Two types are in queue


----------



## ziaulislam

Dazzler said:


> HIT is upgrading it's facility to continue the production of AKs. 300 more needed to facilitate the replacement of 59s/69s.


Ultimately al zarrar will have to be replaced as well


----------



## PanzerKiel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> They can also raise new armd independent armd brigades



Already raised and deployed.

Reactions: Like Like:
16 | Love Love:
5


----------



## PanzerKiel

Sal12 said:


> Is there any plan to raise new armored division of PA or these tanks will be used to strengthen the existing armored divisions.


More than a dozen Armored and Independent Armored Brigades have already been raised and deployed. 

No new armored divisions are being raised. 

Existing armored division is already a well balanced organization.... Any additions might actually unbalance it.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## PanzerKiel

Cuirassier said:


> look at LTG Shaheen's right arm formation patch - it's for the Central Command; first time I've seen it! He has a formation patch for I Corps on his left arm.


Commander 1 Corps also does as Commander Central Command.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Fighting Falcon 01

Dazzler said:


> No, it can fire GP5 guided missile up to a range of 5kms. Ours don't have a hardkill aps as of now. It uses laser and IR sensors plus cameras for threat detection.


Sir can you clarify what type of APS is our vt4 using and how effective is it can it tackle spike ATGMs ...


----------



## North Star

How many we are looking to induct in Pak Army?


----------



## TheDarkKnight

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> Great to see these mighty VT4s operated by Pak Army. Very soon we will get the SH15s and VN1s as well.
> View attachment 672289
> 
> View attachment 672290
> 
> View attachment 672291


I have heard about sh15 and vt4s but when did we decide to go for vn1.

BTW like your DP. One of my fav characters of the show.


----------



## LKJ86

Fighting Falcon 01 said:


> Sir can you clarify what type of APS is our vt4 using and how effective is it can it tackle spike ATGMs ...

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Love Love:
2


----------



## waz

Dreamer. said:


> Not according to @Dazzler.



As of now we don’t see it, rest assured it’s coming @Dazzler

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

North Star said:


> How many we are looking to induct in Pak Army?



300 to start.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAR 5

I am glad Pakistan Army has gotten another new toy but I have seen this jubilation and verve every time a new tank comes in the Armored Corps. I remember when T-80UD was inducted, I remember when Al Khalid was inducted and now VT4. While it may give some temporary excitement today but in the long run such inductions are counter productive into allowing factories like HIT to make a tank itself. Our dependency & servitude continues unfortunately!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## waz

PAR 5 said:


> I am glad Pakistan Army has gotten another new toy but I have seen this jubilation and verve every time a new tank comes in the Armored Corps. I remember when T-80UD was inducted, I remember when Al Khalid was inducted and now VT4. While it may give some temporary excitement today but in the long run such inductions are counter productive into allowing factories like HIT to make a tank itself. Our dependency & servitude continues unfortunately!



Bro still significant gaps to be filled even with the VT-4, I guess that’s where Al-Khalid production will count.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## IceCold

The Eagle said:


> For the eyes, one can guess what it holds beneath.
> 
> Imagine, camouflaged in dark night, enemy thinks that they are out of reach and hidden, you are using day/night vision while your net-centricity screen and scope gives you battle Field view and still connected with pack all around and so in the air, the castle in the air gives you coordinates with trajectory helping firing solution and you just get them with surprise without any chance for them to escape. Abhinandan was the prey of only 1 text book trick.
> 
> View attachment 672316
> 
> 
> 52 tonnes, high speed with surprisingly fast moving turret along with all the RC gun and automatic fire/reload and all the battle picture like a Radar installed tank, can't be powered with simple 1300 hp engine I guess.


This looks Badass.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

When can we see the first image of the SH-15 in PA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Amigator

Wo pochna ye tha k 1 litre main kitna mileage de ga??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## SD 10

Amigator said:


> Wo pochna ye tha k 1 litre main kitna mileage de ga??


start ho jaye ga bs!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Signalian said:


> Looking at work horses of branches of Pak Armed Forces. Foreign MBT (VT-4) for PA. Foreign Frigates (054) and Subs (039) for PN.
> At least JF-17 is not completely foreign. PAF is ahead in this case. Had AK production continued, PA would have been on par with PAF.


PN has had a late start comparatively speaking. Naval assets cost a lot more as compared to assets of other branches(in general). Usually u will find the cost of a sub or a decently capable frigate(or if we go higher a destroyer) is a lot more per unit as compared to a tank, MLRS, artillery, attack helicopter, and sometimes even jets. PN has been neglected for far too long(as in not enough funds available as much was needed)...
...not to mention the lack of private defense industry. So import is their only choice for systems as complex as frigates and subs. Still they have made commendable efforts...for example the last 4 of the 8 subs are to be built in Pak, Turkish frigates come with ToT, and the effort to domestically convert a commercial jet into an LRMPA.

In comparison PA has had less issues with availability of funding(if we compare it to PN). AK rolled out in early 2000s. From then on they had the option of churning it out in numbers...or if it was found lacking...they could've taken the PAF kind of route of a JV to seek the needed help so AK2 can be ready.
AK and AK1 are actually sufficient in their capability and the threat they face. The issue has been low numbers produced. Funds could've been allocated to ramp up production. In any case...idk the details of why AK/AK1 couldn't meet the numbers that were needed...and hence VT4 was acquired to fill the gap. The point is the army had much longer to make smart uses of its budget. PAF and PN have made great strides in various fronts whether it involves JV, or ToT, or integrating assets for a better situational awareness, etc. I hope PA can learn from that...and make efficient use of its funds to stretch every dollar and squeeze maximum benefit out of it...along with preparing for the modern battlefield(something akin to what we saw from PAF in Feb 2019...complete and total awareness and control of the situation).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PAR 5

waz said:


> Bro still significant gaps to be filled even with the VT-4, I guess that’s where Al-Khalid production will count.



That is the real PROBLEM! Instead of formal planning & investing into making ONE tank for Pakistan at HIT, Pakistan Army is always filling 'operational gaps' by buying T-80UD and VT-4 types tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Dazzler

T-90 after knowing that the VT-4 has been inducted by PA

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
6


----------



## The Eagle

PAR 5 said:


> That is the real PROBLEM! Instead of formal planning & investing into making ONE tank for Pakistan at HIT, Pakistan Army is always filling 'operational gaps' by buying T-80UD and VT-4 types tanks



Al-Khalid route is exactly what can be called for self reliance, modern, advance & beasty kind of indigenous tank at home. Sometimes, given the circumstances & resources; one had to wait a lot without telling everyone that we are in need and helpless.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kursed

M109A5s, SH-15, VN-1, VT-4, Z10-ME (almost all big ticket items), high speed DLs allowing high speed net centricity - this feels like PA has bet big on revamping armor, specially from a strike corps perspective.

Still, all said and done, air defense will remain a huge liability (not to a level of 2000-10) but still the threat is critical. And SHORADS alone won't cut it. Army will need to eventually share some of this moolah with PAF. =)

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Signalian

Cookie Monster said:


> AK and AK1 are actually sufficient in their capability and the threat they face. The issue has been low numbers produced. Funds could've been allocated to ramp up production. In any case...idk the details of why AK/AK1 couldn't meet the numbers that were needed...and hence VT4 was acquired to fill the gap.


Nothing against VT-4. 
MBts are here to stay in PA, an ever lasting vision is needed. I previously said that T-59 should completely exit so one can see how many different types of tanks are operated by PA. In contrast, IA has majority T-72 and then T-90.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ARMalik

Welcome VT-4 ! I hope we don't have to wait for long for the confirmation of Z-10, J-15/16, JH-7, J-10, and other goodies including the newer versions of the chinese Submarines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Blacklight said:


> Wild guess,
> 
> 1a. SSK
> 1b. SSN
> 1c. SSBN - 8 silo
> 2. Z10ME
> 3. AH-1Z
> 4. F16- Blk70/72
> 5. J15
> 6. J10
> 7. Jh-7



You forgetting about SH-15, 9 C-130, upgradation of F16,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JohnWick

Dazzler said:


> It's 9 rounds a minute.


R 5 second for one round😍


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> Nothing against VT-4.
> MBts are here to stay in PA, an ever lasting vision is needed. I previously said that T-59 should completely exit so one can see how many different types of tanks are operated by PA. In contrast, IA has majority T-72 and then T-90.


Don't you think we should increase the number of tank regiments deployed with infantry by keep utilizing the Type 59/69 fleet?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

PanzerKiel said:


> Already raised and deployed.


I think u are in the armd corps or MO directorate

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

ARMalik said:


> Welcome VT-4 ! I hope we don't have to wait for long for the confirmation of Z-10, J-15/16, JH-7, J-10, and other goodies including the newer versions of the chinese Submarines.


J 15 can not be exported by china acc to the agreement with Russia and i hope that Pakistan will never go for jh7 though they might choose z10 if the viper deal is again delayed or rejected

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Tipu7 said:


> Don't you think we should increase the number of tank regiments deployed with infantry by keep utilizing the Type 59/69 fleet?


Yes they should provide more armd regiments to inf divs however these old tanks might not hold much chance against the indians and will only add to maintenance costs. But they can be used for countering sudden manouvers or can be used to support regularl armoured thrusts like the panzer keil used bu the germans

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Signalian said:


> Nothing against VT-4.
> MBts are here to stay in PA, an ever lasting vision is needed. I previously said that T-59 should completely exit so one can see how many different types of tanks are operated by PA. In contrast, IA has majority T-72 and then T-90.


Yes I have nothing against the VT4 either...it's a great tank. My issue is not having a vision and too much splintering of the tank types...which would create inefficiencies and be a disadvantage in a prolonged war.

To reduce the number of types...and somewhat address the chronic shortage of funds...I think Pak should try to sell some or all of its T59/T69 to BD(or some other country that operates these already). In case of BD...depending on the condition of the tank...they can either cannibalize them or upgrade them to Durjoy standard(which is kind of similar to AZ).

Add that money to the budget of AK production and churn out more AKs. T80UD, T85s...and the rumored upgrades for them...are still capable and should serve longer. AZ can serve in areas where lighter tanks are needed on the eastern front...otherwise it can be used on the western front or put in storage(in case of a prolonged war...they may be needed to make up depleting numbers of tanks). At least this way T59/T69s can be removed from the various types...adding more AKs to create some semblance of uniformity.

With time AZ, T80UD, and T85s can also be phased out...but that's much further. Long term plan should be for two tank types...heavy/medium weight(like for example VT4 and AK...some variant)...
...or whatever else suits the army's needs. One thing is for sure...this "stop gap" purchases of a couple hundred this and a couple hundred that needs to stop.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> I think u are in the armd corps or MO directorate


I'm still trying to get selected in army.... Would love to join Armor Corps.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Haha Haha:
12 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm still trying to get selected in army.... Would love to join Armor Corps.


80th PMA long course

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## bhola record

Reichmarshal said:


> 80th PMA long course


u?


----------



## Ghost 125

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm still trying to get selected in army.... Would love to join Armor Corps.


plz dont turn on army after you are twice rejected from ISSB...

Reactions: Haha Haha:
4 | Sad Sad:
3


----------



## El Observer

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm still trying to get selected in army.... Would love to join Armor Corps.


Sure hope this reply wasn't posted through Internet explorer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

El Observer said:


> Sure hope this reply wasn't posted through Internet explorer.


What's wrong in Internet explorer?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Timely addition however need proper numbers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## baqai

i am not a armor guy but holy **** that thing can move and is agile :o it was moving like a dinky suzuki mehran was being driven

hoping and waiting for PAF and PN surprises to reveal

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

BTA-4 apfsds is the improvement over type-2M that was standard in the MBT 2000 series
600mm penetration (minimum) @ 0 degree/ frontal arc for a tungsten round should scare many in the neighborhood. 

One of the major drawbacks that the Oplot suffered was the ammo. It could fire BM-42 Mango (430mm certified penetration), less than what the basic POF tungsten round could do (460mm certified penetration).

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## El Observer

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm still trying to get selected in army.... Would love to join Armor Corps.


Sure hope this reply wasn't posted through Internet explorer.


Dazzler said:


> BTA-4 apfsds is the improvement over type-2M that was standard in the MBT 2000 series
> 600mm penetration (minimum) @ 0 degree/ frontal arc for a tungsten round should scare many in the neighborhood.
> 
> One of the major drawbacks that the Oplot suffered was the ammo. It could fire BM-42 Mango (430mm certified penetration), less than what the basic POF tungsten round could do (460mm certified penetration).
> 
> View attachment 672453


Any reference to how much mm of protection does VT-4 have.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

El Observer said:


> Sure hope this reply wasn't posted through Internet explorer.


What's wrong in Internet explorer?


----------



## El Observer

PanzerKiel said:


> What's wrong in Internet explorer?


It's worse than the french in phoney war.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

El Observer said:


> Sure hope this reply wasn't posted through Internet explorer.
> 
> Any reference to how much mm of protection does VT-4 have.


Over 950mm against KE with FY-4 turret and hull (0-30 degree)
1300 against CE with FY-4 turret and hull

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> 80th PMA long course


My father was a Platoon commander in PMA at that time. If you were referring to Sir Panzerkiel, then he might know him. Small world.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm still trying to get selected in army.... Would love to join Armor Corps.


Please join MIB instead

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Inception-06

PanzerKiel said:


> Already raised and deployed.



Will Alzarrar regiments be deployed at the western Border if so why?


----------



## CriticalThought

@PanzerKiel are you allowed to comment on VT-4's ability to withstand NBC and EW attacks? What if we explode one of our tactical neutron bombs while this tank is nearby? Does that thick armor provide any protection against incoming neutrons? My guess is that this beast works perfectly well in cohesion with Nasr, and the possibility of Nasr exploding in close quarters is what instigated this purchase. Interestingly, just recently there was a news item that China has tested 'low level' nuclear weapons









China may have secretly conducted low-level nuclear test blasts


US concerns about Beijing's possible pact breaches have been prompted by activities at China's Lop Nur nuclear test site throughout 2019.




www.smh.com.au

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

CriticalThought said:


> @PanzerKiel are you allowed to comment on VT-4's ability to withstand NBC and EW attacks? What if we explode one of our tactical neutron bombs while this tank is nearby? Does that thick armor provide any protection against incoming neutrons? My guess is that this beast works perfectly well in cohesion with Nasr, and the possibility of Nasr exploding in close quarters is what instigated this purchase. Interestingly, just recently there was a news item that China has tested 'low level' nuclear weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China may have secretly conducted low-level nuclear test blasts
> 
> 
> US concerns about Beijing's possible pact breaches have been prompted by activities at China's Lop Nur nuclear test site throughout 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smh.com.au



Dear

Of course I'm not allowed. But even then, I'll pitch in whenever I see the you guys are about to go in an entirely wrong direction on any topic.

I made a light hearted comment a few days ago on 9 Sep ... Regarding my ears getting affected by a muzzle blast of a big gun.... It was with the same purpose... 









Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions


@PanzerKiel Anything new you heard brother on this?



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
14 | Love Love:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Sulman Badshah

As i heard First Regiment delivery to be completed by Sep 20-21... Total 4 regiments are on order

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Cuirassier

Inception-06 said:


> Will Alzarrar regiments be deployed at the western Border if so why?



why in the west? anyways, hope that the purpose is to shed out Type 59s from the inventory by re-equipping regiments, and that there are no new raisings for now. quality over quantity.

the distribution of armour is, at the end of the day, all speculation when you go down at brigade-level. some may have 2, some may have 3. not all are known.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

Sulman Badshah said:


> As i heard First Regiment delivery to be completed by Sep 20-21... Total 4 regiments are on order



Total requirements is 300 first order is 176 out of which 44 already delivered if I read correctly. So more then 4 regiments can raise


----------



## PanzerKiel

Sulman Badshah said:


> As i heard First Regiment delivery to be completed by Sep 20-21... Total 4 regiments are on order



Present order of 300 is sufficient to equip six complete regiments, plus 36 to 40 tanks for training installations , attrition and reserves.

A repeat order in the near future, of an upgraded variant of VT4 will see us rearming our second armoured division as well.

We would thus have almost 600 surplus tanks, almost equally divided between T80s and AZ. Possible options could be raising of another two armored or mechanised divisions, or raising upto 7 armored or independent armored brigades.

Or we can allow the T80s to remain in place, and utilise the upgraded VT4s for another division or independent brigades. 

Possible scenarios and options..... Interesting though.

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## Reichmarshal

Total no. Envisaged at this poi t in time by PA is 1000. To be inducted in batches.
I think PA also plans to follow the thunder model according to which each batch is upgraded and more advance than the previous.

After it's induction is complete PA will be primarily operating 3 types ie Al Khalid, T80UD And VT4. Al Zarrar will continue to operate with FC.
T85 will be held in reserve.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Cookie Monster

Reichmarshal said:


> Total no. Envisaged at this poi t in time by PA is 1000. To be inducted in batches.
> I think PA also plans to follow the thunder model according to which each batch is upgraded and more advance than the previous.
> 
> After it's induction is complete PA will be primarily operating 3 types ie Al Khalid, T80UD And VT4. Al Zarrar will continue to operate with FC.
> T85 will be held in reserve.


1000 of VT4?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## farooqbhai007

If T-85UGs are for reserve then why are we upgrading them with improved engine & FCS & sights

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Reichmarshal

Total no of AK and VT envisaged at this point wont materialize with snap of finger but will take at least 3-5 year....if the situation remains favourable ie.

wt do u expect the a.c. boys to be doing till than.... the t85 are a potent machine and form our second line of defence.

Al zarrar could go to fc and the formations defending our western flank could get t85.
With the raising of new a.c. regt, we are short of quality machines.
In such a scenario t55/59 could be our reserve.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Reichmarshal

PanzerKiel said:


> Present order of 300 is sufficient to equip six complete regiments, plus 36 to 40 tanks for training installations , attrition and reserves.
> 
> A repeat order in the near future, of an upgraded variant of VT4 will see us rearming our second armoured division as well.
> 
> We would thus have almost 600 surplus tanks, almost equally divided between T80s and AZ. Possible options could be raising of another two armored or mechanised divisions, or raising upto 7 armored or independent armored brigades.
> 
> Or we can allow the T80s to remain in place, and utilise the upgraded VT4s for another division or independent brigades.
> 
> Possible scenarios and options..... Interesting though.


T80 along with AK form the tip of our spear and the overall and upgradation they are going through will add a lot of advanced features to it and bring it close to oplot. 
They are not going any where. AZ is a different story altogether, hence HIT stopped the program some years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Cookie Monster said:


> 1000 of VT4?



Yes well established fact bro.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
3 | Wow Wow:
3


----------



## Cookie Monster

waz said:


> Yes well established fact bro.


Glad to hear 
...excuse my lack of knowledge...I've been rather busy lately and haven't been frequenting PDF as much as I used to.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

Cookie Monster said:


> Glad to hear
> ...excuse my lack of knowledge...I've been rather busy lately and haven't been frequenting PDF as much as I used to.



No need to excuse yourself brother, many of us are busy. The only thing that matters that we all keep on coming together to make sure our Fatherland perseveres and remains strong.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## Raja Porus

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968See the accuracy of its main as well as coaxial gun and also the hull and turret traverse speed. Mind blowing

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Max Pain

Desert Fox 1 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968See the accuracy of its main as well as coaxial gun and also the hull and turret traverse speed. Mind blowing


looks so agile and nimble for a 52 ton tank.
Good addition.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

Sulman Badshah said:


> As i heard First Regiment delivery to be completed by Sep 20-21... Total 4 regiments are on order


Any chance of producing them in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sulman Badshah

Zarvan said:


> Any chance of producing them in Pakistan.


Not seeing any production in HIT in near future ... Norinco Mongolia is very efficient in delivering at a fast pace

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cookie Monster

I would assume that a lot of technical details will be classified...but just to speculate are there any similarities between VT4(further development of VT1) and AK(a modified VT1)?
If there are...
...that compatibility could mean an easier flow of VT4 tech to AK future blocks.
@Dazzler @HRK @PanzerKiel @Quwa

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

The best thing about vt4 is the engine

Initially when it came n failed the trials PA was very impressed with the engine n wanted just the engine.
So we may see this engine in AK soon

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

Reichmarshal said:


> The best thing about vt4 is the engine
> 
> Initially when it came n failed the trials PA was very impressed with the engine n wanted just the engine.
> So we may say this engine in AK soon


@PanzerKiel Is it true ???


----------



## alimobin memon

Dazzler said:


> Over 950mm against KE with FY-4 turret and hull (0-30 degree)
> 1300 against CE with FY-4 turret and hull


That makes it super effective even against abrams, any source of this claim sir ?


----------



## Dazzler

alimobin memon said:


> That makes it super effective even against abrams, any source of this claim sir ?


Geo news, Jung group and Hamid Mir.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
7


----------



## Tair-Lahoti

what impact it will make on Alkhlid-2 development?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alimobin memon

Dazzler said:


> Geo news, Jung group and Hamid Mir.


Right, its 700 to 750mm max. Its not chinese Type 99A but its lower end version.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

Cookie Monster said:


> I would assume that a lot of technical details will be classified...but just to speculate are there any similarities between VT4(further development of VT1) and AK(a modified VT1)?
> If there are...
> ...that compatibility could mean an easier flow of VT4 tech to AK future blocks.
> @Dazzler @HRK @PanzerKiel @Quwa


difficult to say anything as of now as the information available in public domain indicates nothing common among the two tanks you mentioned

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Thread stuck.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Dazzler

alimobin memon said:


> Right, its 700 to 750mm max. Its not chinese Type 99A but its lower end version.



Perhaps i know something you don't. Right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Beast

Zarvan said:


> Any chance of producing them in Pakistan.


No, the armour and engine are state of art which diificult to produce or fabricate with massive industries support.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## nomi007

Pakistan needs MRAP vehicles than VT-4 tanks.
Hope PA will add Norinco MRAP for protection of soldiers in Baluchistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

nomi007 said:


> Pakistan needs MRAP vehicles than VT-4 tanks.
> Hope PA will add Norinco MRAP for protection of soldiers in Baluchistan.


Only MRAPs can survive large IEDs ... tanks will be blown straight out of the sky.


Desert Fox 1 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968See the accuracy of its main as well as coaxial gun and also the hull and turret traverse speed. Mind blowing


The Chinese fire control systems are pretty much state of the art at this point ... much better than Russian ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Waterboy

Desert Fox 1 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308413990922579968See the accuracy of its main as well as coaxial gun and also the hull and turret traverse speed. Mind blowing


Why is it rocking back and forth when firing at 0:32. Is this normal?


----------



## hussain0216

Cookie Monster said:


> 1000 of VT4?



Don't be surprised if we go well beyond 1000

In the mix we are also getting alot of "extra stuff" that will help our development of AK, Ak2

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

Waterboy said:


> Why is it rocking back and forth when firing at 0:32. Is this normal?


It’s the recoil from the gun, a tank needs to have very good recoil control, if the tank didn’t move like that to cancel the forces from the gun and stayed stiff it would basically destroy itself from the vibrations of the gun. It’s a normal thing. Some extra movement may be seen due to the skirts over the tracks. It’s also firing over it’s side which means less of the length of the hull is receiving the recoil (in the opposite direction to the recoil). All these factors combined make it seem like it’s wobbling too much. But it’s nothing out of the ordinary.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## iLION12345_1

alimobin memon said:


> Right, its 700 to 750mm max. Its not chinese Type 99A but its lower end version.


They would never give you an actual figure. But the first one is obviously too high to be realistic. Nonetheless it is more than enough, especially against what the enemy has in store for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Cuirassier

off-topic but what happened to the 132-odd Type 69s that were refitted with 100mm guns and sent to FC KP/BLN? Considering the fact that all operations of such nature are over since '17, there is a possibility of them being returned to the army, with or without refitting the 105mm again. any insight? @PanzerKiel 

Many are suggesting that we're getting 7 regiments of VT-4s. How would those add-up if the total order is going to be 300? (considering 44 per regiment). would there be some more orders or change in ceiling per regt or 6 regts plus a recce regt? the latter looks probable.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> They would never give you an actual figure. But the first one is obviously too high to be realistic. Nonetheless it is more than enough, especially against what the enemy has in store for it.


Hamid mir is pissed off

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## alimobin memon

iLION12345_1 said:


> They would never give you an actual figure. But the first one is obviously too high to be realistic. Nonetheless it is more than enough, especially against what the enemy has in store for it.


Alkhalid already has 650mm naiza 2 round so my estimate is good that it wont be beyond 800mm but will be between 700 to 800mm


----------



## JPMM

iLION12345_1 said:


> It’s the recoil from the gun, a tank needs to have very good recoil control, if the tank didn’t move like that to cancel the forces from the gun and stayed stiff it would basically destroy itself from the vibrations of the gun. It’s a normal thing. Some extra movement may be seen due to the skirts over the tracks. It’s also firing over it’s side which means less of the length of the hull is receiving the recoil (in the opposite direction to the recoil). All these factors combined make it seem like it’s wobbling too much. But it’s nothing out of the ordinary.


"Normal for Eastern Block Tanks!




Portuguese Leo2A6 firing at its side, 120/55 gun






Keep the volume low for this!




(Dont try to translate)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Syed1.

Will induction of VT-4 help in the development of AK2?


Perhaps we could ask our Chinese friends for some ToT


----------



## Zulfiqar

Dazzler said:


> T-90 after knowing that the VT-4 has been inducted by PA
> 
> View attachment 672391



With a turret that moves this fast the T-90 would be sh!TT!ng ERA bricks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Path-Finder

I wonder if there will be a development the main gun department. after the revelation of Rheinmetall 130mm gun, maybe its time to push for beyond 125mm

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Blacklight

Desert Fox 1 said:


> I think u are in the armd corps or MO directorate


Higher than that, much higher.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Thorough Pro

I didn't know VT4's fly in the sky and how the heck do they plant IED's in the sky? 



Figaro said:


> ... tanks will be blown straight out of the sky.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Figaro

Thorough Pro said:


> I didn't know VT4's fly in the sky and how the heck do they plant IED's in the sky?


A M1 Abrams tank blown apart by an IED ... most likely around 20 kg. When I meant a tank will be blown out of the sky ... I meant it loosely. But below is the reason why you still need a dedicated MRAP instead of a tank to face IEDs. There are some IEDs tanks can deal with but a majority of them will end in bad consequences.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakFactor

Figaro said:


> A M1 Abrams tank blown apart by an IED ... most likely around 20 kg. When I meant a tank will be blown out of the sky ... I meant it loosely. But below is the reason why you still need a dedicated MRAP instead of a tank to face IEDs. There are some IEDs tanks can deal with but a majority of them will end in bad consequences.
> View attachment 673041



I want to know how the turret separated the way it did and got tossed away. And survival of the crew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thorough Pro

Fighter jets are shot/blown out of the sky because they fly, tanks don't fly so they can't be "blown out of the sky" they can be blown to pieces, or blown to smithereens or blown out *to* space, etc. etc.



Figaro said:


> Only MRAPs can survive large IEDs ... tanks *will be blown straight out of the sky*.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Figaro

Thorough Pro said:


> Fighter jets are shot/blown out of the sky because they fly, tanks don't fly so they can't be "blown out of the sky" they can be blown to pieces, or blown to smithereens or blown out *to* space, etc. etc.


It is just a saying ... I'm really not sure why you are so hung up on a saying. Of course I do not mean a tank can fly. I just mean an IED has the power to hurl a tank into the air, which is why a MRAP is needed to counter these threats   .

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## maverick1977

PakFactor said:


> I want to know how the turret separated the way it did and got tossed away. And survival of the crew.



the only possible explanation is that the ammo inside exploded and threw the turret away..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Thorough Pro

Had the ammo exploded, the tank won't be in one piece. Ammo is not stored in the turret, it is stored in the back section, which is intact



maverick1977 said:


> the only possible explanation is that the ammo inside exploded and threw the turret away..


----------



## Mrc

Figaro said:


> Only MRAPs can survive large IEDs ... tanks will be blown straight out of the sky.
> 
> The Chinese fire control systems are pretty much state of the art at this point ... much better than Russian ones.




MRAP is only a transport its not an offensive weapon like a tank 

with MRAPS u can build a police not an army. 

Yes in certain forms of war they have their utility which they are yet to prove as country fielding most MRAPS have lost all wars of attrition they fought to date

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

alimobin memon said:


> Alkhalid already has 650mm naiza 2 round so my estimate is good that it wont be beyond 800mm but will be between 700 to 800mm


I wasn’t talking about penetration values but armor effectiveness. I agree with the penetration number stated by Dazzler, it could be even higher for the same tank with better ammo. 
I just think the armor effectiveness numbers might be lower than what was stated first. But again, it’ll be more than enough to deal with anything. Or I could be wrong too, who knows


----------



## iLION12345_1

JPMM said:


> "Normal for Eastern Block Tanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portuguese Leo2A6 firing at its side, 120/55 gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep the volume low for this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Dont try to translate)


I’ve noticed that too, it’s quite interesting, is that due to the increased weight or is there a better/different recoil mitigation system?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Cookie Monster said:


> Yes I have nothing against the VT4 either...it's a great tank. My issue is not having a vision and too much splintering of the tank types...which would create inefficiencies and be a disadvantage in a prolonged war.
> 
> To reduce the number of types...and somewhat address the chronic shortage of funds...I think Pak should try to sell some or all of its T59/T69 to BD(or some other country that operates these already). In case of BD...depending on the condition of the tank...they can either cannibalize them or upgrade them to Durjoy standard(which is kind of similar to AZ).
> 
> Add that money to the budget of AK production and churn out more AKs. T80UD, T85s...and the rumored upgrades for them...are still capable and should serve longer. AZ can serve in areas where lighter tanks are needed on the eastern front...otherwise it can be used on the western front or put in storage(in case of a prolonged war...they may be needed to make up depleting numbers of tanks). At least this way T59/T69s can be removed from the various types...adding more AKs to create some semblance of uniformity.
> 
> With time AZ, T80UD, and T85s can also be phased out...but that's much further. Long term plan should be for two tank types...heavy/medium weight(like for example VT4 and AK...some variant)...
> ...or whatever else suits the army's needs. One thing is for sure...this "stop gap" purchases of a couple hundred this and a couple hundred that needs to stop.


Its the AK project and production by HIT where my concerns lie. Buying weapons from other countries to safeguard own country, when the production assemblies in own country are in place is disappointing. Pakistan Army is 73-74 years old in experience now. Deterrence has been achieved through nuclear weapons and defences have been set up through new formations and reserves. Offensives would require local production for losses to be replaced in battlefield in order to continue and press on that offensive. 33% losses occur and unit loses its potential, that is roughly 14-15 Tanks ( a squadron worth) out of 44-45 tanks of an armor regiment. This is where reserve weapons come in as replacement, if any. Tomorrow 6th Armd Div goes to war, starts incurring VT-4 tank losses, it will stay on the defensive for the rest of the war, unless losses are replaced. Even if PA buys 1000 VT-4, local production (AK) is cheaper economically, reliable and can be speeded up if required.

In 1965, 1st Armd Div crossed border, faced losses and went to Sialkot to reinforce 6th Armd Div. In 1971, both Armd Divs kept sitting as strategic reserves. Tactics were changed in EX Zarb-e-Momin as Type-85 was deployed to face T-72, but the bulk of armor was Type-59 even then. Strike formations are expected to operate in enemy territory, losses will occur. If new formations keep forming up, PA will ad hoc commands in war time and start shuffling them and their weaponry.



Tipu7 said:


> Don't you think we should increase the number of tank regiments deployed with infantry by keep utilizing the Type 59/69 fleet?


Either do that or give Type-59 to FC. No reserve equipment for losses still.

99% of armored warfare is driving (mobility, covering terrain) otherwise an immobile tank is a sitting duck like a pill box. Look at Longewala on the map, check its distance from the IB. PA was expecting miracles from a Type-59 with a small engine and average speed in the desert. M-48s covered more distance under 1st Armed Div in 1965. Type-59 II is upgraded, 105mm HE round is good against infantry and its speed is adequate when deployed with an infantry formation but an infantry formation which is expected to launch attacks not just hold ground, should be given a modern tank, not just increasing the armored regiments.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## maverick1977

Thorough Pro said:


> Had the ammo exploded, the tank won't be in one piece. Ammo is not stored in the turret, it is stored in the back section, which is intact



fire caused the ammo to explode and blow the tank up.. it exploded from inside.. thats the only way it can happen...

secondly, pls check ammo storage on M1.. u will see three storage areas

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Mrc said:


> MRAP is only a transport its not an offensive weapon like a tank
> 
> with MRAPS u can build a police not an army.
> 
> Yes in certain forms of war they have their utility which they are yet to prove as country fielding most MRAPS have lost all wars of attrition they fought to date


Oh yes I know ... I was only advocating for a purchase of MRAPs alongside tanks. I never said the PA should choose MRAPs over tanks or anything like that. But in insurgency operations where IEDs are prevalent, MRAPs are very necessary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Blacklight said:


> Higher than that, much higher.


GOC? 😁😀😀


----------



## Dazzler

alimobin memon said:


> Right, its 700 to 750mm max. Its not chinese Type 99A but its lower end version.



Thats for the Thai version, not the PA version

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IceCold

Thorough Pro said:


> Fighter jets are shot/blown out of the sky because they fly, tanks don't fly so they can't be "blown out of the sky" they can be blown to pieces, or blown to smithereens or blown out *to* space, etc. etc.


Comeon man! Even you know what he meant. Why nitpick his post?


----------



## Ghost 125

Figaro said:


> A M1 Abrams tank blown apart by an IED ... most likely around 20 kg. When I meant a tank will be blown out of the sky ... I meant it loosely. But below is the reason why you still need a dedicated MRAP instead of a tank to face IEDs. There are some IEDs tanks can deal with but a majority of them will end in bad consequences.
> View attachment 673041


just 20 Kg IED cant do this to a 65+ ton tank.... its either a VBIED or an IED based on combination of several Artillery shells. Militants often use 107 mm rockets or multiple old 130/ 155/ 105/ 122 mm shells to make powerful IEDs. a single 130/155 mm shell weighs 42/43 KGs.. imagine a cluster of 4 or 5.
And an IED "That" powerful wont even spare an MRAP.
that being said, most IEDs are of lower yields and MRAPs saves lot of lives.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

PAR 5 said:


> That is the real PROBLEM! Instead of formal planning & investing into making ONE tank for Pakistan at HIT, Pakistan Army is always filling 'operational gaps' by buying T-80UD and VT-4 types tanks


VT-4 if comes with APS is something pakistan would not have been able to produce any way

if alkhlaid can match t90 then it is worth while, and production number should be increased

if alkalid is able to replace all other tanks, then i would call it massively sucessfull program,we have several other tanks to be replaced

however, we need indigenize component of alkhalid too, including the engine

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Thailand's VT-4

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

ziaulislam said:


> VT-4 if comes with APS is something pakistan would not have been able to produce any way
> 
> if alkhlaid can match t90 then it is worth while, and production number should be increased
> 
> if alkalid is able to replace all other tanks, then i would call it massively sucessfull program,we have several other tanks to be replaced
> 
> however, we need indigenize component of alkhalid too, including the engine


In WW2, during the Wehrmacht's French campaign, Rommel was commanding 7 Panzer Div. In order to cross a certain river, some bridging equipment was sent to and meant for a sister Panzer Division, the 5th Panzer Division. Rommel got hold of that equipment, used it for 7th panzer Division for crossing the river. I am not pointing out success of Rommel's Ghost Division. One division's resources are used by another Division to achieve success, which is good, since they are both on the same side, but keep reading.

In 1971, GOC of 23rd Infantry Division, Major General Iftikhar Janjua who had at his disposal his own Division plus 2 x Infantry brigades, 1 x armored Brigade and 2 x artillery Brigades. His troops were able to capture area of Chhamb near Tawi River, North west of Jammu. So from where did the extra troops come from? Obviously an Infantry Division was diluted and its troops were sent to join 23rd Infantry Division, which means that on its own 23rd ID could not have been successful. Start getting an idea how replacements will be found in war. 

In 1965, 1st Armd Div had lost 97 Tanks in Indian territory and then retreated, later whatever was left of 1st Armd Div was sent over to Sialkot to reinforce 6th Armd Duv (ex 100th Indp Armd Grp) . What if 1st Armd Div retreated, then was given replacement of lost tanks and was sent to another sector, not Sialkot ? IA had just 1 x Armd Div, PA had 2 x Armd Divs. Pakistan could have opened a new front in 1965, but there were no tank replacements. Lt Col. Nisar's 25th Cav was not even subordinate to 6th Armd Division, in fact, by the time 6th Armd Div started pouring in regiment by regiment, Lt Col. Nisar's regiment had caused such a shock and awe to Indian Army's 1st Armd Div from which the Indians never recovered. Would 1st Armd Div be sent to Sialkot after 6th Armd Div, if 6th Armd Div had replacements of its own for losses it could incur ? I dont think so.

On the Eastern side, PA had 5 x Infantry Divisions in 1971. There were 2 x AD Hoc Divs, with one Division having strength of a brigade only. The rest of the Divisions were never of full strength. The Command diluted units from different formations, then made new commands as Ad Hoc formations. Result remained the same. There was no question of replacements or reinforcements. Just adding more HQs attained nothing, except that more administrative staff and officers were now thrown in for handling more HQs. 

In 1971, Now Brig from Lt Col, Brig Nisar formed Changez force composed of 2 x Armd Regts and 1 x MIB to delay an advance of an IA Infantry Division. he succeeded in doing so and his force suffered some tank losses, there were no replacements. Changez force completed its task and was sent back. Had the tank replacements been there, could Brig Nisar go on an offensive to annihilate the retreating IA Infantry Div ? 

Yes, i know that im giving examples of 65 and 71 and this is 2020, even the name of the Armor School has been changed and new tactics have been introduced, new strategies have been formed, new tanks have been inducted, but are there replacements for losses ?

Tipu7 said that how about giving more Armored Regiments/tanks to Infantry formations. This is a good idea, even i advocated that Infantry Div should have an Armd Bde instead of a lone Armd Regiment. But when war erupts, as soon as the 6th Armd Division faces tank losses and there will be no replacements, the Corps HQ will allot the Armd Regts of Infantry formations to 6th Armd Div if the Ops need to be continued. This will lower the offensive capability of the infantry Division as it gets diluted. 

The good thing is that in 1965 and 1971, M4 shermans and even M-47 Pattons had a habit of bogging down in terrain or having other mechanical failures, so if a formation started off with 15 tanks, by the end of journey it would have 8-10 operational tanks as it wouldn't wait to recover bogged down or broken down tanks. Today the MBTs are more reliable mechanically. The Armd Divs have full compliment of armor and infantry and supporting artillery and AD. If someone reads PA history, they would find that PA formations were mentioned as an example as 4 Punjab minus 1 x Company captured xyz hill. So one wonders if an Infantry battalion is 4 x Coys, it means 3 x Coys of 4 Punjab were able to secure the area so where is the 4th Company? More often than not, its not held as reserve, yes sometimes its held as reserve but its usually found out that this company was deployed elsewhere or was used to reinforce another infantry battalion for an attack on enemy positions. This habit of diluting formations in PA should be put to an end. All formations should be equipped to the teeth to be able to complete the task with their subordinate forces. Corps HQ should be able to reinforce them using units from its own pool, not from another fighting formation rendering that formation to half strength and thus useless in more than one sense.

If VT-4 start taking losses, Higher Command could start taking VT-4 from other Regts as replacements thus reducing those regiments in strength (again you will hear 22 Cavalry minus 1 x Squadron) or detaching those regiments completely from their parent formations and allotting them to Armd Divs. It was in best interest to keep the AK production going and build extra tanks every year, throw them in storage and use them as replacements during war. Anyways PA would have sorted out this issue of replacing tank losses in war some how.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
30 | Love Love:
2


----------



## ARMalik

Those members asking for Local production of Tanks need to understand that NO ONE can match the production speed of the Chinese - no one in the World ! And that is why Pakistan had to buy these tanks due to time constraints but then also has a Local production for AK, and we all know how slow the production of AK has been. Again NO ONE can match the production speed and quality of the Chinese!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

I guess Indian acquisition of Israeli spike ATGM is now taken care of.


----------



## The Eagle

Tair-Lahoti said:


> what impact it will make on Alkhlid-2 development?



Positive, indeed. But that is not the case to discuss in this thread. We do have AK discussion separately.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Inception-06

Cookie Monster said:


> Yes I have nothing against the VT4 either...it's a great tank. My issue is not having a vision and too much splintering of the tank types...which would create inefficiencies and be a disadvantage in a prolonged war.
> 
> To reduce the number of types...and somewhat address the chronic shortage of funds...I think Pak should try to sell some or all of its T59/T69 to BD(or some other country that operates these already). In case of BD...depending on the condition of the tank...they can either cannibalize them or upgrade them to Durjoy standard(which is kind of similar to AZ).
> 
> Add that money to the budget of AK production and churn out more AKs. T80UD, T85s...and the rumored upgrades for them...are still capable and should serve longer. AZ can serve in areas where lighter tanks are needed on the eastern front...otherwise it can be used on the western front or put in storage(in case of a prolonged war...they may be needed to make up depleting numbers of tanks). At least this way T59/T69s can be removed from the various types...adding more AKs to create some semblance of uniformity.
> 
> With time AZ, T80UD, and T85s can also be phased out...but that's much further. Long term plan should be for two tank types...heavy/medium weight(like for example VT4 and AK...some variant)...
> ...or whatever else suits the army's needs. One thing is for sure...this "stop gap" purchases of a couple hundred this and a couple hundred that needs to stop.



I agree with you that we have to many types of weapons, but selling them would not bring the same value as just upgrade the complete fleet of T-series to Alzarrar Standard,I don’t know if Type-69 can be upgraded to Alzarrar Standard,and if the Alzarrar program is still running this can only be asnwered by @Dazzler, what are your thoughts on this vintage Tanks ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## maverick1977

Signalian said:


> In WW2, during the Wehrmacht's French campaign, Rommel was commanding 7 Panzer Div. In order to cross a certain river, some bridging equipment was sent to and meant for a sister Panzer Division, the 5th Panzer Division. Rommel got hold of that equipment, used it for 7th panzer Division for crossing the river. I am not pointing out success of Rommel's Ghost Division. One division's resources are used by another Division to achieve success, which is good, since they are both on the same side, but keep reading.
> 
> In 1971, GOC of 23rd Infantry Division, Major General Iftikhar Janjua who had at his disposal his own Division plus 2 x Infantry brigades, 1 x armored Brigade and 2 x artillery Brigades. His troops were able to capture area of Chhamb near Tawi River, North west of Jammu. So from where did the extra troops come from? Obviously an Infantry Division was diluted and its troops were sent to join 23rd Infantry Division, which means that on its own 23rd ID could not have been successful. Start getting an idea how replacements will be found in war.
> 
> In 1965, 1st Armd Div had lost 97 Tanks in Indian territory and then retreated, later whatever was left of 1st Armd Div was sent over to Sialkot to reinforce 6th Armd Duv (ex 100th Indp Armd Grp) . What if 1st Armd Div retreated, then was given replacement of lost tanks and was sent to another sector, not Sialkot ? IA had just 1 x Armd Div, PA had 2 x Armd Divs. Pakistan could have opened a new front in 1965, but there were no tank replacements. Lt Col. Nisar's 25th Cav was not even subordinate to 6th Armd Division, in fact, by the time 6th Armd Div started pouring in regiment by regiment, Lt Col. Nisar's regiment had caused such a shock and awe to Indian Army's 1st Armd Div from which the Indians never recovered. Would 1st Armd Div be sent to Sialkot after 6th Armd Div, if 6th Armd Div had replacements of its own for losses it could incur ? I dont think so.
> 
> On the Eastern side, PA had 5 x Infantry Divisions in 1971. There were 2 x AD Hoc Divs, with one Division having strength of a brigade only. The rest of the Divisions were never of full strength. The Command diluted units from different formations, then made new commands as Ad Hoc formations. Result remained the same. There was no question of replacements or reinforcements. Just adding more HQs attained nothing, except that more administrative staff and officers were now thrown in for handling more HQs.
> 
> In 1971, Now Brig from Lt Col, Brig Nisar formed Changez force composed of 2 x Armd Regts and 1 x MIB to delay an advance of an IA Infantry Division. he succeeded in doing so and his force suffered some tank losses, there were no replacements. Changez force completed its task and was sent back. Had the tank replacements been there, could Brig Nisar go on an offensive to annihilate the retreating IA Infantry Div ?
> 
> Yes, i know that im giving examples of 65 and 71 and this is 2020, even the name of the Armor School has been changed and new tactics have been introduced, new strategies have been formed, new tanks have been inducted, but are there replacements for losses ?
> 
> Tipu7 said that how about giving more Armored Regiments/tanks to Infantry formations. This is a good idea, even i advocated that Infantry Div should have an Armd Bde instead of a lone Armd Regiment. But when war erupts, as soon as the 6th Armd Division faces tank losses and there will be no replacements, the Corps HQ will allot the Armd Regts of Infantry formations to 6th Armd Div if the Ops need to be continued. This will lower the offensive capability of the infantry Division as it gets diluted.
> 
> The good thing is that in 1965 and 1971, M4 shermans and even M-47 Pattons had a habit of bogging down in terrain or having other mechanical failures, so if a formation started off with 15 tanks, by the end of journey it would have 8-10 operational tanks as it wouldn't wait to recover bogged down or broken down tanks. Today the MBTs are more reliable mechanically. The Armd Divs have full compliment of armor and infantry and supporting artillery and AD. If someone reads PA history, they would find that PA formations were mentioned as an example as 4 Punjab minus 1 x Company captured xyz hill. So one wonders if an Infantry battalion is 4 x Coys, it means 3 x Coys of 4 Punjab were able to secure the area so where is the 4th Company? More often than not, its not held as reserve, yes sometimes its held as reserve but its usually found out that this company was deployed elsewhere or was used to reinforce another infantry battalion for an attack on enemy positions. This habit of diluting formations in PA should be put to an end. All formations should be equipped to the teeth to be able to complete the task with their subordinate forces. Corps HQ should be able to reinforce them using units from its own pool, not from another fighting formation rendering that formation to half strength and thus useless in more than one sense.
> 
> If VT-4 start taking losses, Higher Command could start taking VT-4 from other Regts as replacements thus reducing those regiments in strength (again you will hear 22 Cavalry minus 1 x Squadron) or detaching those regiments completely from their parent formations and allotting them to Armd Divs. It was in best interest to keep the AK production going and build extra tanks every year, throw them in storage and use them as replacements during war. Anyways PA would have sorted out this issue of replacing tank losses in war some how.



bottom line, local manufacturing is needed to take Dehli period.. Pakistan should be able “capable” of producing 2 regiment size tanks every two weeks..


----------



## Cookie Monster

Inception-06 said:


> I agree with you that we have to many types of weapons, but selling them would not bring the same value as just upgrade the complete fleet of T-series to Alzarrar Standard,I don’t know if Type-69 can be upgraded to Alzarrar Standard,and if the Alzarrar program is still running this can only be asnwered by @Dazzler, what are your thoughts on this vintage Tanks ?


Yes I agree that selling them would bring very little money bcuz they would have to be sold very cheap for any buyers to be interested. I was just thinking out loud about the possibilities of reducing different types.

Other options could be just using them on the western front/cannibalizing them to maintain AZ fleet(for whatever commonality they might have)/storing them(for attrition)...or any mix of these. AZ program is done as far as I know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ARMalik said:


> Those members asking for Local production of Tanks need to understand that NO ONE can match the production speed of the Chinese - no one in the World ! And that is why Pakistan had to buy these tanks due to time constraints but then also has a Local production for AK, and we all know how slow the production of AK has been. Again NO ONE can match the production speed and quality of the Chinese!


Not only that import those production line will cost lots of money and delay. Japan apache and F-35 are very expensive per unit becos they import the production line which hikes the price per unit. 

Most importantly , crucial component like engine still need to be imported. Mitsubishi heavy INC goes bankrupt becos of this incident and only to be bailout by Japanese government.

China is a reliable military supplier unlike US. I see no reason to import production line which only spikes per unit cost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cuirassier

Signalian said:


> In WW2, during the Wehrmacht's French campaign, Rommel was commanding 7 Panzer Div. In order to cross a certain river, some bridging equipment was sent to and meant for a sister Panzer Division, the 5th Panzer Division. Rommel got hold of that equipment, used it for 7th panzer Division for crossing the river. I am not pointing out success of Rommel's Ghost Division. One division's resources are used by another Division to achieve success, which is good, since they are both on the same side, but keep reading.
> 
> In 1971, GOC of 23rd Infantry Division, Major General Iftikhar Janjua who had at his disposal his own Division plus 2 x Infantry brigades, 1 x armored Brigade and 2 x artillery Brigades. His troops were able to capture area of Chhamb near Tawi River, North west of Jammu. So from where did the extra troops come from? Obviously an Infantry Division was diluted and its troops were sent to join 23rd Infantry Division, which means that on its own 23rd ID could not have been successful. Start getting an idea how replacements will be found in war.
> 
> In 1965, 1st Armd Div had lost 97 Tanks in Indian territory and then retreated, later whatever was left of 1st Armd Div was sent over to Sialkot to reinforce 6th Armd Duv (ex 100th Indp Armd Grp) . What if 1st Armd Div retreated, then was given replacement of lost tanks and was sent to another sector, not Sialkot ? IA had just 1 x Armd Div, PA had 2 x Armd Divs. Pakistan could have opened a new front in 1965, but there were no tank replacements. Lt Col. Nisar's 25th Cav was not even subordinate to 6th Armd Division, in fact, by the time 6th Armd Div started pouring in regiment by regiment, Lt Col. Nisar's regiment had caused such a shock and awe to Indian Army's 1st Armd Div from which the Indians never recovered. Would 1st Armd Div be sent to Sialkot after 6th Armd Div, if 6th Armd Div had replacements of its own for losses it could incur ? I dont think so.
> 
> On the Eastern side, PA had 5 x Infantry Divisions in 1971. There were 2 x AD Hoc Divs, with one Division having strength of a brigade only. The rest of the Divisions were never of full strength. The Command diluted units from different formations, then made new commands as Ad Hoc formations. Result remained the same. There was no question of replacements or reinforcements. Just adding more HQs attained nothing, except that more administrative staff and officers were now thrown in for handling more HQs.
> 
> In 1971, Now Brig from Lt Col, Brig Nisar formed Changez force composed of 2 x Armd Regts and 1 x MIB to delay an advance of an IA Infantry Division. he succeeded in doing so and his force suffered some tank losses, there were no replacements. Changez force completed its task and was sent back. Had the tank replacements been there, could Brig Nisar go on an offensive to annihilate the retreating IA Infantry Div ?
> 
> Yes, i know that im giving examples of 65 and 71 and this is 2020, even the name of the Armor School has been changed and new tactics have been introduced, new strategies have been formed, new tanks have been inducted, but are there replacements for losses ?
> 
> Tipu7 said that how about giving more Armored Regiments/tanks to Infantry formations. This is a good idea, even i advocated that Infantry Div should have an Armd Bde instead of a lone Armd Regiment. But when war erupts, as soon as the 6th Armd Division faces tank losses and there will be no replacements, the Corps HQ will allot the Armd Regts of Infantry formations to 6th Armd Div if the Ops need to be continued. This will lower the offensive capability of the infantry Division as it gets diluted.
> 
> The good thing is that in 1965 and 1971, M4 shermans and even M-47 Pattons had a habit of bogging down in terrain or having other mechanical failures, so if a formation started off with 15 tanks, by the end of journey it would have 8-10 operational tanks as it wouldn't wait to recover bogged down or broken down tanks. Today the MBTs are more reliable mechanically. The Armd Divs have full compliment of armor and infantry and supporting artillery and AD. If someone reads PA history, they would find that PA formations were mentioned as an example as 4 Punjab minus 1 x Company captured xyz hill. So one wonders if an Infantry battalion is 4 x Coys, it means 3 x Coys of 4 Punjab were able to secure the area so where is the 4th Company? More often than not, its not held as reserve, yes sometimes its held as reserve but its usually found out that this company was deployed elsewhere or was used to reinforce another infantry battalion for an attack on enemy positions. This habit of diluting formations in PA should be put to an end. All formations should be equipped to the teeth to be able to complete the task with their subordinate forces. Corps HQ should be able to reinforce them using units from its own pool, not from another fighting formation rendering that formation to half strength and thus useless in more than one sense.
> 
> If VT-4 start taking losses, Higher Command could start taking VT-4 from other Regts as replacements thus reducing those regiments in strength (again you will hear 22 Cavalry minus 1 x Squadron) or detaching those regiments completely from their parent formations and allotting them to Armd Divs. It was in best interest to keep the AK production going and build extra tanks every year, throw them in storage and use them as replacements during war. Anyways PA would have sorted out this issue of replacing tank losses in war some how.


13 Punjab of Nisar/Changez Force was line infantry, not mechanized AFAIK.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

The biggest question is,
What is the feasibility of such major Indo-Pak conflict where armored units fully mobilize, engage in combat and began to suffer major attrition losses?

I myself believe, there is little to nothing that such possibility exists. Due to lowering of nuclear threshold, we might jump to bigger guns even before reaching to such escalation threshold where major armored confrontation will take place at multiple fronts.

Our armored forces are pre-dominantly conventional deterrent, meant to cover up low spectrum conflict located below the threshold of tactical nuclear weapons and above the threshold of limited air combat. Our armored and anti-armor forces are meant for posturing that enemy must realize that it cannot impose land war over Pakistan (i) as it cannot achieve its military objective as it perceives it can, and (ii) without risking inadvertent escalation which can lead to nuclear conflict.

Indo-Pak conflicts of future will be swift and limited. Major wars of attritions like we observed in WW-II, 1965 and 1971 are no longer possible.


Signalian said:


> In WW2, during the Wehrmacht's French campaign, Rommel was commanding 7 Panzer Div. In order to cross a certain river, some bridging equipment was sent to and meant for a sister Panzer Division, the 5th Panzer Division. Rommel got hold of that equipment, used it for 7th panzer Division for crossing the river. I am not pointing out success of Rommel's Ghost Division. One division's resources are used by another Division to achieve success, which is good, since they are both on the same side, but keep reading.
> 
> In 1971, GOC of 23rd Infantry Division, Major General Iftikhar Janjua who had at his disposal his own Division plus 2 x Infantry brigades, 1 x armored Brigade and 2 x artillery Brigades. His troops were able to capture area of Chhamb near Tawi River, North west of Jammu. So from where did the extra troops come from? Obviously an Infantry Division was diluted and its troops were sent to join 23rd Infantry Division, which means that on its own 23rd ID could not have been successful. Start getting an idea how replacements will be found in war.
> 
> In 1965, 1st Armd Div had lost 97 Tanks in Indian territory and then retreated, later whatever was left of 1st Armd Div was sent over to Sialkot to reinforce 6th Armd Duv (ex 100th Indp Armd Grp) . What if 1st Armd Div retreated, then was given replacement of lost tanks and was sent to another sector, not Sialkot ? IA had just 1 x Armd Div, PA had 2 x Armd Divs. Pakistan could have opened a new front in 1965, but there were no tank replacements. Lt Col. Nisar's 25th Cav was not even subordinate to 6th Armd Division, in fact, by the time 6th Armd Div started pouring in regiment by regiment, Lt Col. Nisar's regiment had caused such a shock and awe to Indian Army's 1st Armd Div from which the Indians never recovered. Would 1st Armd Div be sent to Sialkot after 6th Armd Div, if 6th Armd Div had replacements of its own for losses it could incur ? I dont think so.
> 
> On the Eastern side, PA had 5 x Infantry Divisions in 1971. There were 2 x AD Hoc Divs, with one Division having strength of a brigade only. The rest of the Divisions were never of full strength. The Command diluted units from different formations, then made new commands as Ad Hoc formations. Result remained the same. There was no question of replacements or reinforcements. Just adding more HQs attained nothing, except that more administrative staff and officers were now thrown in for handling more HQs.
> 
> In 1971, Now Brig from Lt Col, Brig Nisar formed Changez force composed of 2 x Armd Regts and 1 x MIB to delay an advance of an IA Infantry Division. he succeeded in doing so and his force suffered some tank losses, there were no replacements. Changez force completed its task and was sent back. Had the tank replacements been there, could Brig Nisar go on an offensive to annihilate the retreating IA Infantry Div ?
> 
> Yes, i know that im giving examples of 65 and 71 and this is 2020, even the name of the Armor School has been changed and new tactics have been introduced, new strategies have been formed, new tanks have been inducted, but are there replacements for losses ?
> 
> Tipu7 said that how about giving more Armored Regiments/tanks to Infantry formations. This is a good idea, even i advocated that Infantry Div should have an Armd Bde instead of a lone Armd Regiment. But when war erupts, as soon as the 6th Armd Division faces tank losses and there will be no replacements, the Corps HQ will allot the Armd Regts of Infantry formations to 6th Armd Div if the Ops need to be continued. This will lower the offensive capability of the infantry Division as it gets diluted.
> 
> The good thing is that in 1965 and 1971, M4 shermans and even M-47 Pattons had a habit of bogging down in terrain or having other mechanical failures, so if a formation started off with 15 tanks, by the end of journey it would have 8-10 operational tanks as it wouldn't wait to recover bogged down or broken down tanks. Today the MBTs are more reliable mechanically. The Armd Divs have full compliment of armor and infantry and supporting artillery and AD. If someone reads PA history, they would find that PA formations were mentioned as an example as 4 Punjab minus 1 x Company captured xyz hill. So one wonders if an Infantry battalion is 4 x Coys, it means 3 x Coys of 4 Punjab were able to secure the area so where is the 4th Company? More often than not, its not held as reserve, yes sometimes its held as reserve but its usually found out that this company was deployed elsewhere or was used to reinforce another infantry battalion for an attack on enemy positions. This habit of diluting formations in PA should be put to an end. All formations should be equipped to the teeth to be able to complete the task with their subordinate forces. Corps HQ should be able to reinforce them using units from its own pool, not from another fighting formation rendering that formation to half strength and thus useless in more than one sense.
> 
> If VT-4 start taking losses, Higher Command could start taking VT-4 from other Regts as replacements thus reducing those regiments in strength (again you will hear 22 Cavalry minus 1 x Squadron) or detaching those regiments completely from their parent formations and allotting them to Armd Divs. It was in best interest to keep the AK production going and build extra tanks every year, throw them in storage and use them as replacements during war. Anyways PA would have sorted out this issue of replacing tank losses in war some how.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ZY-CN-CA

so could I ask ---choose which kind of Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon?


----------



## LeGenD

Figaro said:


> A M1 Abrams tank blown apart by an IED ... most likely around 20 kg. When I meant a tank will be blown out of the sky ... I meant it loosely. But below is the reason why you still need a dedicated MRAP instead of a tank to face IEDs. There are some IEDs tanks can deal with but a majority of them will end in bad consequences.
> View attachment 673041


That cannot be the work of a single IED.

Looks like that MBT was (intentionally) destroyed with considerable amount of explosives/firepower which could be utilized unopposed.

For reference:











Each MBT absorbed an otherwise combat-applicable attack and continued to offer mission support.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Raja Porus

Is there an active protection system on our vt4s as i didn't notice one nor there was any mention about it by DG ISPR? Pictures would be appreciated

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

ARMalik said:


> Those members asking for Local production of Tanks need to understand that NO ONE can match the production speed of the Chinese - no one in the World ! And that is why Pakistan had to buy these tanks due to time constraints but then also has a Local production for AK, and we all know how slow the production of AK has been. Again NO ONE can match the production speed and quality of the Chinese!


noone is asking pakistan to match chinese production, we dont need 20,000 tanks we just need 1000 tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Cookie Monster said:


> 1000 of VT4?


Ramification of “one child” policy as per the Indian way of reasoning! Doesn’t hurt Pak though.....


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Tair-Lahoti said:


> what impact it will make on Alkhlid-2 development?


China is the lead partner on the AK-series. So, it's possible that some stuff from the VT4 may make it over to the AK2. I hope (for easing logistics/maintenance) they use the same engine and transmission at least.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Figaro

ziaulislam said:


> noone is asking pakistan to match chinese production, we dont need 20,000 tanks we just need 1000 tanks


The Chinese don't even produce many tanks any more. The total production of the Type 99A, the most advanced tank in the PLAGF, is probably around 700 even though it has been in service for quite a while. This is because there are basically no overland threats to China except for India, which requires light tanks rather than traditional medium or heavy tanks. They used to have a huge arsenal because of the overland threat posed by the Soviet Union (hence the massive production of the Type 59) but that has been irrelevant for the past 30 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ARMalik

ziaulislam said:


> noone is asking pakistan to match chinese production, we dont need 20,000 tanks we just need 1000 tanks



If the Army can wait for 10 years with 50 tanks produced per year than OK because that is what has been going in Pakistan and also Ukraine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick1977

LeGenD said:


> That cannot be the work of a single IED.
> 
> Looks like that MBT was (intentionally) destroyed with considerable amount of explosives/firepower which could be utilized unopposed.
> 
> For reference:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each MBT absorbed an otherwise combat-applicable attack and continued to offer mission support.



what ATGMs were used to knockout merkava.. arent they the most thick armored with ERA on top

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakFactor

maverick1977 said:


> what ATGMs were used to knockout merkava.. arent they the most thick armored with ERA on top



And engine on the front as well --

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZY-CN-CA

thai-580 M$
PK-- 488 M$

what's the different？ why more cheaper than thailand? ?


----------



## iLION12345_1

ZY-CN-CA said:


> thai-580 M$
> PK-- 488 M$
> 
> what's the different？ why more cheaper than thailand? ?


Pakistan’s VT-4s are better than the Thai ones, better armor, engine and armament, the cheaper price might be because of the much larger order, 44 tanks versus a thousand tanks. It might also be because of Pakistan and chinas friendly relations, China is known to sell weapons to Pakistan at a cheaper price.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> Pakistan’s VT-4s are better than the Thai ones, better armor, engine and armament, the cheaper price might be because of the much larger order, 44 tanks versus a thousand tanks. It might also be because of Pakistan and chinas friendly relations, China is known to sell weapons to Pakistan at a cheaper price.


Thousand tanks are u serious!

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## S10

ZY-CN-CA said:


> thai-580 M$
> PK-- 488 M$
> 
> what's the different？ why more cheaper than thailand? ?


China generally sells weapons to Pakistan at production cost, rather than make a profit.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Fighting Falcon 01

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Thousand tanks are u serious!


Numbers will eventually reach 1000+ .. more will be procured in batches .... al khalid production is too slow and we need to replace some old tanks ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CriticalThought

PanzerKiel said:


> Dear
> 
> Of course I'm not allowed. But even then, I'll pitch in whenever I see the you guys are about to go in an entirely wrong direction on any topic.
> 
> I made a light hearted comment a few days ago on 9 Sep ... Regarding my ears getting affected by a muzzle blast of a big gun.... It was with the same purpose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions
> 
> 
> @PanzerKiel Anything new you heard brother on this?
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk



Many thanks sir. Let us reach an operational consensus here. If I ask your thoughts on anything, it is implied that only vetted and releasable information is sought. You may give a response, or you may not even give a response, depending on the situation. You will find me equally appreciative in either case. I am going to tag you in another thread on the matter of op sec.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Khan vilatey

Hey, I saw the fire display video in Jhelum and you all know what that means . exercises like this requires months of training. They hit at least 3 targets 2 on move and high speed maneuvers. This mean at least 2 -3 regiments have been training in China for months. Inclusive of eme unit to support operations. I say 3 because of the two on, one off rule. Can someone confirm ?

k

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## IblinI

Fighting Falcon 01 said:


> Numbers will eventually reach 1000+ .. more will be procured in batches .... al khalid production is too slow and we need to replace some old tanks ...


I doubt that you'll need a thousand MBT as tip of spear, just not cost wise viable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

IblinI said:


> I doubt that you'll need a thousand MBT as tip of spear, just not cost wise viable.


The problem is a lot of the Pakistani Indian border is good terrain for tank engagements. Whoever holds the advantage in MBTs and artillery commands the land battles. It is different from China versus India, where large or even medium tank battles are simply impossible due to the extremely high altitudes and mountainous terrain. That is why 600 to 1000 VT-4s is in the sights ... the current order of 300 is just the very beginning. Neither side has the ability to completely win the aerial war and use air superiority to level ground targets so tank warfare is still extremely crucial.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Fighting Falcon 01

IblinI said:


> I doubt that you'll need a thousand MBT as tip of spear, just not cost wise viable.


Some senior members were claiming that the total envisioned number is 1000 these will be ordered in batches ... we do need new tanks to replace older versions and the only way is vt4 because al Khalid production is too slow ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 52051

Congrats, I always think VT-4 looks far better than Type 99A.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## waz

IblinI said:


> I doubt that you'll need a thousand MBT as tip of spear, just not cost wise viable.



Yes we will. India will eventually have around 2,000 T-90's, mix of S/M and MS models.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Figaro said:


> The problem is a lot of the Pakistani Indian border is good terrain for tank engagements. Whoever holds the advantage in MBTs and artillery commands the land battles. It is different from China versus India, where large or even medium tank battles are simply impossible due to the extremely high altitudes and mountainous terrain. That is why 600 to 1000 VT-4s is in the sights ... the current order of 300 is just the very beginning. Neither side has the ability to completely win the aerial war and use air superiority to level ground targets so tank warfare is still extremely crucial.


It'll depend on the long-term cost of the VT4 and whether Pakistan can muster enough hard currency to support such a purchase. If China can package in offsets through buy-backs of Pakistani produced goods (outside of agriculture), that would help drive such a purchase. However, leveraging China's economies-of-scale to acquire cutting-edge tanks, IFVs, and AFVs is a good idea, it's just a question of feasibility. This is why there'll always be talk about looping in our defence industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tipu7

waz said:


> Yes we will. India will eventually have around 2,000 T-90's, mix of S/M and MS models.


1250 T-90S operational, 450+ further ordered. The total number will be around 1600+ in near future.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

S10 said:


> China generally sells weapons to Pakistan at production cost, rather than make a profit.



That's true, which supports Pakistan's position as China's strategic ally.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Tipu7 said:


> 1250 T-90S operational, 450+ further ordered. The total number will be around 1600+ in near future.



Bro did you take into account older models? The total is *2,121 *tanks;
310S models.
347M models.
1,000 MS models.
464MS models (further order).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

52051 said:


> Congrats, I always think VT-4 looks far better than Type 99A.


u wot m8? ZTZ-99A is the best looking tank of all time!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

waz said:


> Bro did you take into account older models? The total is *2,121 *tanks;
> 310S models.
> 347M models.
> 1,000 MS models.
> 464MS models (further order).


There is no MS in Indian Armed Forces yet. There is order for 464 MS versions. Rest all are T-90S versions (1250 total) with slight variations.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ghost 125

waz said:


> Bro did you take into account older models? The total is *2,121 *tanks;
> 310S models.
> 347M models.
> 1,000 MS models.
> 464MS models (further order).


numbers mentioned by Tipu are correct, MS are on order, no MS as of now in IA...they only have S or Bhishma models.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

Figaro said:


> The problem is a lot of the Pakistani Indian border is good terrain for tank engagements. Whoever holds the advantage in MBTs and artillery commands the land battles. It is different from China versus India, where large or even medium tank battles are simply impossible due to the extremely high altitudes and mountainous terrain. That is why 600 to 1000 VT-4s is in the sights ... the current order of 300 is just the very beginning. Neither side has the ability to completely win the aerial war and use air superiority to level ground targets so tank warfare is still extremely crucial.


Not a good assumption

Although we might have a tip of spear but i am pretty sure in a prolonged conflict IAF will able to dominate the skies..and it wont be pretty for army

IAF IN together field over 600 aicrafts twice that of PAF ..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Water Car Engineer

I dont think any MS is on order for India.


----------



## Yasser76

ziaulislam said:


> Not a good assumption
> 
> Although we might have a tip of spear but i am pretty sure in a prolonged conflict IAF will able to dominate the skies..and it wont be pretty for army
> 
> IAF IN together field over 600 aicrafts twice that of PAF ..



History proves you wrong, as do events as recent as 2019....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Tipu7 said:


> There is no MS in Indian Armed Forces yet. There is order for 464 MS versions. Rest all are T-90S versions (1250 total) with slight variations.



That's right, my post should have had the / to distinguish between the S and M version.

As for numbers, it's confusing, here from sources;

_*and 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service,*_









India’s Defense Ministry Signs $2.8 Billion Deal For 464 T-90MS Main Battle Tanks


The defense ministry concluded an agreement with the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board to license-build 464 T-90S main battle tanks.



thediplomat.com





*The Army currently operates 1,100 T-90S tanks, of which 300 were directly procured from Russia.*









India pays Russia $1.2 billion in technology transfer fees for T-90S tanks


India has awarded a $3.12 billion contract for local production of 464 T-90S main battle tanks after paying a technology transfer fee to Russia.




www.defensenews.com





* There are currently around 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service,* although the operational readiness rate of the tanks remains unclear. According to one estimate, 850-900 are of the T-90S Bhishma variant. Of the two, the T-









Meet India's T-90M Bhishma Tank: Russian Tech, Indian Made


A good combo?




nationalinterest.org





*In all, India plans to have 310 T-90S and 1,330 T-90M tanks in service by 2020 (total of 1,657 tanks by 2020).*









T-90M Bhishma:- India's Main Battle Tank (MBT) — Indian Defence News


The T-90 is a Russian third generation main battle tank.It is the latest development in the T-series of Russian tanks and represents an increase in firepower, mobility and protection. It is manufactured by Uralvagonzavod...




defenceupdate.in





The T-90S Bhishma is the main battle tank for the Indian Army. According to the Military Balance 2019 handbook published by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), *over 1,025 T-90S tanks are operational in the Indian Army at present*






T-90 Bhisma







www.globalsecurity.org







*India currently operates 2011 T-90S *which were procured in three separate orders. *Two batches (124 Russian built tanks and 186 tanks to be built in India in 2001 and a further 124 Russian built tanks and 223 tanks to be built in India in 2007)* were purchased from Russia.










India orders extra 464 T-90 tanks from Russia


This $1.9 billion purchase of 464 new T-90MS tanks for 8 tank regiments at the Chinese border was approved in early November 2019.




ukdefencejournal.org.uk






At present Indian Army is estimated to have *more than 1600 T-90 Bhishma tanks* and these numbers *will cross 2000 by the year 2022*.

*





Exclusive: Meet T-90 Bhishma, deadliest Indian Tank fighting China


Guarding India explained why T-90 Bhishma Main Battle Tank (MBT) is one of the deadliest tanks in the world. Check out our article to know.




guardingindia.com




*


Most say what you say i.e. around 1,500 T-90's, mix of variants. I also to believe this to be accurate, the other sources seem to have got things mixed up, hence my original post (2011 tanks).
That's actually good news i.e. they won't have over 2,000.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ziaulislam

Yasser76 said:


> History proves you wrong, as do events as recent as 2019....


History didnt account of laser guided and cluster ammunition

You saw desert storm..

2019 showed PAF is ready to take loses and IAF isnt...but in war of attrition numbers matters ..

PAF can never win a war of attrition unless we scale up jf17 production or get large number of f16s(used)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

ziaulislam said:


> Not a good assumption
> 
> Although we might have a tip of spear but i am pretty sure in a prolonged conflict IAF will able to dominate the skies..and it wont be pretty for army
> 
> IAF IN together field over 600 aicrafts twice that of PAF ..


In the Iran Iraq War, the Iraqis never maintained complete air superiortiy in the 8 years of war even though they had many times more modern aircraft than the Iranians. The Indian Pakistani disparity is a lot smaller than the Iranian Iraqi one and Pakistan has a much much better supply situation than Iran. What this means is the PAF will have to be tactically skilled as much as possible and conserve resources ... but maintaining balance with the IAF even in a long term conflict is definietely doable. War is not just fought on numbers. Besides, India's MIC capability is extremely weak, so they will have to rely mostly on imports to make up for their losses.


Yasser76 said:


> History proves you wrong, as do events as recent as 2019....


In World War II, the Luftwaffe was still able to dominate the skies or at least contest air superiority in the Eastern Front until 1944 even though the VVS (Soviet AF) had many times greater number of aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Cookie Monster

IblinI said:


> I doubt that you'll need a thousand MBT as tip of spear, just not cost wise viable.





Figaro said:


> The problem is a lot of the Pakistani Indian border is good terrain for tank engagements. Whoever holds the advantage in MBTs and artillery commands the land battles. It is different from China versus India, where large or even medium tank battles are simply impossible due to the extremely high altitudes and mountainous terrain. That is why 600 to 1000 VT-4s is in the sights ... the current order of 300 is just the very beginning. Neither side has the ability to completely win the aerial war and use air superiority to level ground targets so tank warfare is still extremely crucial.


One of the major factors is already pointed out above by Figaro regarding the terrain and the long border...
...secondly India has like ~3500 tanks IIRC. In order to counter Indian armor and to be able to make its own armored thrusts...Pak needs a sizable number of tanks.

Last but not least...there are a lot of old tanks that would need to be replaced. With that all in mind...planning for 1000 VT4 seems sensible.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## JohnWick

Figaro said:


> In the Iran Iraq War, the Iraqis never maintained complete air superiortiy in the 8 years of war even though they had many times more modern aircraft than the Iranians. The Indian Pakistani disparity is a lot smaller than the Iranian Iraqi one and Pakistan has a much much better supply situation than Iran. What this means is the PAF will have to be tactically skilled as much as possible and conserve resources ... but maintaining balance with the IAF even in a long term conflict is definietely doable. War is not just fought on numbers. Besides, India's MIC capability is extremely weak, so they will have to rely mostly on imports to make up for their losses.
> 
> In World War II, the Luftwaffe was still able to dominate the skies or at least contest air superiority in the Eastern Front until 1944 even though the VVS (Soviet AF) had many times greater number of aircraft.


we are nuclear power remember there will be a nuke launched its a war goes more than a week.


----------



## Tipu7

waz said:


> That's right, my post should have had the / to distinguish between the S and M version.
> 
> As for numbers, it's confusing, here from sources;
> 
> _*and 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service,*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India’s Defense Ministry Signs $2.8 Billion Deal For 464 T-90MS Main Battle Tanks
> 
> 
> The defense ministry concluded an agreement with the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board to license-build 464 T-90S main battle tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> thediplomat.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Army currently operates 1,100 T-90S tanks, of which 300 were directly procured from Russia.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India pays Russia $1.2 billion in technology transfer fees for T-90S tanks
> 
> 
> India has awarded a $3.12 billion contract for local production of 464 T-90S main battle tanks after paying a technology transfer fee to Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * There are currently around 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service,* although the operational readiness rate of the tanks remains unclear. According to one estimate, 850-900 are of the T-90S Bhishma variant. Of the two, the T-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet India's T-90M Bhishma Tank: Russian Tech, Indian Made
> 
> 
> A good combo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In all, India plans to have 310 T-90S and 1,330 T-90M tanks in service by 2020 (total of 1,657 tanks by 2020).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90M Bhishma:- India's Main Battle Tank (MBT) — Indian Defence News
> 
> 
> The T-90 is a Russian third generation main battle tank.It is the latest development in the T-series of Russian tanks and represents an increase in firepower, mobility and protection. It is manufactured by Uralvagonzavod...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defenceupdate.in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T-90S Bhishma is the main battle tank for the Indian Army. According to the Military Balance 2019 handbook published by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), *over 1,025 T-90S tanks are operational in the Indian Army at present*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90 Bhisma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalsecurity.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *India currently operates 2011 T-90S *which were procured in three separate orders. *Two batches (124 Russian built tanks and 186 tanks to be built in India in 2001 and a further 124 Russian built tanks and 223 tanks to be built in India in 2007)* were purchased from Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India orders extra 464 T-90 tanks from Russia
> 
> 
> This $1.9 billion purchase of 464 new T-90MS tanks for 8 tank regiments at the Chinese border was approved in early November 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ukdefencejournal.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At present Indian Army is estimated to have *more than 1600 T-90 Bhishma tanks* and these numbers *will cross 2000 by the year 2022*.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Meet T-90 Bhishma, deadliest Indian Tank fighting China
> 
> 
> Guarding India explained why T-90 Bhishma Main Battle Tank (MBT) is one of the deadliest tanks in the world. Check out our article to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guardingindia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Most say what you say i.e. around 1,500 T-90's, mix of variants. I also to believe this to be accurate, the other sources seem to have got things mixed up, hence my original post (2011 tanks).
> That's actually good news i.e. they won't have over 2,000.


These all are screwed up information.

For example.
T90M is the most advance T90 version and is recently developed for Russian forces only. It's not available for export. However it's export version, called T90MS is meant for export which India is eyeing in large numbers (464 units).

Indian T90 fleet comprise of T90S version only, with mixed fleet of Russian produced and domestically produced tanks. Slight differences exist between different batches, but overall they all belong to T90S cetagory.

Similar misconception exist about Arjun fleet. There are numerous sources out there which claim India operate around 248 Arjun tanks. But in reality it operate 124 Arjun Mk1 tank and is yet to place order for 124 Arjun Mk2 tanks. Some clever/idiot added up the numbers of Arjun which exist and the numbers of Arjun which are planned, and created the confusion.

Same is problem with T90 numbers data. As far as I remember, by mid 2016, there were around 950 T90 tanks in Indian arsenal, and target was 1650 tanks in total. Now there are two possibilities

1: India has produced 1200 T90S and has placed order for 464 T90MS totalling 1650+ T90S/MS tanks in Indian arsenal in future. 

2: India has achieved the production target of 1650 T90 tanks by secretly producing T90S tanks. It now has placed order for 464 T90MS which once delivered will reach the total of 2100+ T90 tanks in total.

The first case is more believable

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
13


----------



## Vapour

Ghost 125 said:


> numbers mentioned by Tipu are correct, MS are on order, no MS as of now in IA...they only have S or Bhishma models.



Still better to overestimate rather than underestimate?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ghost 125

Vapour said:


> Still better to overestimate rather than underestimate?


both will negatively impact planning. but we are not planners so no harm done

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Figaro

Ghost 125 said:


> both will negatively impact planning. but we are not planners so no harm done


Overestimation can also be very negative ... it can impede offensive planning and therefore strategic initiative. I would highly read up the story of General George B. McClellan of the Union Army in the United States Civil War, who is one of the best examples of how consistently overestimating the enemy can lead to very poor consequences. 








George B. McClellan - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Cuirassier

Tipu7 said:


> These all are screwed up information.
> 
> For example.
> T90M is the most advance T90 version and is recently developed for Russian forces only. It's not available for export. However it's export version, called T90MS is meant for export which India is eyeing in large numbers (464 units).
> 
> Indian T90 fleet comprise of T90S version only, with mixed fleet of Russian produced and domestically produced tanks. Slight differences exist between different batches, but overall they all belong to T90S cetagory.
> 
> Similar misconception exist about Arjun fleet. There are numerous sources out there which claim India operate around 248 Arjun tanks. But in reality it operate 124 Arjun Mk1 tank and is yet to place order for 124 Arjun Mk2 tanks. Some clever/idiot added up the numbers of Arjun which exist and the numbers of Arjun which are planned, and created the confusion.
> 
> Same is problem with T90 numbers data. As far as I remember, by mid 2016, there were around 950 T90 tanks in Indian arsenal, and target was 1650 tanks in total. Now there are two possibilities
> 
> 1: India has produced 1200 T90S and has placed order for 464 T90MS totalling 1650+ T90S/MS tanks in Indian arsenal in future.
> 
> 2: India has achieved the production target of 1650 T90 tanks by secretly producing T90S tanks. It now has placed order for 464 T90MS which once delivered will reach the total of 2100+ T90 tanks in total.
> 
> The first case is more believable


What are the T72 numbers? If we go by Wiki then at least 39 of their 66 tank regiments are equipped with them. 2 with the Arjun and the rest with T90s?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tipu7

Cuirassier said:


> What are the T72 numbers? If we go by Wiki then at least 39 of their 66 tank regiments are equipped with them. 2 with the Arjun and the rest with T90s?


Around 1900. (Reserves are separate)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vapour

Ghost 125 said:


> both will negatively impact planning. but we are not planners so no harm done



Even if you overestimate by 2-3%? Given they already have superior numbers, isn't it better to consider that they have a few more than what is actually thought?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Goenitz

Figaro said:


> Overestimation can also be very negative


though intelligence failure but deadly consequences.. on response to few Soviets bombers, US made thousands to counter them




__





Bomber gap - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ghost 125

Vapour said:


> Even if you overestimate by 2-3%? Given they already have superior numbers, isn't it better to consider that they have a few more than what is actually thought?


overestimation of 400 tanks means overestimating almost 9 extra regiments armed with T 90 MS... 9 regiments means 1 full armd division and one independent armd brigade....now think about it again and how it can change everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Vapour

Ghost 125 said:


> overestimation of 400 tanks means overestimating almost 9 extra regiments armed with T 90 MS... 9 regiments means 1 full armd division and one independent armd brigade....now think about it again and how it can change everything.



I don't know how many T 90s they have, but let's assume it's 1,800 (as I've seen estimates ranging from 1,600 to 2,000 here), 3% of that is 54 tanks. Is that too much to overestimate?


----------



## Ghost 125

Vapour said:


> I don't know how many T 90s they have, but let's assume it's 1,800 (as I've seen estimates ranging from 1,600 to 2,000 here), 3% of that is 54 tanks. Is that too much to overestimate?


my earlier cmnt was regarding difference of 400 tanks. as waz and tipu7 were discussing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Tipu7 said:


> Around 1900. (Reserves are separate)


Less than 1700

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Cuirassier

Dazzler said:


> Less than 1700


don't add up with 66 tank regiments considering each has 45 tanks + a squadron of reserve.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Tipu7 said:


> These all are screwed up information.
> 
> For example.
> T90M is the most advance T90 version and is recently developed for Russian forces only. It's not available for export. However it's export version, called T90MS is meant for export which India is eyeing in large numbers (464 units).
> 
> Indian T90 fleet comprise of T90S version only, with mixed fleet of Russian produced and domestically produced tanks. Slight differences exist between different batches, but overall they all belong to T90S cetagory.
> 
> Similar misconception exist about Arjun fleet. There are numerous sources out there which claim India operate around 248 Arjun tanks. But in reality it operate 124 Arjun Mk1 tank and is yet to place order for 124 Arjun Mk2 tanks. Some clever/idiot added up the numbers of Arjun which exist and the numbers of Arjun which are planned, and created the confusion.
> 
> Same is problem with T90 numbers data. As far as I remember, by mid 2016, there were around 950 T90 tanks in Indian arsenal, and target was 1650 tanks in total. Now there are two possibilities
> 
> 1: India has produced 1200 T90S and has placed order for 464 T90MS totalling 1650+ T90S/MS tanks in Indian arsenal in future.
> 
> 2: India has achieved the production target of 1650 T90 tanks by secretly producing T90S tanks. It now has placed order for 464 T90MS which once delivered will reach the total of 2100+ T90 tanks in total.
> 
> *The first case is more believable*



Yes that's the case, the bulk evidence points to 1,500 or so T-90's, even with the MS arriving. The 2,000 plus total has no backlog of signed and delivered orders to justify that number.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZY-CN-CA

S10 said:


> China generally sells weapons to Pakistan at production cost, rather than make a profit.


yesok,....I just think that maybe thai Army fan unhappy..


----------



## Vapour

Cuirassier said:


> don't add up with 66 tank regiments considering each has 45 tanks + a squadron of reserve.



This is going off reading old posts on here, most likely not even within this thread, but aren't Indian tank regiments larger, having around 60 tanks per regiment?

That would equate to around 4K tanks.


----------



## PanzerKiel

Vapour said:


> This is going off reading old posts on here, most likely not even within this thread, but aren't Indian tank regiments larger, having around 60 tanks per regiment?
> 
> That would equate to around 4K tanks.


45 tanks per Regiment

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

ZY-CN-CA said:


> yesok,....I just think that maybe thai Army fan unhappy..


The Thai army and its fans have no grounds whatsoever to be unhappy. Thailand is "hedging" between China and the US, it's trying to eat at every table, so it pays full freight for Chinese military kit. Pakistan is a strategic ally and firmly in China's camp, so it gets the equipment at friendship prices.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ark_Angel

Bratva said:


> Your predication came true Within hours. As if you attended todya VT-4 MBT demonstration. Any update on AH-1Z vipers?
> 
> Lets give credit where it is due who broke the news of VT-4 finally coming to Pakistan. @PanzerKiel and @Ark_Angel after chinese media outlet confirmed VT-4 for unknown customer


Thank you for the mention @Bratva. There were a lot of users here who typical of the local mentality negate you, wear you down in endless discussions as to prove that they know more than the other and pull him down, including think tanks and professionals which is saddening actually. There fore I'll request the mods again to redefine the criteria of this forum regarding the allotment of titles of Think Tanks, Professionals, and scrutinise again in order to improve the credibility. I think there was a Chinese member here constantly being negated by a think tank about the news of VT-4s being delivered for Pakistan such behaviours shouldn't be the acceptable norm here and must be taken to task. Eventually when the Tanks have been delivered All tom dick and harry Think tank, professional etc has jumped on the band wagon *I told/knew/now know more/ first syndrome*. Rules must be amended and scrutiny must be rigid and unforgiving. I believe it wasn't me but The Beast(Some Chinese member-I couldn't scroll the April chat) who brought the news first. Thanks to him the real discussion started while our local desis were constantly negating him. 
Now coming over the real deal: 
VT-4s are alive and kicking. 
Apologies for the colour scheme I couldn't look at the pictures more clearly. 
As far as Zulus are concerned: 
Negotiations under way for a way forward. Rest can't tell much. I had mentioned about 2 landing but that needs to be corrected-Those 2 birds were something else. Not Zulus. 
As far as the realisation of Armed Forces DevPlan 2030 goes: Lots of Goodies on the way. I can spill the beans with no liabilities, but then you'll complain of wastage of Bandwith. But eventually you'll be seeing that stuff in operational roles and be surprised just like VT-4s surprised you all. 
Have a great day all.

Reactions: Like Like:
29


----------



## Vapour

PanzerKiel said:


> 45 tanks per Regiment



Have done some digging, was from this @Signalian post - specifically the following:

"IA formations are larger than PA counterparts.

PA Armour regiment, 44 MBT. IA Armour regiment, 59 MBT.

PA Armour Div, 5 Armour regiments. IA Armour Div, 7 Armour regiments (except 33rd Armoured Div)."





__





Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army


Bs article by this self proclaimed expert. Mostly info gathered from Wikipedia and some Google books. this flame bait trick has become quite outdated . Try harder ---



defence.pk


----------



## PanzerKiel

Vapour said:


> Have done some digging, was from this @Signalian post - specifically the following:
> 
> "IA formations are larger than PA counterparts.
> 
> PA Armour regiment, 44 MBT. IA Armour regiment, 59 MBT.
> 
> PA Armour Div, 5 Armour regiments. IA Armour Div, 7 Armour regiments (except 33rd Armoured Div)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army
> 
> 
> Bs article by this self proclaimed expert. Mostly info gathered from Wikipedia and some Google books. this flame bait trick has become quite outdated . Try harder ---
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk



Alot has changed dear. 

Rest, it's entirely your call in the end.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Ark_Angel said:


> Thank you for the mention @Bratva. There were a lot of users here who typical of the local mentality negate you, wear you down in endless discussions as to prove that they know more than the other and pull him down, including think tanks and professionals which is saddening actually. There fore I'll request the mods again to redefine the criteria of this forum regarding the allotment of titles of Think Tanks, Professionals, and scrutinise again in order to improve the credibility. I think there was a Chinese member here constantly being negated by a think tank about the news of VT-4s being delivered for Pakistan such behaviours shouldn't be the acceptable norm here and must be taken to task. Eventually when the Tanks have been delivered All tom dick and harry Think tank, professional etc has jumped on the band wagon *I told/knew/now know more/ first syndrome*. Rules must be amended and scrutiny must be rigid and unforgiving. I believe it wasn't me but The Beast(Some Chinese member-I couldn't scroll the April chat) who brought the news first. Thanks to him the real discussion started while our local desis were constantly negating him.
> Now coming over the real deal:
> VT-4s are alive and kicking.
> Apologies for the colour scheme I couldn't look at the pictures more clearly.
> As far as Zulus are concerned:
> Negotiations under way for a way forward. Rest can't tell much. I had mentioned about 2 landing but that needs to be corrected-Those 2 birds were something else. Not Zulus.
> As far as the realisation of Armed Forces DevPlan 2030 goes: Lots of Goodies on the way. I can spill the beans with no liabilities, but then you'll complain of wastage of Bandwith. But eventually you'll be seeing that stuff in operational roles and be surprised just like VT-4s surprised you all.
> Have a great day all.


Thanks for mention of me. We Chinese side has very reliable source for tank or armour development due to first hand news from Chinese website of engineer working at Norinco or documentary interview with chief engineer for the tank or armour. If their words cannot be trusted then I do not know what to say.

Unlike some source who claimed from bias , affection for western products or twitter which are nothing but a joke!

We based our judgement based on merit rather than bias. If Chinese product is no good , it will be no good ( Do take in cost consideration). But VT-4 is the top of line tank product offer by China. It's price per unit is even much higher than Russia T-90. Just the auto transmission integrated power pack will cost a fortune alone. It is state of art. The price unit for PA is very reasonable.

Reactions: Like Like:
18 | Love Love:
1


----------



## khansaheeb

FuturePAF said:


> Pakistan should stop getting t-72 mods, we should find a way to make more affordable leopard class tanks; something like the Turkish Altay but slightly smaller and more affordable.


We need to start making drone tanks or just drones. Do we really need tanks in the modern battlefield?


----------



## Syed1.

khansaheeb said:


> We need to start making drone tanks or just drones. Do we really need tanks in the modern battlefield?


How about tanks that could deploy drones for longer range sight and/or second/third line of attack. The tank becomes a sort of a mother ship that can engage targets on ground or aerialy


Future is definitely heading way in terms of multi-function transformable vehicles.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## mingle

Ark_Angel said:


> Thank you for the mention @Bratva. There were a lot of users here who typical of the local mentality negate you, wear you down in endless discussions as to prove that they know more than the other and pull him down, including think tanks and professionals which is saddening actually. There fore I'll request the mods again to redefine the criteria of this forum regarding the allotment of titles of Think Tanks, Professionals, and scrutinise again in order to improve the credibility. I think there was a Chinese member here constantly being negated by a think tank about the news of VT-4s being delivered for Pakistan such behaviours shouldn't be the acceptable norm here and must be taken to task. Eventually when the Tanks have been delivered All tom dick and harry Think tank, professional etc has jumped on the band wagon *I told/knew/now know more/ first syndrome*. Rules must be amended and scrutiny must be rigid and unforgiving. I believe it wasn't me but The Beast(Some Chinese member-I couldn't scroll the April chat) who brought the news first. Thanks to him the real discussion started while our local desis were constantly negating him.
> Now coming over the real deal:
> VT-4s are alive and kicking.
> Apologies for the colour scheme I couldn't look at the pictures more clearly.
> As far as Zulus are concerned:
> Negotiations under way for a way forward. Rest can't tell much. I had mentioned about 2 landing but that needs to be corrected-Those 2 birds were something else. Not Zulus.
> As far as the realisation of Armed Forces DevPlan 2030 goes: Lots of Goodies on the way. I can spill the beans with no liabilities, but then you'll complain of wastage of Bandwith. But eventually you'll be seeing that stuff in operational roles and be surprised just like VT-4s surprised you all.
> Have a great day all.


Spil the beans and let us chew you won't be liable more interested goodies from west as French were in town. Give this forum some life

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

Vapour said:


> Have done some digging, was from this @Signalian post - specifically the following:
> 
> "IA formations are larger than PA counterparts.
> 
> PA Armour regiment, 44 MBT. IA Armour regiment, 59 MBT.
> 
> PA Armour Div, 5 Armour regiments. IA Armour Div, 7 Armour regiments (except 33rd Armoured Div)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army
> 
> 
> Bs article by this self proclaimed expert. Mostly info gathered from Wikipedia and some Google books. this flame bait trick has become quite outdated . Try harder ---
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk


Go with what PK is saying, he is more up to date than me.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Figaro

Goenitz said:


> though intelligence failure but deadly consequences.. on response to few Soviets bombers, US made thousands to counter them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bomber gap - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Imagine what type of equipment could be procured instead of using them for thousands of bombers had US gotten the intelligence right ... everyone knows US intelligence of foreign adversary technology is inconsistent to say the least. The Mig 25 analysis is a prime example.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

ziaulislam said:


> Not a good assumption
> 
> Although we might have a tip of spear but i am pretty sure in a prolonged conflict IAF will able to dominate the skies..and it wont be pretty for army
> 
> IAF IN together field over 600 aicrafts twice that of PAF ..


How about the six day war where israelis completely decimated the arab air force which was larger than hers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

What are ultimate number of tanks Pakistan would operate in general

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Gentlemen 

Let's stick to the thread which is for Pakistani VT4s. 

This thread is about to go somewhere else.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## FuturePAF

khansaheeb said:


> We need to start making drone tanks or just drones. Do we really need tanks in the modern battlefield?



You are thinking in the right direction, I can’t say much more, but watch what’s being developed by the major powers. There are a few prototypes being developed that are due to be field tested between 2023-2028 depending on how fast AI develops.

we can discuss this on another thread but let’s get back to the VT-4. We should master the VT-4 we are getting, including adding active protection technology down the line before working on drones.

for the shoot and scoot tactics the Pakistan army bought SH-15, if I remember correctly, but that too is a discussion for another thread.

Does anyone know if the VT-4 can fire missiles from its main gun?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Ark_Angel said:


> Thank you for the mention @Bratva. There were a lot of users here who typical of the local mentality negate you, wear you down in endless discussions as to prove that they know more than the other and pull him down, including think tanks and professionals which is saddening actually. There fore I'll request the mods again to redefine the criteria of this forum regarding the allotment of titles of Think Tanks, Professionals, and scrutinise again in order to improve the credibility. I think there was a Chinese member here constantly being negated by a think tank about the news of VT-4s being delivered for Pakistan such behaviours shouldn't be the acceptable norm here and must be taken to task. Eventually when the Tanks have been delivered All tom dick and harry Think tank, professional etc has jumped on the band wagon *I told/knew/now know more/ first syndrome*. Rules must be amended and scrutiny must be rigid and unforgiving. I believe it wasn't me but The Beast(Some Chinese member-I couldn't scroll the April chat) who brought the news first. Thanks to him the real discussion started while our local desis were constantly negating him.
> Now coming over the real deal:
> VT-4s are alive and kicking.
> Apologies for the colour scheme I couldn't look at the pictures more clearly.
> As far as Zulus are concerned:
> Negotiations under way for a way forward. Rest can't tell much. I had mentioned about 2 landing but that needs to be corrected-Those 2 birds were something else. Not Zulus.
> As far as the realisation of Armed Forces DevPlan 2030 goes: Lots of Goodies on the way. I can spill the beans with no liabilities, but then you'll complain of wastage of Bandwith. But eventually you'll be seeing that stuff in operational roles and be surprised just like VT-4s surprised you all.
> Have a great day all.


You can spill the beans. However, if sensitivity is involved then better keep the lid. Otherwise, do it plz. This is how wheel rotates and vehicle move forward. 

(Disappointed to hear about AH-1Z. I thought you had visual confirmation)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> The biggest question is,
> What is the feasibility of such major Indo-Pak conflict where armored units fully mobilize, engage in combat and began to suffer major attrition losses?
> 
> I myself believe, there is little to nothing that such possibility exists. Due to lowering of nuclear threshold, we might jump to bigger guns even before reaching to such escalation threshold where major armored confrontation will take place at multiple fronts.
> 
> Our armored forces are pre-dominantly conventional deterrent, meant to cover up low spectrum conflict located below the threshold of tactical nuclear weapons and above the threshold of limited air combat. Our armored and anti-armor forces are meant for posturing that enemy must realize that it cannot impose land war over Pakistan (i) as it cannot achieve its military objective as it perceives it can, and (ii) without risking inadvertent escalation which can lead to nuclear conflict.
> 
> Indo-Pak conflicts of future will be swift and limited. Major wars of attritions like we observed in WW-II, 1965 and 1971 are no longer possible.


Nuclear deterrent will not stop India engaging in any war (conventional/limited/skirmish as seen in Feb) with Pakistan or vice versa. The missiles have strategic targets of their own from both sides. India knows that Pakistan has both these capabilities, so where does India hold the edge ? Strength of Numbers for a conventional war. More MBTs, more infantry, more guns, more APCs, more IFVs, more gunships, more fighters, more naval vessels.

Pakistan and India both want to take the war to the other side of the border. Pakistan wants to capture Indian areas to be able to negotiate at the end of war, possibly for Kashmir. Sacrificing soldiers and material for a few weeks should bring an outcome, not a stalemate. India wants to do the same, thus the concept of IBGs arose. These IBGs will create bridgeheads for much larger Indian forces to make their way into Pakistan. This could happen with in a few days. To avoid this, Pakistan Army will launch attacks into Indian territory and keep the Indian forces engaged there for as long as possible. No Army likes to give up its gains even if its a " strategic withdrawal". 

An Armored Division with 270 MBTs and 150 APC will not want to retreat back to defensive posture after it has captured enemy territory and its sister Infantry Division has set up defences to hold that area indefinitely. That Armored Division will now be used to strike somewhere else or create a new axis of attack as it presses on the offensive. 1st Armd Div in 1965 went past khem Karan and was pressing the attack when it was stopped and it retreated. Initiative lost completely. Khem Karan was just a pivot point or launch point.

Though V-Corps is not officially a strike Corps, if it starts its attack across the border from Longewala, then just capturing Longewala does not guarantee an upper hand on the negotiation table. This location is just a pivot. The aim could be Jaisalmer which is 120 Km away. By the time, 25th Mech Div and its armor elements try to make it to Jaisalmer, they would have been attacked by Indian Armored forces consisting of IBGs and other Mechanised Bdes, consistent IAF strikes from the air, Indian Army Gunships, and Infantry formations with ATGMs. If the Pakistani command thinks that by that time losses suffered are too much to press on the offensive, the Pakistani formations will either dig or make a withdrawal to a strategic location inside India and defend that area, going on the defensive for the rest of the war. If however, Tank replacements from depots and logistics support from QM, keep pouring in as V-Corps assault continues, then Indian Army will get a shock that they would never have expected. 

Its the same with both strike Corps. I Strike Corps whether heading towards Jammu or trying to cut off Jammu from south east, or it dashes towards PathanKot or Gurdaspur. Similarly, II Strike Corps entering Fazilka or Firozpur as a pivot and then going towards desired directions. The pivots like border town are significant to an extent, but the strategic towns that lie beyond them are the real prize. If the Indian Army's anti tanks units take toll of Pakistan's armored forces who are trying to capture an Indian border town, then without replacements that Armored formation will support other units, not continuously attack and harass the enemy, a role for which its creation was envisioned. 

With a border town in hand and Pakistani armor rolling towards next strategic town, the task of Indian forces just gets lengthier. They will first need to stop the attack of the Pakistani armor. They will either try to cut supply lines or keep flanking it from any direction possible. This is where Strike Corps Infantry Divisions will assist in protecting and keeping the supply lines open. If IA manages to stop Pakistani armor and push it back, then it will launch attacks to secure its border towns.

One cannot expect an Armored Division starting with 270 MBTs to keep on course after a couple of days of fighting after it has lost/damaged 40-50 MBTs. Armor losses can be minimised, but losses will occur nonetheless, some MBTs will get damaged and will need repairs so might sit in workshops depending on extent of damage. Therefore the strength is expected to be a bit shorter after an offensive is carried out. If Pakistan wants the best results from its armored forces, its good to have replacements ready for losses in war for armor to prove its mettle on the battlefield.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
3 | Like Like:
23 | Love Love:
1


----------



## kursed

Thank God that we are finally clear on the AH-1Zs, tried clearing the air on it in the past. =)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> Nuclear deterrent will not stop India engaging in any war (conventional/limited/skirmish as seen in Feb) with Pakistan or vice versa. The missiles have strategic targets of their own from both sides. India knows that Pakistan has both these capabilities, so where does India hold the edge ? Strength of Numbers for a conventional war. More MBTs, more infantry, more guns, more APCs, more IFVs, more gunships, more fighters, more naval vessels.
> 
> Pakistan and India both want to take the war to the other side of the border. Pakistan wants to capture Indian areas to be able to negotiate at the end of war, possibly for Kashmir. Sacrificing soldiers and material for a few weeks should bring an outcome, not a stalemate. India wants to do the same, thus the concept of IBGs arose. These IBGs will create bridgeheads for much larger Indian forces to make their way into Pakistan. This could happen with in a few days. To avoid this, Pakistan Army will launch attacks into Indian territory and keep the Indian forces engaged there for as long as possible. No Army likes to give up its gains even if its a " strategic withdrawal".
> 
> An Armored Division with 270 MBTs and 150 APC will not want to retreat back to defensive posture after it has captured enemy territory and its sister Infantry Division has set up defences to hold that area indefinitely. That Armored Division will now be used to strike somewhere else or create a new axis of attack as it presses on the offensive. 1st Armd Div in 1965 went past khem Karan and was pressing the attack when it was stopped and it retreated. Initiative lost completely. Khem Karan was just a pivot point or launch point.
> 
> Though V-Corps is not officially a strike Corps, if it starts its attack across the border from Longewala, then just capturing Longewala does not guarantee an upper hand on the negotiation table. This location is just a pivot. The aim could be Jaisalmer which is 120 Km away. By the time, 25th Mech Div and its armor elements try to make it to Jaisalmer, they would have been attacked by Indian Armored forces consisting of IBGs and other Mechanised Bdes, consistent IAF strikes from the air, Indian Army Gunships, and Infantry formations with ATGMs. If the Pakistani command thinks that by that time losses suffered are too much to press on the offensive, the Pakistani formations will either dig or make a withdrawal to a strategic location inside India and defend that area, going on the defensive for the rest of the war. If however, Tank replacements from depots and logistics support from QM, keep pouring in as V-Corps assault continues, then Indian Army will get a shock that they would never have expected.
> 
> Its the same with both strike Corps. I Strike Corps whether heading towards Jammu or trying to cut off Jammu from south east, or it dashes towards PathanKot or Gurdaspur. Similarly, II Strike Corps entering Fazilka or Firozpur as a pivot and then going towards desired directions. The pivots like border town are significant to an extent, but the strategic towns that lie beyond them are the real prize. If the Indian Army's anti tanks units take toll of Pakistan's armored forces who are trying to capture an Indian border town, then without replacements that Armored formation will support other units, not continuously attack and harass the enemy, a role for which its creation was envisioned.
> 
> With a border town in hand and Pakistani armor rolling towards next strategic town, the task of Indian forces just gets lengthier. They will first need to stop the attack of the Pakistani armor. They will either try to cut supply lines or keep flanking it from any direction possible. This is where Strike Corps Infantry Divisions will assist in protecting and keeping the supply lines open. If IA manages to stop Pakistani armor and push it back, then it will launch attacks to secure its border towns.
> 
> One cannot expect an Armored Division starting with 270 MBTs to keep on course after a couple of days of fighting after it has lost/damaged 40-50 MBTs. Armor losses can be minimised, but losses will occur nonetheless, some MBTs will get damaged and will need repairs so might sit in workshops depending on extent of damage. Therefore the strength is expected to be a bit shorter after an offensive is carried out. If Pakistan wants the best results from its armored forces, its good to have replacements ready for losses in war for armor to prove its mettle on the battlefield.


My argument still stands. Will the conflict escalate to the point where India and Pakistan will engage in major battles of attrition without breaching the nuclear threshold? I fully agree the calculations you are making, but will that stage ever arrive when those calculations will be applied? If it ever arrive, perhaps our armor will fight over contaminated battlefield and the nuke things had gone all lose till then; a situation which represents worst nightmare of India and Pakistan and will be avoided at all cost not by India and Pakistan only but also by international community.

Last time India and Pakistan fought with armor was 50 years ago. Last time Pakistan's armor was pushed to limits was 55 years ago. Haven't the warfare has changed a lot in past half century?

Ever since, Pakistan and India has faced several security crisis. Brasstacks (1986), Kashmir compound (1990), Kargil (1999), Twin crisis (2001-02), Mumbai attacks (2009) and Pulwama (2019), on all these occasions major moabilization took place but still the armored forces didn't smoke in anger. Reason, Nuclear Deterrent!
Its worth noting that India scrapped Sundarji Doctrine citing same reasons. i.e. fighting major wars of attritions against a nuclear weapon state is strategically and politically not feasible.

I myself believe, all those 'mass territorial capturing objectives' which symbolize the thought process of both Indian and Pakistani high military command alike, is the thing of past now. I don't see any such armored thrust by either side where it will feel necessary to consistently feed its armored forces to keep up the momentum by filling up the combat losses. There is good reason we have developed and employed tactical nuclear weapons. Objective being, never let India expand conflict to such a scale where it could exploit its numerical superiority against Pakistan to its maximum capacity.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## HRK

Tipu7 said:


> If it ever arrive, perhaps our armor will fight over contaminated battlefield and the nuke things had gone all lose till then;





Tipu7 said:


> There is good reason we have developed and employed tactical nuclear weapons.


- South of Kashmir, Northern and Central Punjab are the areas were Pakistan would not be in position to use Tactical nukes for obvious reasons

- This thing suit well with Improvised Indian doctrine of fighting war inside our territory in such close proximity where comparative advantage of numerical superiority could prevail without nuclear threat especially Tactical Nuclear Weapon

- In any such scenario _objective of IA would not be the holding of the territory for indefinite period, but maximum destruction of civilian and military infrastructure_ _and assets in those areas._

- I feel no need to mention that these areas hold such importance both in terms of civilian and military infrastructure that _a wide scale lose in these areas would effectively defang us against India_. 

- So we will be in a situation were we might have to take the decision to use Strategic Nuclear weapons deep inside India as _Our Nuclear Doctrine states wide scale lose of infrastructure or defence capabilities would trigger full scale Nuclear response._

*- But to reach to that stage would take some time and during that time we would have to fight the war with conventional weapons with all the conventional method and calculations.*

- Indian Planners seems fully convinced that their Allies in International Establishment would prevent Pakistan to put in action the Planned Eventuality, _therefore we are facing a continues Instability at Conventional level which have the Potential to disturb the Strategic Stability in the South Asia._

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Vapour

PanzerKiel said:


> Alot has changed dear.
> 
> Rest, it's entirely your call in the end.



Thanks, was just trying to provide context to my post - so it doesn't look like it's numbers out of the air.

If you have time, please can you respond here:









Two Pakistani soldiers martyred in Indian firing along LoC


إِنَّا لِلَّٰهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Ark_Angel

Tipu7 said:


> You can spill the beans. However, if sensitivity is involved then better keep the lid. Otherwise, do it plz. This is how wheel rotates and vehicle move forward.
> 
> (Disappointed to hear about AH-1Z. I thought you had visual confirmation)


process fizzled out in the end. It’s still in pipeline that’s all I can tell about it yet. I’ll definitely share something Huge soon keeping in view the operational sensitivity involved at the right time.
VT-4s eventual requirement is 1000+-,
The total order will be in 6 batches. Batch I & II have been ordered.
Batch III and Batch IV in pipeline, will be finalised soon.
Batch V & VI will be post 2024.
APS is currently in trials as a separate contract and when the system has qualified/Technically passed all the phases, It will be installed on a large number of armoured platforms not just VT-4. 
a number of companies both east and west are competing for that Tender.

Reactions: Like Like:
24 | Love Love:
3


----------



## HRK

Ark_Angel said:


> VT-4s eventual requirement is 1000+-,
> The total order will be in 6 batches. Batch I & II have been ordered.
> Batch III and Batch IV in pipeline, will be finalised soon.
> Batch V & VI will be post 2024.


All +1000 VT-4 would be imported off the shelf .... ???


----------



## Ark_Angel

HRK said:


> All +1000 VT-4 would be imported off the shelf .... ???


Off the Shelf. With a local over haul capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Tipu7

Ark_Angel said:


> process fizzled out in the end. It’s still in pipeline that’s all I can tell about it yet. I’ll definitely share something Huge soon keeping in view the operational sensitivity involved at the right time.
> VT-4s eventual requirement is 1000+-,
> The total order will be in 6 batches. Batch I & II have been ordered.
> Batch III and Batch IV in pipeline, will be finalised soon.
> Batch V & VI will be post 2024.
> APS is currently in trials as a separate contract and when the system has qualified/Technically passed all the phases, It will be installed on a large number of armoured platforms not just VT-4.
> a number of companies both east and west are competing for that Tender.


That's three armored/mechanized division of strength! 
Should we expect upgrades regarding infantry carrying vehicles, or upgrading Tanks is the only core objective in military brass eyes? 

Tanks, APCs, Air Defense, IFVs, Gunships, helis, armored cars and infantry based systems; gaps are numerous.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Fawadqasim1



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IblinI

Ark_Angel said:


> process fizzled out in the end. It’s still in pipeline that’s all I can tell about it yet. I’ll definitely share something Huge soon keeping in view the operational sensitivity involved at the right time.
> VT-4s eventual requirement is 1000+-,
> The total order will be in 6 batches. Batch I & II have been ordered.
> Batch III and Batch IV in pipeline, will be finalised soon.
> Batch V & VI will be post 2024.
> APS is currently in trials as a separate contract and when the system has qualified/Technically passed all the phases, It will be installed on a large number of armoured platforms not just VT-4.
> a number of companies both east and west are competing for that Tender.


Are they coming with constant upgrade between batches like jf17 block 1-3?


----------



## Fawadqasim1



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fawadqasim1



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Goenitz

Ark_Angel said:


> PS is currently in trials as a separate contract and when the system has qualified/Technically passed all the phases, It will be installed on a large number of armoured platforms *not just VT-4*.


that is really good news.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reddawn

Great news on the VT4! Assuming the PA does get 1000+- tanks I’m assuming they will equip the 2 Armoured and 2 Mech divs?

What is the plan for the T85;T80UDs and AZs? Will they be put in reserve; scrapped or passed to the FC?

Or will they be allocated to the Infantry Divs for fire support or will the AK’s do that?


Finally, 1000 VT4s is significant. Does this mean AK2 is dead?


----------



## Reddawn

Great news on the VT4! Assuming the PA does get 1000+- tanks I’m assuming they will equip the 2 Armoured and 2 Mech divs?

What is the plan for the T85;T80UDs and AZs? Will they be put in reserve; scrapped or passed to the FC?

Or will they be allocated to the Infantry Divs for fire support or will the AK’s do that?


Finally, 1000 VT4s is significant. Does this mean AK2 is dead?


----------



## Raja Porus

I really hope they will raise a new armoured division instead of giving these to a machanized div.This will create great flexibility in operational planning moreover reduce the pressure on the two strike corps. the news about APS is really great especially bc vt4s aren't the only tanks to be equipped with them.I Wonder if the AZ will given to fc as they are better than that. I think that AZ will first replace the type 59/69s and with time az will be eventually replaced by AK ot vt4s.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

IMO, VT-4 needs some partners:

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
7


----------



## Raja Porus

I think that the best piece of equipment PA should opt for along with vt4 and sh 15 is vn1 equipped with atgms. Those ifv should be used to set up ind anti tank brigades and provided to holding corps especially karachi corps. This will allow relieve some pressure from the armd brigades and allow them to carry out offensive roles freely. This will also satisfy pakistans offensive defensive strategy

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Tipu7

Reddawn said:


> Great news on the VT4! Assuming the PA does get 1000+- tanks I’m assuming they will equip the 2 Armoured and 2 Mech divs?
> 
> What is the plan for the T85;T80UDs and AZs? Will they be put in reserve; scrapped or passed to the FC?
> 
> Or will they be allocated to the Infantry Divs for fire support or will the AK’s do that?
> 
> 
> Finally, 1000 VT4s is significant. Does this mean AK2 is dead?


If VT4 is an off the shelf purchase, then it means AK project will continue. 
Realistically, we should expect a 3rd Gen MBT fleet of 520 AK, 300 VT4 and 320 T80 by 2025. 

If these news of further batches of VT4 is correct, then it means that future armored fleet of Pakistan will comprise of VT4, AK & UD only (2000+ units). While AZ & T85 will move to reserves or will work alongside infantry. 

@Signalian , a frontline armored fleet of VT4 & AK full fills your demand of fleet homogenization.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Tipu7

LKJ86 said:


> IMO, VT-4 needs some partners:
> View attachment 674294
> View attachment 674299
> View attachment 674300
> View attachment 674301
> View attachment 674302
> View attachment 674303
> View attachment 674304
> View attachment 674305
> View attachment 674306


Which vehicle is this?


----------



## LKJ86

Tipu7 said:


> Which vehicle is this?
> 
> View attachment 674329


*PLZ-10 120mm Self-propelled Mortar-Howitzer *

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## CrazyZ

LKJ86 said:


> IMO, VT-4 needs some partners:
> View attachment 674294
> View attachment 674299
> View attachment 674300
> View attachment 674301
> View attachment 674302
> View attachment 674303
> View attachment 674304
> View attachment 674305
> View attachment 674306


Short range air defense is a must for modern armored corps. Looking at what's going on in recently in ME. Drone strikes are a real concern in open ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

CrazyZ said:


> Short range air defense is a must for modern armored corps. Looking at what's going on in recently in ME. Drone strikes are a real concern in open ground.


HQ-17 and HQ-17A

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ark_Angel

Tipu7 said:


> If VT4 is an off the shelf purchase, then it means AK project will continue.
> Realistically, we should expect a 3rd Gen MBT fleet of 520 AK, 300 VT4 and 320 T80 by 2025.
> 
> If these news of further batches of VT4 is correct, then it means that future armored fleet of Pakistan will comprise of VT4, AK & UD only (2000+ units). While AZ & T85 will move to reserves or will work alongside infantry.
> 
> @Signalian , a frontline armored fleet of VT4 & AK full fills your demand of fleet homogenization.


AK-II will proceed at its own pace. It is a separate program, VT-4 is a seperate acquisation. 
With respect to the question of the acquisition of VT-4 as to block approach like JF-17, I can't comment as to what the future holds, but as of yet the Platform will be more or less the same with very minor additions-unless anything revolutionary comes into play-The main emphasis is on Less diversity of platforms in order to maintain the logistical support necessary for operational efficiency. That's how the approach is shaping up. 

P.S In my personal opinion-I wish The Turks could have matured the Altay and pressed into Production by the time this tender was shaping up. But have no doubt the VT-4 is a beast with an exceptional situational awarensss and a deadly armoured punch.

Reactions: Like Like:
21


----------



## PakFactor

Ark_Angel said:


> AK-II will proceed at its own pace. It is a separate program, VT-4 is a seperate acquisation.
> With respect to the question of the acquisition of VT-4 as to block approach like JF-17, I can't comment as to what the future holds, but as of yet the Platform will be more or less the same with very minor additions-unless anything revolutionary comes into play-The main emphasis is on Less diversity of platforms in order to maintain the logistical support necessary for operational efficiency. That's how the approach is shaping up.
> 
> P.S In my personal opinion-I wish The Turks could have matured the Altay and pressed into Production by the time this tender was shaping up. But have no doubt the VT-4 is a beast with an exceptional situational awarensss and a deadly armoured punch.



My main concern is the survivability and amour can it survive modern ATGMs allowing it and the crew to fight another day? Is it on M1A1 1st armor level?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ark_Angel

PakFactor said:


> My main concern is the survivability and amour can it survive modern ATGMs allowing it and the crew to fight another day? Is it on M1A1 1st armor level?


VT-4s armour satisfied all and sundry in the trails. It's one of the best that we have seen. But then again the Race of Armour Protection and Anti Armour Systems keeps on evolving.

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## HRK

HRK said:


> *Type-85* is second generation tank based on second generation Chinese Type-80 tank Chassis which itself was based on Type-79 and Type-79 is the further evolution of *Type-69* tank of China, as far as commonality is concern Type-59 and Type-69 share 50%-60% components while Type-85 share around 10%-15% components of Type-59/69
> 
> _[NOTE: these figures of commonality of subcomponents are stated based on memory as read about these tanks some years ago currently do not have ready reference to attached it here, so plz check these figures before to quote these figures] _


Few day back a question was raised about the commonality of MBT fleet of PA about which I tried to answer with the above quoted post but at that time I did not have source available with me as I read about it at least a decade back, now I found one of the source in my archive [and attaching it below]

Summary of Relevant Part:

- Type 69-II tank shares *50% *components with Type-59

- Type 85 tank shares 20% components with Type-59 and 30% components with Type 69-II in 
*Result*: _Total commonality of *50%* components_ with Type 59 and Type 69 tanks

- AK/MBT-2000 shares 10% components with Type 59, 15% with Type 69-II and 20% with Type 85
*Result*: _Total commonality of *45%* components_ with Type 59, Type 69 and Type 85 tanks

Source: Jane's Armour and Artillery 2005-2006

Reactions: Like Like:
16 | Love Love:
2


----------



## PakFactor

HRK said:


> Few day back a question was raised about the commonality of MBT fleet of PA about which I tried to answer with the above quoted post but at that time I did not have source available with me as I read about it at least a decade back, now I found one of the source in my archive [and attaching it below]
> 
> Summary of Relevant Part:
> 
> - Type 69-II tank shares *50% *components with Type-59
> 
> - Type 85 tank shares 20% components with Type-59 and 30% components with Type 69-II in
> *Result*: _Total commonality of *50%* components_ with Type 59 and Type 69 tanks
> 
> - AK/MBT-2000 shares 10% components with Type 59, 15% with Type 69-II and 20% with Type 85
> *Result*: _Total commonality of *45%* components_ with Type 59, Type 69 and Type 85 tanks
> 
> Source: Jane's Armour and Artillery 2005-2006
> 
> View attachment 674375



I remember this article from way back and I’m surprised at your memory. I will be saving this as well and @PanzerKiel might like this as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Path-Finder

LKJ86 said:


> HQ-17 and HQ-17A
> View attachment 674349
> View attachment 674350
> View attachment 674351


I am a bigger advocate of this over Pantsir.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

Desert Fox 1 said:


> I really hope they will raise a new armoured division instead of giving these to a machanized div.


31 Corps unless the south needs to be beefed up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Ark_Angel said:


> AK-II will proceed at its own pace. It is a separate program, VT-4 is a seperate acquisation.


That is a relief, HITs production line shouldn't get rusty.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SQ8

Ark_Angel said:


> AK-II will proceed at its own pace. It is a separate program, VT-4 is a seperate acquisation.
> With respect to the question of the acquisition of VT-4 as to block approach like JF-17, I can't comment as to what the future holds, but as of yet the Platform will be more or less the same with very minor additions-unless anything revolutionary comes into play-The main emphasis is on Less diversity of platforms in order to maintain the logistical support necessary for operational efficiency. That's how the approach is shaping up.
> 
> P.S In my personal opinion-I wish The Turks could have matured the Altay and pressed into Production by the time this tender was shaping up. But have no doubt the VT-4 is a beast with an exceptional situational awarensss and a deadly armoured punch.


A collective Namaz-e-Hajat to continue our primary enemy’s complete ignorance and/or failure of that concept.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## PakFactor

doorstar said:


> yes, according to video posted by @waz it has the ability to cause the incoming projectiles to explode some distance away from itself
> 360 degrees active prtection



Can’t always rely on that system as high speed projectiles can delete the APS ammo — how good is it without APS.


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> 31 Corps unless the south needs to be beefed up.


Our punjab region already has alot of strength on its behalf including two strike corps. But our southern command will face guge odds against the indian south western command. There is only one corps with some indp armd brigades in sindh which may prove to be in sufficient in a very tankable region

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Ark_Angel said:


> P.S In my personal opinion-I wish The Turks could have matured the Altay and pressed into Production by the time this tender was shaping up. But have no doubt the VT-4 is a beast with an exceptional situational awarensss and a deadly armoured punch.


The problem is Turkish could not solve the problem of power pack. German refuse to sell them the engine. The same problem plague Chinese tank sales market before the VT-4 come into picture.

Plus the altay tank is too heavy for Pakistan as they do not use autoloader which forces extra crew and result hefty weight of 65tons. The tank also cost a staggering USD 13.5 million a piece which is definitely out of budget for PA if equipped in large number.

PA has factor in a lot of consideration before decide on VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
1


----------



## OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ

Tipu7 said:


> My argument still stands. Will the conflict escalate to the point where India and Pakistan will engage in major battles of attrition without breaching the nuclear threshold? I fully agree the calculations you are making, but will that stage ever arrive when those calculations will be applied? If it ever arrive, perhaps our armor will fight over contaminated battlefield and the nuke things had gone all lose till then; a situation which represents worst nightmare of India and Pakistan and will be avoided at all cost not by India and Pakistan only but also by international community.
> 
> Last time India and Pakistan fought with armor was 50 years ago. Last time Pakistan's armor was pushed to limits was 55 years ago. Haven't the warfare has changed a lot in past half century?
> 
> Ever since, Pakistan and India has faced several security crisis. Brasstacks (1986), Kashmir compound (1990), Kargil (1999), Twin crisis (2001-02), Mumbai attacks (2009) and Pulwama (2019), on all these occasions major moabilization took place but still the armored forces didn't smoke in anger. Reason, Nuclear Deterrent!
> Its worth noting that India scrapped Sundarji Doctrine citing same reasons. i.e. fighting major wars of attritions against a nuclear weapon state is strategically and politically not feasible.
> 
> I myself believe, all those 'mass territorial capturing objectives' which symbolize the thought process of both Indian and Pakistani high military command alike, is the thing of past now. I don't see any such armored thrust by either side where it will feel necessary to consistently feed its armored forces to keep up the momentum by filling up the combat losses. There is good reason we have developed and employed tactical nuclear weapons. Objective being, never let India expand conflict to such a scale where it could exploit its numerical superiority against Pakistan to its maximum capacity.


As weeks, months and perhaps years pass the deterrence value of Nuclear weapons will invariably diminish. The kicker is conventional weapons! Nucs for Pakistan were a weapon of desperation but as that vacuum fills, so goes the desire/recklessness/impetus to use them. And yes! It means wars inside of nuclear threshold... put more aptly Nucs will become more or less tusks on an elephant... something to flaunt or parade!
We can already see that in China, India standoff... no one can talk nuclear much less threaten, it will mean utter annihilation of both(definitely India) and yes that mean even as Chinese troops march deep inside Indian territory or vice-versa. 

As the nuclear posturing stands at the moment it is very much a Mexican standoff and no one really wants another one in... The instability in this matrix lies exactly where conventional balance is heavily tilted, such as; North Korea. The hermit kingdom threatens and perhaps presents the only state currently willing to use nucs in response to a conventional attack and that too for Japan and U.S. and not really South Korea, distance and conventional disparity being the kickers here. 

We must understand that all of these political shenanigans and gimmickry lasts only as long as there are humans and life on this planet and these weapons have no utility in a political resolution. In fact it is failure of politics and humanity that these weapons find themselves among those willing to use them. I don't think humanity has really digested or even understood their first-time application. We certainly haven't laid out the ramifications on their projected use.

Back to the topic... with Pakistan finding solutions to conventional military imbalance with India, as with the induction of VT-4 and in numbers, down the line... with cheaper alternatives becoming available to weapon systems considered strategic not too long ago and as technological leaps abound, a conventional war is becoming more likely outcome. With geopolitical situation changing in the neighborhood and India not only on the receiving end but for once now watching it's back... instead of Pakistan... a power vacuum is emerging... something India will be hard pressed to emerge out off or get slaughtered trying.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Yasser76

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Our punjab region already has alot of strength on its behalf including two strike corps. But our southern command will face guge odds against the indian south western command. There is only one corps with some indp armd brigades in sindh which may prove to be in sufficient in a very tankable region



Well, very far south things are not good for tanks at all, it's basically marshes. 

Also above that area, if one studies a map, I cannot see any main targets for any Indian advance. What would be the objective? It's practically all desert our side, if India wants to capture Pak territory for any post war negotiation is will be valueless compared to Punjab. 

For every 1 square mile of Punjab we would happily forsake 3 square miles of Thar desert, hence this is where the battle will be. If they want to cut Pakistan in half they will not be able to do it via hundreds of miles of desert and then what?


----------



## The Accountant

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Our punjab region already has alot of strength on its behalf including two strike corps. But our southern command will face guge odds against the indian south western command. There is only one corps with some indp armd brigades in sindh which may prove to be in sufficient in a very tankable region


Here the key is the desert and the barren lands. In punjab the distance between population centers and and border is very thin. Once you crossed the border it will be really difficult to stop the enemy. However, in Sindh there is very thin population so we will have more time to respond in case of Sindh then Punjab plus the desert area is wide open where to identify enemy's armored thrust is relatively easy.

Although I dont have the military background but I feel in Sindh the correct strategy should be to use armed drones, CAS aircraft (like K-8) and precision strike weapons to stop the enemy. It is more cost efficient and effective way to cover large area. However the quantity of armed drones and other weapons should be sufficient enough to cover the whole border (including surveillance) and then to take on against 100 plus tanks at any side of Indian border within a notice of few hours.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ark_Angel

Beast said:


> The problem is Turkish could not solve the problem of power pack. German refuse to sell them the engine. The same problem plague Chinese tank sales market before the VT-4 come into picture.
> 
> Plus the altay tank is too heavy for Pakistan as they do not use autoloader which forces extra crew and result hefty weight of 65tons. The tank also cost a staggering USD 13.5 million a piece which is definitely out of budget for PA if equipped in large number.
> 
> PA has factor in a lot of consideration before decide on VT-4.


Yes I know. I have seen VT-4 perform from 2017/18/19/20. I saw how our feed back and recommendations evolved VT-4 into the beast that it is now. 
It was just a personal preference , nothing to do with economics or the politics of the power packs and engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## luciferdd

Ark_Angel said:


> Yes I know. I have seen VT-4 perform from 2017/18/19/20. I saw how our feed back and recommendations evolved VT-4 into the beast that it is now.
> It was just a personal preference , nothing to do with economics or the politics of the power packs and engines.


May be PA can develop a new tank base on the chassis of VT-4,as you know that the engines of VT-4 are the same to the one in 99A witch can working at 1500HP normally.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CriticalThought

Yasser76 said:


> Well, very far south things are not good for tanks at all, it's basically marshes.
> 
> Also above that area, if one studies a map, I cannot see any main targets for any Indian advance. What would be the objective? It's practically all desert our side, if India wants to capture Pak territory for any post war negotiation is will be valueless compared to Punjab.
> 
> For every 1 square mile of Punjab we would happily forsake 3 square miles of Thar desert, hence this is where the battle will be. If they want to cut Pakistan in half they will not be able to do it via hundreds of miles of desert and then what?



Are you out of your mind? We don't concede an inch of land. Not in the South, not in the North, nowhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Areesh

Yasser76 said:


> For every 1 square mile of Punjab we would happily forsake 3 square miles of Thar desert, hence this is where the battle will be.



Lol

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Accountant

Are u serious ? Who told u that 1 square mile of phnjab is equal to 3 square mile of sindh ?

This is insane and far from reality.




Yasser76 said:


> Well, very far south things are not good for tanks at all, it's basically marshes.
> 
> Also above that area, if one studies a map, I cannot see any main targets for any Indian advance. What would be the objective? It's practically all desert our side, if India wants to capture Pak territory for any post war negotiation is will be valueless compared to Punjab.
> 
> For every 1 square mile of Punjab we would happily forsake 3 square miles of Thar desert, hence this is where the battle will be. If they want to cut Pakistan in half they will not be able to do it via hundreds of miles of desert and then what?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

Path-Finder said:


> I am a bigger advocate of this over Pantsir.


PA armoured forces needs support from PAF apart from mobile land AD systems. The gunships wont be able to operate with PA armor in Indian territory/airspace unless PAF is present.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Yasser76

The Accountant said:


> Are u serious ? Who told u that 1 square mile of phnjab is equal to 3 square mile of sindh ?
> 
> This is insane and far from reality.



I am not talking in a literal sense, I am talking about post war negotiations, Please keep a level head in your response. If we capture Amritsar as opposed to capturing the police post at Munabao again what do you think is of more strategic value?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yasser76

CriticalThought said:


> Are you out of your mind? We don't concede an inch of land. Not in the South, not in the North, nowhere.



So we have infinite resources and 10,000 tanks to protect everywhere? I am not advocating giving up Pakistani land, I am Pakistani. My point was in reply to where the strategic priorities are in any war, if you cannot comprehend that in my post, that is an issue for you, not me

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## arjunk

I don't get one thing...
Can we not toss shitloads of ATGMs and cluster bombs at Indians? What even is the point of a tank? I get that in WW2 infantry with guns can't touch tanks but today with missiles n stuff tanks are kind of useless

EDIT: aaand some mod has banned me from this thread for some reason. Oh well. Off To GHQ later I guess.



Figaro said:


> The problem is a lot of the Pakistani Indian border is good terrain for tank engagements. Whoever holds the advantage in MBTs and artillery commands the land battles. It is different from China versus India, where large or even medium tank battles are simply impossible due to the extremely high altitudes and mountainous terrain. That is why 600 to 1000 VT-4s is in the sights ... the current order of 300 is just the very beginning. Neither side has the ability to completely win the aerial war and use air superiority to level ground targets so tank warfare is still extremely crucial.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Raja Porus

Yasser76 said:


> Well, very far south things are not good for tanks at all, it's basically marshes.
> 
> Also above that area, if one studies a map, I cannot see any main targets for any Indian advance. What would be the objective? It's practically all desert our side, if India wants to capture Pak territory for any post war negotiation is will be valueless compared to Punjab.
> 
> For every 1 square mile of Punjab we would happily forsake 3 square miles of Thar desert, hence this is where the battle will be. If they want to cut Pakistan in half they will not be able to do it via hundreds of miles of desert and then what?


What if the indians do this:
They launch a strong armd thrust towards the central sindh as a part of a diversionary plan. The five corps perceives it to be the main attack of indian south western command but it is not and the 5 corps send most of its forces to meet that attack and after the indians know that most of the 5 corps is busy the may launch their main attack that is move in the Northern sindh which is the area of responsibility of 5 corps so they pass without little or no resistance and from the motorway turn north and outflank rahim yar khan from the south. Until they enter the AOR of bahawalpur corps they will have a clear run and its very difficult to stop an armd striking force once its in full momentum. Though pakistan has some defence canals but they prove to be insufficient. Rahim yar khan os a very imp junction and on the negotiation table every inch counts. Pakistan may use its 2 strike corps but it'll jeopardize the whole offensive capability of PA. Only airforce would be able to delay them and Pakistan would be forced to use nasr





Legend:
Green shows the diversionary attack by india
Red shows the main attack of india after the main Karachi Corps has been 
Blue shows the flanking move by the main indian thrust towards Rahim yar khan 
Purple shows the AOR of bahawalpur corps (roughly)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Areesh

Desert Fox 1 said:


> What if the indians do this:
> They launch a strong armd thrust towards the central sindh as a part of a diversionary plan. The five corps perceives it to be the main attack of indian south western command but it is not and the 5 corps send most of its forces to meet that attack and after the indians know that most of the 5 corps is busy the may launch their main attack that is move in the Northern sindh which is the area of responsibility of 5 corps so they pass without little or no resistance and from the motorway turn north and outflank rahim yar khan from the south. Until they enter the AOR of bahawalpur corps they will have a clear run and its very difficult to stop an armd striking force once its in full momentum. Though pakistan has some defence canals but they prove to be insufficient. Rahim yar khan os a very imp junction and on the negotiation table every inch counts. Pakistan may use its 2 strike corps but it'll jeopardize the whole offensive capability of PA. Only airforce would be able to delay them and Pakistan would be forced to use nasr
> View attachment 674626
> 
> Legend:
> Green shows the diversionary attack by india
> Red shows the main attack of india after the main Karachi Corps has been
> Blue shows the flanking move by the main indian thrust towards Rahim yar khan
> Purple shows the AOR of bahawalpur corps (roughly)



What would be the role of Quetta corps in such a scenario? Will they be able to provide some support to 5th corps?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CriticalThought

Yasser76 said:


> So we have infinite resources and 10,000 tanks to protect everywhere? I am not advocating giving up Pakistani land, I am Pakistani. My point was in reply to where the strategic priorities are in any war, if you cannot comprehend that in my post, that is an issue for you, not me



You don't start out with the plan of trading territories between north/south. You start with a plan to dominate. Where is your plan to dominate?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ghost 125

Desert Fox 1 said:


> What if the indians do this:
> They launch a strong armd thrust towards the central sindh as a part of a diversionary plan. The five corps perceives it to be the main attack of indian south western command but it is not and the 5 corps send most of its forces to meet that attack and after the indians know that most of the 5 corps is busy the may launch their main attack that is move in the Northern sindh which is the area of responsibility of 5 corps so they pass without little or no resistance and from the motorway turn north and outflank rahim yar khan from the south. Until they enter the AOR of bahawalpur corps they will have a clear run and its very difficult to stop an armd striking force once its in full momentum. Though pakistan has some defence canals but they prove to be insufficient. Rahim yar khan os a very imp junction and on the negotiation table every inch counts. Pakistan may use its 2 strike corps but it'll jeopardize the whole offensive capability of PA. Only airforce would be able to delay them and Pakistan would be forced to use nasr
> View attachment 674626
> 
> Legend:
> Green shows the diversionary attack by india
> Red shows the main attack of india after the main Karachi Corps has been
> Blue shows the flanking move by the main indian thrust towards Rahim yar khan
> Purple shows the AOR of bahawalpur corps (roughly)


the areas from where both your arrows are originating are in open desert and any concentration of forces on any pronge will be visible from mars, venus maybe pluto.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## The Eagle

It will be appreciated to stay on topic. Threads bans will be issued initially and then followed by fractions.

Regards,

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## hussain0216

VT4 is much required and it's great to here that we wil eventually reach 1000+

Regarding AK1 and AK2

Does anyone know if AK2 will replace AK1 when it's ready or are these two separate tanks that will be produced on a ongoing basis


Also could someone confirm that we are getting some additional TOT from the VT4 purchase that we will incorporate into the AK 1 & 2 projects


----------



## Inception-06

The Eagle said:


> It will be appreciated to stay on topic. Threads bans will be issued initially and then followed by fractions.
> 
> Regards,



Stay cool, it’s natural that such clusters of thoughts and discussions envolve, which are not strictly on road with the topic title.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

arjunk said:


> I don't get one thing...
> Can we not toss shitloads of ATGMs and cluster bombs at Indians? What even is the point of a tank? I get that in WW2 infantry with guns can't touch tanks but today with missiles n stuff tanks are kind of useless


How many ATGMs and cluster munitions can you throw at the Indians? They have thousands of T-72s and T-90s. Also, ground attack from air will be much more difficult due to both sides constantly vying for local air superiority, which means the burden of ground offensives will still fall to the humble MBT and artillery, specifically MLRS. Besides, tanks are still needed for breakthroughs on the ground ... what you speak of are primarily defensive weapons. I do assume PA will try to go on the offensive as soon as a possible breakthrough/weak point in the Indian lines are spotted.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

arjunk said:


> I don't get one thing...
> Can we not toss shitloads of ATGMs and cluster bombs at Indians? What even is the point of a tank? I get that in WW2 infantry with guns can't touch tanks but today with missiles n stuff tanks are kind of useless



Yes Pakistan has thousands of ATGM's, which can take out their T-72's, and impact the T-90's. But they are not coming in by themselves, and the IA will deploy tens of thousands infantry with them, including snipers who will aim to hit ATGM teams. The lessons of the Yon Kippur war are taught to every competent military.
You also have to remember that* tanks can close the distance very quickly*, so repeat salvos of ATGM's will not be as effective, and superior ground numbers will be on top of you.
Cluster bombs from the PAF? Well they have more than enough on their plate with the IAF, and we have no independent air wing defending the navy, so that's two major concerns for them.
It's a fact that we all have to contend with i.e. that due to the large land border we share with India, we need a great deal of tanks to blunt their amoured push.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Sal12

Though the economic situation does not allow this but PA needs to raise 2 army corps i.e one for northern Sindh and one for Gilgit baltistan to make the IA offensive difficult in those regions.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ARMalik

Desert Fox 1 said:


> What if the indians do this:
> They launch a strong armd thrust towards the central sindh as a part of a diversionary plan. The five corps perceives it to be the main attack of indian south western command but it is not and the 5 corps send most of its forces to meet that attack and after the indians know that most of the 5 corps is busy the may launch their main attack that is move in the Northern sindh which is the area of responsibility of 5 corps so they pass without little or no resistance and from the motorway turn north and outflank rahim yar khan from the south. Until they enter the AOR of bahawalpur corps they will have a clear run and its very difficult to stop an armd striking force once its in full momentum. Though pakistan has some defence canals but they prove to be insufficient. Rahim yar khan os a very imp junction and on the negotiation table every inch counts. Pakistan may use its 2 strike corps but it'll jeopardize the whole offensive capability of PA. Only airforce would be able to delay them and Pakistan would be forced to use nasr
> View attachment 674626
> 
> Legend:
> Green shows the diversionary attack by india
> Red shows the main attack of india after the main Karachi Corps has been
> Blue shows the flanking move by the main indian thrust towards Rahim yar khan
> Purple shows the AOR of bahawalpur corps (roughly)



And that is why there are battlefield tactical Nukes to ensure India under no circumstances can take large parts of Pakistan. *Make no mistake - These nukes will be used against India* IF such a scenario arises. Not only this, these nukes will be used against any NEIGHBOR who tries to indulge in any misadventure.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

arjunk said:


> I don't get one thing...
> What even is the point of a tank?


Tank is well protected against all kinds of threats, has the highest HP engine than other weapon systems operating with it to cover the distance, can fire different kinds of munitions to tackle MBTs, IFV, hardened infantry positions like bunkers and other buildings, low flying gunships and is expected to be the last machine standing on the battlefield after the onslaught is over. 

What you could have asked is, 

1. Which PA MBTs including VT-4 can fire ATGM from their main guns ?

2. Can Tank guns be configured as Artillery howitzers/guns to fire cluster ammo ?

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## The Accountant

Yasser76 said:


> I am not talking in a literal sense, I am talking about post war negotiations, Please keep a level head in your response. If we capture Amritsar as opposed to capturing the police post at Munabao again what do you think is of more strategic value?


We had generals like u in 1971 and everyone knows the result.

So u mean people of munavao are tradeable to u ? And who tell u we can capture amritsar ? 

Sorry cant level my head with insanity.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## The Accountant

Signalian said:


> PA armoured forces needs support from PAF apart from mobile land AD systems. The gunships wont be able to operate with PA armor in Indian territory/airspace unless PAF is present.


Do u mean defence of sky or CAS ? I feel PAF wouldnt be able to provide CAS role due to comparatively lesser no aircraft for air defence altough they should provide complete air cover atleast at our own skies


----------



## The Accountant

Desert Fox 1 said:


> What if the indians do this:
> They launch a strong armd thrust towards the central sindh as a part of a diversionary plan. The five corps perceives it to be the main attack of indian south western command but it is not and the 5 corps send most of its forces to meet that attack and after the indians know that most of the 5 corps is busy the may launch their main attack that is move in the Northern sindh which is the area of responsibility of 5 corps so they pass without little or no resistance and from the motorway turn north and outflank rahim yar khan from the south. Until they enter the AOR of bahawalpur corps they will have a clear run and its very difficult to stop an armd striking force once its in full momentum. Though pakistan has some defence canals but they prove to be insufficient. Rahim yar khan os a very imp junction and on the negotiation table every inch counts. Pakistan may use its 2 strike corps but it'll jeopardize the whole offensive capability of PA. Only airforce would be able to delay them and Pakistan would be forced to use nasr
> View attachment 674626
> 
> Legend:
> Green shows the diversionary attack by india
> Red shows the main attack of india after the main Karachi Corps has been
> Blue shows the flanking move by the main indian thrust towards Rahim yar khan
> Purple shows the AOR of bahawalpur corps (roughly)


I think we need to use smart weaponary here. As suggested earlier we need to mass produce cheap drones with lower ranges (to save cost) but with capability to take out armoured vehicles including tanks ... Drone can cover a much larger area and have much lesser reaction time then armour itself. The cost of drone could also be reduced aignificantly if we mass produce them and keep them simple.

500 to 1000 drones with an investment of 200 to 400 million dollars can give a real boast to take on against armoured thrust. However key here is reaction time. Armoured thrust has to be stopped before entering into the main cities

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Accountant

Signalian said:


> Tank is well protected against all kinds of threats, has the highest HP engine than other weapon systems operating with it to cover the distance, can fire different kinds of munitions to tackle MBTs, IFV, hardened infantry positions like bunkers and other buildings, low flying gunships and is expected to be the last machine standing on the battlefield after the onslaught is over.
> 
> What you could have asked is,
> 
> 1. Which PA MBTs including VT-4 can fire ATGM from their main guns ?
> 
> 2. Can Tank guns be configured as Artillery howitzers/guns to fire cluster ammo ?



What is cost of active protection? Can we upgrade AK and T85UD with these active protection system installed on VT4?

Furthermore, for armoury the biggest threat is CBU 105 ? So what of type tactics or equipment they have to counter an attack from top from precision guided munition ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Khan vilatey

The Accountant said:


> I think we need to use smart weaponary here. As suggested earlier we need to mass produce cheap drones with lower ranges (to save cost) but with capability to take out armoured vehicles including tanks ... Drone can cover a much larger area and have much lesser reaction time then armour itself. The cost of drone could also be reduced aignificantly if we mass produce them and keep them simple.
> 
> 500 to 1000 drones with an investment of 200 to 400 million dollars can give a real boast to take on against armoured thrust. However key here is reaction time. Armoured thrust has to be stopped before entering into the main cities



I completely agree the recent baraq training facility means Pakistani planners are planning on incorporating significant numbers of armed drones for CAS duties. CH4 and CH5 wing long 2 will be fielded in 1000s

k

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CriticalThought

waz said:


> Yes Pakistan has thousands of ATGM's, which can take out their T-72's, and impact the T-90's. But they are not coming in by themselves, and the IA will be deploy tens of thousands infantry with them, including snipers who will aim to hit ATGM teams. The lessons of the Yon Kippur war are taught to every competent military.
> You also have to remember that* tanks can close the distance very quickly*, so repeat salvos of ATGM's will not be as effective, and superior ground numbers will be on top of you.
> Cluster bombs from the PAF? Well they have more than enough on their plate with the IAF, and we have no independent air wing defending the navy, so that's two major concerns for them.
> It's a fact that we all have to contend with i.e. that due to the large land border we share with India, we need a great deal of tanks to blunt their amoured push.



I feel that the role of air borne drones has not been given the importance that it should receive. It would be far cheaper to manufacture and operate large numbers of CAS type drones equipped with an indigenous Hellfire type missile. I guess one of the objectives of Azm is exactly that. And if that comes to pass, I feel the requirements of PA with regards to armor could change over the coming years.

Another overlooked equipment is IFVs equipped with missiles. They have the dual benefits of bringing both firepower and infantry to the battlefield.

And finally, there are MLRS for really big firepower. What is the use of a large amount of armor when these alternatives are available?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Accountant

CriticalThought said:


> I feel that the role of air borne drones has not been given the importance that it should receive. It would be far cheaper to manufacture and operate large numbers of CAS type drones equipped with an indigenous Hellfire type missile. I guess one of the objectives of Azm is exactly that. And if that comes to pass, I feel the requirements of PA with regards to armor could change over the coming years.
> 
> Another overlooked equipment is IFVs equipped with missiles. They have the dual benefits of bringing both firepower and infantry to the battlefield.
> 
> And finally, there are MLRS for really big firepower. What is the use of a large amount of armor when these alternatives are available?


I agree with all except for the armour part ... Armoured is required to hold the ground and to stop enemy advance ... Except for the required air cover armour is key offense and defence equipments. Without armour in the front MLRS and other equipments are difficult to defend. 

Furthermore remember where drone could be an excellent CAS system but its not a defensive equipment. With limited fire power and comparatively higher per hour cost using them to hold ground is unrealistic.

Armor are still important in any battlefield ...


----------



## Signalian

The Accountant said:


> Do u mean defence of sky or CAS ? I feel PAF wouldnt be able to provide CAS role due to comparatively lesser no aircraft for air defence altough they should provide complete air cover atleast at our own skies


Both actually, but keeping the skies clear predominantly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

The Accountant said:


> What is cost of active protection? Can we upgrade AK and T85UD with these active protection system installed on VT4?


If cost effective, APS should be installed on all MBTs. Bursting of ERA bricks can be hazardous to nearby troops. 



> Furthermore, for armoury the biggest threat is CBU 105 ? So what of type tactics or equipment they have to counter an attack from top from precision guided munition ?


My thoughts are here:









Pakistan Army - AIR DEFENCE CORPS - Formation, Structure, Weapons


I have been asked repeatedly to create a thread on Army AIR DEFENCE and every time I had to paste a post that i wrote earlier in a thread so now i am creating a new topic. Army AD formations hold confidential information in terms of TOE, deployment, weaponry and Radar systems. I will give a...



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ghost 125

Signalian said:


> . Bursting of ERA bricks can be hazardous to nearby troops.


so is the explosion of incoming projectile by APS. incoming ATGM is taken out very close to tank itself by APS projectiles. but that should not be a problem. inf can be taught how to operate with tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GriffinsRule

APS won't work against top attack munitions as they have a very limited field of view and the cost vs benefit does not suit us when you have to field it on thousands of tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CriticalThought

The Accountant said:


> I agree with all except for the armour part ... Armoured is required to hold the ground and to stop enemy advance ... Except for the required air cover armour is key offense and defence equipments. Without armour in the front MLRS and other equipments are difficult to defend.
> 
> Furthermore remember where drone could be an excellent CAS system but its not a defensive equipment. With limited fire power and comparatively higher per hour cost using them to hold ground is unrealistic.
> 
> Armor are still important in any battlefield ...



It's an interesting discussion which would unfortunately take us off on a tangent. But there is a thread idea for you in it. 'The efficacy of armor on modern battlefields'. You create the thread, I'll respond.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## kursed

While air dominance can be established, since it’s a time dependent phenomenon - much like on 27th. Whereby a strike corps dash can be ensured, while wrecking havoc at the enemy from the top.

I just don’t see how this strike corps will hold on to any victory or land - given both side’s access to mass scale MRLS, precision guided weaponry and surface to surface missiles capable of landing anti armor / personnel munition from hundreds of miles away.

It’s an interesting paradigm. In our case, the adversary would have to damage our war fighting capacity at theater level in order to hold on to any territory. I don’t see how that would happen, either. It's pretty much a stalemate.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

waz said:


> Yes Pakistan has thousands of ATGM's, which can take out their T-72's, and impact the T-90's. But they are not coming in by themselves, and the IA will be deploy tens of thousands infantry with them, including snipers who will aim to hit ATGM teams. The lessons of the Yon Kippur war are taught to every competent military.
> You also have to remember that* tanks can close the distance very quickly*, so repeat salvos of ATGM's will not be as effective, and superior ground numbers will be on top of you.
> Cluster bombs from the PAF? Well they have more than enough on their plate with the IAF, and we have no independent air wing defending the navy, so that's two major concerns for them.
> It's a fact that we all have to contend with i.e. that due to the large land border we share with India, we need a great deal of tanks to blunt their amoured push.



This is why a dedicated PA Aviation with CAS would be most useful.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Armchair

As Pak moves towards importing a hi tech, heavy weight MBT like the VT4, perhaps local industry could focus on a different concept, rather than replicating vt4 type mbts locally.

Imagine a 2 man tank, driver and commander, armed with a 40mm autocannon, 8x atgms. Each having an hmd to cue weapons. Would be a perfect complement to the vt4.

They would be able to take out with the auto cannon everything below an MBT and use the atgms to take care of the mbts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Baloch Pakistani

waz said:


> Yes Pakistan has thousands of ATGM's, which can take out their T-72's, and impact the T-90's. But they are not coming in by themselves, and the IA will be deploy tens of thousands infantry with them, including snipers who will aim to hit ATGM teams. The lessons of the Yon Kippur war are taught to every competent military.
> You also have to remember that* tanks can close the distance very quickly*, so repeat salvos of ATGM's will not be as effective, and superior ground numbers will be on top of you.
> Cluster bombs from the PAF? Well they have more than enough on their plate with the IAF, and we have no independent air wing defending the navy, so that's two major concerns for them.
> It's a fact that we all have to contend with i.e. that due to the large land border we share with India, we need a great deal of tanks to blunt their amoured push.


ATGM teams won't be intimidated by snipers since they can't hit at the ranges of above 1km. ATGM teams will prove their metal in any war. Tank is a very potent weapon but ATGM can surely terrorize them and that too from 5-8 km away. Tanks will be massacred without Active protection systems as you are watching them getting killed in azerbaijan-armenia war. Just see the results of wars since 2006 israel-lebanon war. Tanks lost almost every competition against ATGMs. Now please don't say they did not know how to use tanks with infantry and Pakistan is the only country which knows how to use tanks and infantry. ATGM will kill the tank unless APS starts stopping it reliably.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## araz

Ark_Angel said:


> Thank you for the mention @Bratva. There were a lot of users here who typical of the local mentality negate you, wear you down in endless discussions as to prove that they know more than the other and pull him down, including think tanks and professionals which is saddening actually. There fore I'll request the mods again to redefine the criteria of this forum regarding the allotment of titles of Think Tanks, Professionals, and scrutinise again in order to improve the credibility. I think there was a Chinese member here constantly being negated by a think tank about the news of VT-4s being delivered for Pakistan such behaviours shouldn't be the acceptable norm here and must be taken to task. Eventually when the Tanks have been delivered All tom dick and harry Think tank, professional etc has jumped on the band wagon *I told/knew/now know more/ first syndrome*. Rules must be amended and scrutiny must be rigid and unforgiving. I believe it wasn't me but The Beast(Some Chinese member-I couldn't scroll the April chat) who brought the news first. Thanks to him the real discussion started while our local desis were constantly negating him.
> Now coming over the real deal:
> VT-4s are alive and kicking.
> Apologies for the colour scheme I couldn't look at the pictures more clearly.
> As far as Zulus are concerned:
> Negotiations under way for a way forward. Rest can't tell much. I had mentioned about 2 landing but that needs to be corrected-Those 2 birds were something else. Not Zulus.
> As far as the realisation of Armed Forces DevPlan 2030 goes: Lots of Goodies on the way. I can spill the beans with no liabilities, but then you'll complain of wastage of Bandwith. But eventually you'll be seeing that stuff in operational roles and be surprised just like VT-4s surprised you all.
> Have a great day all.


please visit the TTC section for Professionals Pak eyes only and put the matter up and you will be responded to. At the moment this is all we can say.
Kind regards

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## OgaBoga



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Congratulations to Pakistan on acquiring the most powerful and dominant MBT in the region. May it be the first of many such acquisitions.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## waz

Baloch Pakistani said:


> ATGM teams won't be intimidated by snipers since they can't hit at the ranges of above 1km. ATGM teams will prove their metal in any war. Tank is a very potent weapon but ATGM can surely terrorize them and that too from 5-8 km away. Tanks will be massacred without Active protection systems as you are watching them getting killed in azerbaijan-armenia war. Just see the results of wars since 2006 israel-lebanon war. Tanks lost almost every competition against ATGMs. Now please don't say they did not know how to use tanks with infantry and Pakistan is the only country which knows how to use tanks and infantry. ATGM will kill the tank unless APS starts stopping it reliably.



ATGM teams will be in danger as they're not going to engage from maximum range, rather come in. In the fog of war it's very difficult to keep track of such operators. You might say but Pakistan's infantry can deal with them, but that is not the case as it would give away ATGM placed teams, who massively rely on cover and surprise to be effective. 
ATGM can terrorise tanks, but we're talking about the PAK/INDO theatre here, and many will come with point ATP systems. 
With the 2006 Lebanon conflict, Hizbollah had no other option i.e. they don't have the funds for tanks. The terrain suited them i.e. well fortified urban positions, clear field of view, so hence near perfect environment for ATGMS's. Also remember Hizbollah allowed the Israelis to come in and hit them on their land, knowing full well the Israelis were not willing to engage in saturation for the sake of land they have no intention of occupying. That's *NOT *the case with the Indian army, which will occupy land, use FOB's, and reinforce positions as launching areas for deeper pushes with their superior numbers. 
Leaving a region to be just defended by ATGM teams and drones is as good as a shot in the dark. There's simply too much that can go wrong.
The army is investing greatly in such measures, but they'll only be used as an addition, another tool to stem an Indian onslaught, and never the go to measure. 
Tanks are the spearhead that will smash IA formations on the border, and that's why you see so much investment in them.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## waz

CriticalThought said:


> I feel that the role of air borne drones has not been given the importance that it should receive. It would be far cheaper to manufacture and operate large numbers of CAS type drones equipped with an indigenous Hellfire type missile. I guess one of the objectives of Azm is exactly that. And if that comes to pass, I feel the requirements of PA with regards to armor could change over the coming years.
> 
> Another overlooked equipment is IFVs equipped with missiles. They have the dual benefits of bringing both firepower and infantry to the battlefield.
> 
> And finally, there are MLRS for really big firepower. What is the use of a large amount of armor when these alternatives are available?



These are all great PLUS's, along with powerful armoured formations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

waz said:


> ATGM teams will be in danger as they're not going to engage from maximum range, rather come in. In the fog of war it's very difficult to keep track of such operators. You might say but Pakistan's infantry can deal with them, but that is not the case as it would give away ATGM placed teams, who massively rely on cover and surprise to be effective.
> ATGM can terrorise tanks, but we're talking about the PAK/INDO theatre here, and many will come with point ATP systems.
> With the 2006 Lebanon conflict, Hizbollah had no other option i.e. they don't have the funds for tanks. The terrain suited them i.e. well fortified urban positions, clear field of view, so hence near perfect environment for ATGMS's. Also remember Hizbollah allowed the Israelis to come in and hit them on their land, knowing full well the Israelis were not willing to engage in saturation for the sake of land they have no intention of occupying. That's *NOT *the case with the Indian army, which will occupy land, use FOB's, and reinforce positions as launching areas for deeper pushes with their superior numbers.
> Leaving a region to be just defended by ATGM teams and drones is as good as a shot in the dark. There's simply too much that can go wrong.
> The army is investing greatly in such measures, but they'll only be used as an addition, another tool to stem an Indian onslaught, and never the go to measure.
> Tanks are the spearhead that will smash IA formations on the border, and that's why you see so much investment in them.


The problem is that there is no fundamental barrier like the Himalayas mountain range to separate Pakistan and India. A big chunk of the border is just flat desert terrain, which is ideal for maneuver warfare. Pakistan will have to try its best to match India on the ground because breakthroughs are achieved on the ground ... the war in the air will more than likely brawl into a war of attrition in which no side has a significant advantage over the other. Even in the Persian Gulf War, the US still fought a couple of massive tank battles against the Iraqis even though they had been pummeled by complete US air superiority for a month ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waz

Figaro said:


> The problem is that there is no fundamental barrier like the Himalayas mountain range to separate Pakistan and India. A big chunk of the border is just flat desert terrain, which is ideal for maneuver warfare. Pakistan will have to try its best to match India on the ground because breakthroughs are achieved on the ground ... the war in the air will more than likely brawl into a war of attrition in which no side has a significant advantage over the other. Even in the Persian Gulf War, the US still fought a couple of massive tank battles against the Iraqis even though they had been pummeled by complete US air superiority for a month ...



That's right it's literally perfect tank country, you couldn't ask for more, unlike Kashmir. 

This is what we face; 






Yes it's also bluster, but these forces won't be stopped without tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## GriffinsRule

What is the intent or purpose of these vertical addons to the upper hull? Slots for era plates perhaps to be added as needed?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ghost 125

GriffinsRule said:


> What is the intent or purpose of these vertical addons to the upper hull? Slots for era plates perhaps to be added as needed?
> 
> View attachment 675024


yup

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

GriffinsRule said:


> What is the intent or purpose of these vertical addons to the upper hull? Slots for era plates perhaps to be added as needed?
> 
> View attachment 675024



Yes as brother @Ghost 125 confirmed.
It’s bolt on armour, not that the tank is it not already heavily armoured, the most in fact in the Pak/Indo theatre.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Our punjab region already has alot of strength on its behalf including two strike corps. But our southern command will face guge odds against the indian south western command. There is only one corps with some indp armd brigades in sindh which may prove to be in sufficient in a very tankable region


You didn't get my gist. 

While you veered off towards the region/terrain, you didn't notice that I mentioned operating an Armored Division with a Mechanised Division under a Corps HQ, whether its the 31st or 5th Corps. Such a combination could lead towards forming another Strike Corps or Armored/Mechanized Corps, one that doesn't already exist in PA unless the Infantry Divisions of Strike Corps are fully mechanised just like the Mechanized Divisions of PA. This could mean 8-12 Armored Regiments, 8+ Mechanized Infantry Battalions, 2-4 Anti Tank Regiments, 6-8 Artillery Regiments, 6 AD regiments in that formation and I haven't factored in the Infantry Division as yet. 

That's 360 - 540 x VT-4 MBTs charging at the enemy under a single Command. 

If such a formation comes up, it would raise alarms in IA HQs. Strategies, tactics and operations will be reviewed and renewed by both sides. New Exs will have to be conducted. This raises the important aspect: 
Does PA command have the capability to manoeuvre Armored and Mechanized divisional sized formations under a Corps HQ together in a war with India?

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Armchair

Pakistan has not ever used corps level maneuver in war. It would be a big step up. But for such large scale maneuvers, the doctrine and capability vis-a-vis the enemy has to change, as an offensive doctrine would require significant improvement in quality, quantity and new technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

LKJ86 said:


> IMO, VT-4 needs some partners:


99 problems but a MBT ain't one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cool_Soldier

VT4 is no doubt a good addition in PA but PAA is still lacking Choppers 
All options are held and process of procurement is delayed.
Turkish 
USA
China
Waiting for some sweet news about above agreements at least with two countries

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Signalian said:


> This raises the important aspect:
> *Does PA command have the capability to manoeuvre Armored and Mechanized divisional sized formations under a Corps HQ together in a war with India?*


Key: Karabag', Azerbayjan.....

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Dazzler

GriffinsRule said:


> What is the intent or purpose of these vertical addons to the upper hull? Slots for era plates perhaps to be added as needed?
> 
> View attachment 675024



Mounts for ERA cassettes when needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## casual

Just in time for the upcoming spit-roasting of India.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Blacklight said:


> Wild guess,
> 
> 1a. SSK
> 1b. SSN
> 1c. SSBN - 8 silo
> 2. Z10ME
> 3. AH-1Z
> 4. F16- Blk70/72
> 5. J15
> 6. J10
> 7. Jh-7


Itni saari "Pak ki napak saajishein"?  Sir ji aap ka "professional" title hai...jab aap aisi cheezein likhte hain toh achanak ek billion logon ko sadma pohanchta hai.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blacklight

Cookie Monster said:


> Itni saari "Pak ki napak saajishein"?  Sir ji aap ka "professional" title hai...jab aap aisi cheezein likhte hain toh achanak ek billion logon ko sadma pohanchta hai.


Sirf Sadma? I'm dissapointed


----------



## PakShaheen79

Blacklight said:


> Wild guess,
> 
> 1a. SSK
> 1b. SSN
> 1c. SSBN - 8 silo
> 2. Z10ME
> 3. AH-1Z
> 4. F16- Blk70/72
> 5. J15
> 6. J10
> 7. Jh-7



Oh! Teri Khair Ustad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blacklight

PakShaheen79 said:


> Oh! Teri Khair Ustad.


Abhi to shuruaat hai

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> China is the lead partner on the AK-series. So, it's possible that some stuff from the VT4 may make it over to the AK2. I hope (for easing logistics/maintenance) they use the same engine and transmission at least.


Not possible. The al khalid engine transmission is a gen behind VT-4. in order to fit VT-4 autotramission intergrated power pack. It will need a major redesign and u will stilll end up with VT-4 just rebranded as AK2.

There is reason why PA are targeting 1000 VT-4 import.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## khanasifm

Signalian said:


> You didn't get my gist.
> 
> While you veered off towards the region/terrain, you didn't notice that I mentioned operating an Armored Division with a Mechanised Division under a Corps HQ, whether its the 31st or 5th Corps. Such a combination could lead towards forming another Strike Corps or Armored/Mechanized Corps, one that doesn't already exist in PA unless the Infantry Divisions of Strike Corps are fully mechanised just like the Mechanized Divisions of PA. This could mean 8-12 Armored Regiments, 8+ Mechanized Infantry Battalions, 2-4 Anti Tank Regiments, 6-8 Artillery Regiments, 6 AD regiments in that formation and I haven't factored in the Infantry Division as yet.
> 
> That's 360 - 540 x VT-4 MBTs charging at the enemy under a single Command.
> 
> If such a formation comes up, it would raise alarms in IA HQs. Strategies, tactics and operations will be reviewed and renewed by both sides. New Exs will have to be conducted. This raises the important aspect:
> Does PA command have the capability to manoeuvre Armored and Mechanized divisional sized formations under a Corps HQ together in a war with India?



In war pa the western corps both go east, Quetta Corp join Karachi Corp in sindh and Peshawar Corp beefs up pindi Corp leaving western border to FC so no need to raise more corps

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Blacklight said:


> Sirf Sadma? I'm dissapointed


Yes sirf sadma...shortly afterwards it goes to denial("chini maal", "Indian stuff is best"), then they declare victory(on paper) and go back to being happy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Ghessan

Blacklight said:


> Wild guess,
> 
> 1a. SSK
> 1b. SSN
> 1c. SSBN - 8 silo
> 2. Z10ME
> 3. AH-1Z
> 4. F16- Blk70/72
> 5. J15
> 6. J10
> 7. Jh-7



ye jo akhri teen cheezein hein inhon ney doosrey forum pe bohat ho ha ki hoi thi
shayad aap ne bhi witness kiya ho ga.
suna hey ab yeh cheezein political decisons ki nazar hoti nazar a rahi hein
roshni daliye ga

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ali_raza

Ghessan said:


> ye jo akhri teen cheezein hein inhon ney doosrey forum pe bohat ho ha ki hoi thi
> shayad aap ne bhi witness kiya ho ga.
> suna hey ab yeh cheezein political decisons ki nazar hoti nazar a rahi hein
> roshni daliye ga


it is still a reality according to some


----------



## Rafeh

JPMM said:


> "Normal for Eastern Block Tanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portuguese Leo2A6 firing at its side, 120/55 gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep the volume low for this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Dont try to translate)



The VT-4 probably had that slightly and somewhat higher recoil oscillation in that particular video due to a variety of factors some of which are illustrated below:

1. *Ground damping:* How much energy the terrain can absorb and dissipate without hopefully transferring it back to the tank.

2*. Elastodynamic properties of the ground:* how much energy is absorbed and then returned to the tank due to the elasticity of ground surface the tank was moving on. If ground surface itself displaces and springs backup without much plastic (i.e. permanent) deformation, it will transfer some of energy back to the tank causing it to further oscillate as it moves adding in to later recoil when firing. Yes, even the seemingly rigid ground has some springle like recoil of its own when pushed down really heard, capable of tranfering energy from ground to the tank. Nothing is perfectly rigid.

*3. Tank state:* The velocity of and acceleration of the tank while firing has a profound impact on recoil oscillation frequency and amplitude (and its decay). Plan English: how fast tank recoils and how far, is affected by its its overall motion (in rigorous engineering terms rigid mode oscillations are function of vehicle state among other things).

*4.* *Energy transferred to the tank components* (due to their elasticity such as tank suspension system and other structures having elastic and damping characteristics of their own): This too will create unique recoil profile. Furthermore as tank moves on uneven ground, these elastic components carry a lot of energy in them which combined with firing recoil may give tank a far bigger oscillation than when moving smoothly and slowly on an even ground (where they carry less energy).

*5.* *Current weight and weight distribution* (due to component arrangements, ammunition, fuel, etc.) and overall weight of the tank: how much a tank weighs and how that weight is distributed will also create a unique recoil profile.

*6. *Position and orientation of turret, type of round fired *and so on.*

The point is some characteristics are chosen for a given tank (e.g. suspension optimized for certain "terrain-tank interactions") and some depend on terrain upon which the tank is moving on. A tank on certain terrain types for which it was optimized may behave dramatically differently than on a different terrain. One usually finds compromise and that depends on customer needs and personal preferences of the designers.

So we can't compare one tank moving and firing in a different environment with one in totally different one. Even when in the same environment a tank may differ in behavior depending on what they were trying to optimize or aiming for when it was designed. For example some may behave differently (have different dynamic characteristics) because they are supposed to experience less wear and tear and to increase maintenance time interval. The list goes on.

VT-4 can't be therefore be compared with another tank based on some videos of other tanks. All tanks are different and optimized based on different preferences and requirements, giving them different recoil profiles among other things.

I know you were NOT comparing the tanks, just merely pointing out some similarity but still I felt the need to say few things anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Baloch Pakistani

Beast said:


> *VT-4 engine is using computerized fully automatic transmission that makes the response and handling like a sport car. *The engine of VT-4 can be swapped out and replace with a new one in just 45mins while Oplot engine needs half day time to complete such task. I do not know why so many Pakistanis think so highly of such an obsolete tank like Oplot?


Brought back an old comment of yours, this VT4 surely does move like a sports car.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cool_Soldier

It looks Alkhalid 2 would be something different and advanced machine.
VT4 is going to create balance in battle field.
Some VTF 10 are also needed to strengthen defence and offence.


----------



## Irfan Baloch

is this video shared already?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ghessan

ali_raza said:


> it is still a reality according to some



those 'some' linked it to FM last statement against GCC on Kashmir issue hence everything is now halted.


----------



## PakShaheen79

Irfan Baloch said:


> is this video shared already?



So, it is 1200HP and not 1500HP power pack ... ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

PakShaheen79 said:


> So, it is 1200HP and not 1500HP power pack ... ??


Does it matter? Leopard A6 weights 65tons and equipped with 1500hp engine. Vt-4 weight 52tons and having a 1200hp engine.

Since many treat german tank like gems or benchmark, do i ask u. What advantage of LeopardA6 has over VT-4 in terms of power ratio?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

Beast said:


> Does it matter? Leopard A6 weights 65tons and equipped with 1500hp engine. Vt-4 weight 52tons and having a 1200hp engine.
> 
> Since many treat german tank like gems or benchmark, do i ask u. What advantage of LeopardA6 has over VT-4 in terms of power ratio?


Wasn't complaining about it. Wanted to just confirm that. I was under impression that Powerpack is 1500 HP as i read somewhere which seems to be incorrect.


----------



## kursed

Ghessan said:


> those 'some' linked it to FM last statement against GCC on Kashmir issue hence everything is now halted.


Yeh everything landed in Pakistan acc to them and now halted. Convenient.  

The entire thing was an elaborate lie!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CrazyZ

nomi007 said:


> VT-4 will be great induction but more important is to induct more anti-tank weapon systems.
> Like
> *AFT-10*


Spot on. This type of vehicles could be used as launch platforms for long range anti tank missiles or loitering munitions to support defensive ops with conventional armor/infantry forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dreamer.

Beast said:


> Does it matter? Leopard A6 weights 65tons and equipped with 1500hp engine. Vt-4 weight 52tons and having a 1200hp engine.
> 
> Since many treat german tank like gems or benchmark, do i ask u. What advantage of LeopardA6 has over VT-4 in terms of power ratio?


Don't VT-4's have 1300HP engine? It was reported pakistani version has 1500HP but not confirmed.

So does VT4 have 1300HP engine or 1200HP?


----------



## Beast

Dreamer. said:


> Don't VT-4's have 1300HP engine? It was reported pakistani version has 1500HP but not confirmed.
> 
> So does VT4 have 1300HP engine or 1200HP?


Possible 1300HP engine but 1500HP is unlikely. First is cost and second, the overkill horsepower will reduces range and shorten service Interval.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

Beast said:


> Possible 1300HP engine but 1500HP is unlikely. First is cost and second, the overkill horsepower will reduces range and shorten service Interval.


If the weight of the tank is 52 tons, then a 1300HP engine gives it a power to weight ratio of 25 (same as AlKhalid). That's pretty good. Infact it's almost as high as it gets for tanks anywhere in the world. And considering the opposition it's excellent. No indian tank even comes near. So I would agree that 1500HP engine is not needed, especially if it comes at the cost of other parameters as you mentioned.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vi-va

Dreamer. said:


> If the weight of the tank is 52 tons, then a 1300HP engine gives it a power to weight ratio of 25 (same as AlKhalid). That's pretty good. Infact it's almost as high as it gets for tanks anywhere in the world. And considering the opposition it's excellent. No indian tank even comes near. So I would agree that 1500HP engine is not needed, especially if it comes at the cost of other parameters as you mentioned.


HB 150 engine can be fine tuned between 1200 HP and 1500 HP. It depends on the balance of life span and mobility.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Danish saleem

we started building Al Khalid Tank in 1998, after 22 years, we cant even able to upgrade it, or develop newer version? is that is our capability of RnD?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akh1112

waz said:


> Current batch 300. More batches to follow, again in 300 groups. We're looking at 1,000 tanks.




Source?


----------



## waz

Akh1112 said:


> Source?



Retirement figures from present older tanks, which simply can't be filled by the Al-Khalid (newer model), the production rate has also been very slow over the years. It also makes no economic sense to import such a small number for a higher price, and of course the grape vine, not everything has a source, even sources have been wrong over the years e.g. from the press.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

Danish saleem said:


> we started building Al Khalid Tank in 1998, after 22 years, we cant even able to upgrade it, or develop newer version? is that is our capability of RnD?


You think its so easy to upgrade a tank to competitive next gen level from data sharing, fire control, power pack, armour to firepower?

Its easy to build a tank but not easy to reach a world class level.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akh1112

waz said:


> Retirement figures from present older tanks, which simply can't be filled by the Al-Khalid (newer model), the production rate has also been very slow over the years. It also makes no economic sense to import such a small number for a higher price, and of course the grape vine, not everything has a source, even sources have been wrong over the years e.g. from the press.




course i get you but i wanted to share this further hence why i wanted a source since i was going to get asked for one. No biggie though

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Akh1112 said:


> course i get you but i wanted to share this further hence why i wanted a source since i was going to get asked for one. No biggie though



No problem bro. Admittedly I had to think it over to explain it. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GriffinsRule

Danish saleem said:


> we started building Al Khalid Tank in 1998, after 22 years, we cant even able to upgrade it, or develop newer version? is that is our capability of RnD?


More or less yes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## baqai

Akh1112 said:


> Source?



hehehe do we seriously think someone will post Brig so and so of so and so unit :p i think there are people on these forums who have track record of reporting authentic news, as far as i am concerned that's more valuable than "my chacha ka larka who is in army"

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Dazzler

4 more delivered..

Reactions: Like Like:
13 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Danish saleem

Beast said:


> You think its so easy to upgrade a tank to competitive next gen level from data sharing, fire control, power pack, armour to firepower?
> 
> Its easy to build a tank but not easy to reach a world class level.



that why i wrote RnD, Research and Development.


----------



## Raja Porus

Shouldn't the AZs which are to be replaced by Vt4 be provided to some inf divs to form armd brigades instead of a single regiment. It would be a mistake if they send these to western front

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## capricorn5192

Dazzler said:


> 4 more delivered..


الحمداللہ


----------



## Raja Porus

Dazzler said:


> 4 more delivered..


That raises the number of tanks currently present in Pakistan to?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Path-Finder said:


> I wonder if there will be a development the main gun department. after the revelation of Rheinmetall 130mm gun, maybe its time to push for beyond 125mm



I think Russia and China have tested larger caliber gun on their tanks but did not proceed further as it was not required, but they do have capacity to built one when required.


----------



## IblinI

Basel said:


> I think Russia and China have tested larger caliber gun on their tanks but did not proceed further as it was not required, but they do have capacity to built one when required.


We have projects on 140mm and ETC/Railgun, they are testing all possibilities.


----------



## vi-va

IblinI said:


> We have projects on 140mm and ETC/Railgun, they are testing all possibilities.


IMO, 140mm technology will only be reserved. In 99% case, It won't be deployed. China invest on 140mm just in case rival has any break through on armor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## alimobin memon

Beast said:


> Does it matter? Leopard A6 weights 65tons and equipped with 1500hp engine. Vt-4 weight 52tons and having a 1200hp engine.
> 
> Since many treat german tank like gems or benchmark, do i ask u. What advantage of LeopardA6 has over VT-4 in terms of power ratio?


Turkish leopards were devastated. before that I though it was most potent no.1 tank.


----------



## IblinI

alimobin memon said:


> Turkish leopards were devastated. before that I though it was most potent no.1 tank.


That was leopards 2a4 from 1980s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

alimobin memon said:


> Turkish leopards were devastated. before that I though it was most potent no.1 tank.


New Tank nowadays(like 99A2 VT-4) is much more advanced than old cold war version Leopard_2A4, such as fire control, armor, engine.

Turkey received 354 Leopard 2A4s from Germany. It's heavier than VT-4, but VT-4 only needs 3 crews, so VT-4 can relocate much more weight for armor.

Even the engine in 2A4 is old MTU 873 Ka-501. While nowadays, *EuroPowerPack* use MTU MT883 Ka-500/501. Germany has much better engine MTU 893 but you won't waste that money on those old cold war tanks.

MTU883 1.32 cubic meter / 1650kg / 1500hp
MTU 893 0.88 cubic meter /1000kg / 1500hp









Leopard 2 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1318192809028034560

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Raja Porus

Q1:How do the t80uds compare the Ak1 and vt4 as ive seen that some people (in the armoured Corps?)recommend t80ud over AK(not AK1)?
Q2:can the side skirts protect the tank from being disabled if hit directly by HEATs
Q3: is the the stats about penetrations of atgms calculated perpendicular to the armour if so then Won't the penetration be lesser in reality as missiles have max penetration at 90 deg
Q4:what will happen of the AZs that the vt4 is replacing.they are certainly not going to the western front as PA still operates t59s on eastern front with inf divs which are inferior to AZs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Q1:How do the t80uds compare the Ak1 and vt4 as ive seen that some people (in the armoured Corps?)recommend t80ud over AK(not AK1)?
> Q2:can the side skirts protect the tank from being disabled if hit directly by HEATs
> Q3: is the the stats about penetrations of atgms calculated perpendicular to the armour if so then Won't the penetration be lesser in reality as missiles have max penetration at 90 deg
> Q4:what will happen of the AZs that the vt4 is replacing.they are certainly not going to the western front as PA still operates t59s on eastern front with inf divs which are inferior to AZs


Answer 2
Yes, they can. Depends upon the distance of the side skirts from the tank hull or tracks. The more the distance, the weaker will be the explosive jet of the HEAT round or rocket which melts through the armour. 

Answer 3
ATGM penetration is measured for all angles. It's the maximum at 90 degree. In reality, several factors will surely affect the effective use of ATGMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Raja Porus

PanzerKiel said:


> Answer 2
> Yes, they can. Depends upon the distance of the side skirts from the tank hull or tracks. The more the distance, the weaker will be the explosive jet of the HEAT round or rocket which melts through the armour.
> 
> Answer 3
> ATGM penetration is measured for all angles. It's the maximum at 90 degree. In reality, several factors will surely affect the effective use of ATGMs.


Thank you sir. I think u can also guide us better the on 1st question

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Can any one tell me about the future of AZ that the VT4s are replacing(which is certainly not tge western front) and also some specs of our type 85s


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Beast said:


> You think its so easy to upgrade a tank to competitive next gen level from data sharing, fire control, power pack, armour to firepower?


According to him who thinks Pakistani's are ace at maths I would imagine upgrading tanks should be a doddle. I mean most technology feeds off advanced maths.



Faqir of ipi said:


> Average Pakistan is better at maths than an average American or Britisher... as for Pakistanis they surely will know their own country..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

I think by 2025, we may be looking at:
1. 1000 VT-4
2. Approx. 700 AKs
3. T-80UD 320
4. Type 85 IIAP 268
5. Approx. 600 AZ
6. Approx. 600 Type 59s
7. Type 69 II MP 158

6 from the list could be put in storage / reserve or even retired. If they are retired, perhaps AZs could be put in reserve / storage along with Type 69s, which also have been upgraded (?? or so I guestimate). 

Ideally, PA would look to standardize on VT-4, AK and T-80 UD, keep in reserve Type 85, Type 69 and AZ, while retiring / giving away to FC Type 59s. This would create a meaningful war reserve which Pak so far has lacked. Also, since AZ and Type 85 shoot the same ammo as VT-4 / AK / T-80 UD, them being kept in reserve makes sense more than vanilla Type 59 / 69.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

Indus Pakistan said:


> According to him who thinks Pakistani's are ace at maths I would imagine upgrading tanks should be a doddle. I mean most technology feeds off advanced maths.


Its a fact that an average Pakistan or South Asian is better than average EU citizen or American when it comes to maths...

As for upgradation of tanks... Pakistan upgraded its old tanks without any problem so dont use burnol 🤣

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

TheSnakeEatingMarkhur said:


> its a fact that an average Pakistan or South Asian is better than average EU citizen or American when it comes to maths...


Maybe Indians but not Pakistani's. The Indian IIT's are testement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakFactor

PanzerKiel said:


> Answer 2
> Yes, they can. Depends upon the distance of the side skirts from the tank hull or tracks. The more the distance, the weaker will be the explosive jet of the HEAT round or rocket which melts through the armour.
> 
> Answer 3
> ATGM penetration is measured for all angles. It's the maximum at 90 degree. In reality, several factors will surely affect the effective use of ATGMs.



@PanzerKiel

I have question for others general knowledge as well.

From the Azerbaijan videos I've noticed one particular thing and very few picked up on it, the hits the drone's been doing was located where the engine is to de-mobilize the tank without taking a chance on the turret (possibly due to armor), is our VT-4 and other tanks protected from a hit there whereas the armor is probably the thinnest?

Or would you bring this up to our planners to create some sort of plating in a upgrade program to cover this weak spot as well?


----------



## LeGenD

@Indus Pakistan 

Can you make a post without offending someone? Please do not insult other members.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Indus Pakistan

LeGenD said:


> Can you make a post without offending someone? Please do not insult other members.


Nope. You should know that from the days before even you occupied the lofty heights of "Moderstar". Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. And you know that guy is a cheap spade.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

Indus Pakistan said:


> Maybe Indians but not Pakistani's. The Indian IIT's are testement.


I speak from my personal experience mate... and no doubt indians are great at maths so are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis... but I can understand why you cant digest this 🤣

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Indus Pakistan said:


> Nope. You should know that from the days before even you occupied the lofty heights of "Moderstar". Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. And you know that guy is a cheap spade.


You are allowed to call a spade and spade when you deem this necessary but without insulting other members. 

Your point will carry much more weight without insults in the mix. Insulting defeats the purpose of a conversation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

PakFactor said:


> @PanzerKiel
> 
> I have question for others general knowledge as well.
> 
> From the Azerbaijan videos I've noticed one particular thing and very few picked up on it, the hits the drone's been doing was located where the engine is to de-mobilize the tank without taking a chance on the turret (possibly due to armor), is our VT-4 and other tanks protected from a hit there whereas the armor is probably the thinnest?
> 
> Or would you bring this up to our planners to create some sort of plating in a upgrade program to cover this weak spot as well?


If you do not have adequate air defenses like the Armenians to shoot down the drones, once the drone goes into position for the kill, any tank would be finished off due to the thin top armor. Tanks are designed for protection from ground threats ... not aerial threats. I'm sure those Azeri drones could have destroyed those Armenian tanks had they targeted the turret.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Armchair said:


> I think by 2025, we may be looking at:
> 1. 1000 VT-4
> 2. Approx. 700 AKs
> 3. T-80UD 320
> 4. Type 85 IIAP 268
> 5. Approx. 600 AZ
> 6. Approx. 600 Type 59s
> 7. Type 69 II MP 158
> 
> 6 from the list could be put in storage / reserve or even retired. If they are retired, perhaps AZs could be put in reserve / storage along with Type 69s, which also have been upgraded (?? or so I guestimate).
> 
> Ideally, PA would look to standardize on VT-4, AK and T-80 UD, keep in reserve Type 85, Type 69 and AZ, while retiring / giving away to FC Type 59s. This would create a meaningful war reserve which Pak so far has lacked. Also, since AZ and Type 85 shoot the same ammo as VT-4 / AK / T-80 UD, them being kept in reserve makes sense more than vanilla Type 59 / 69.


It should be that. We need those Tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cuirassier

so the initial order has been of 4 regiments - obviously to re-equip the armour with the 6 AD's organic brigades. Follow-up will definitely be enough for 3 regiments; kinda like the T80-UD pattern. 1 as the Div Recce Regt and 2 for the Armd Bde that can can operate directly under Corps HQ. I reckon that's all the armour the I Corps has, as I wouldn't expect it's supporting infantry divisions to hold integral armour as such (19 ID could have one?) Apparently the ARN/ARS like to keep commonality in armour type.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Raja Porus

Cuirassier said:


> so the initial order has been of 4 regiments - obviously to re-equip the armour with the 6 AD's organic brigades. Follow-up will definitely be enough for 3 regiments; kinda like the T80-UD pattern. 1 as the Div Recce Regt and 2 for the Armd Bde that can can operate directly under Corps HQ. I reckon that's all the armour the I Corps has, as I wouldn't expect it's supporting infantry divisions to hold integral armour as such (19 ID could have one?) Apparently the ARN/ARS like to keep commonality in armour type.


Haven't we done away with the div recce unit and Won't 300 tanks make up 5 Regts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Haven't we done away with the div recce unit and Won't 300 tanks make up 5 Regts



There are no more light armored brigades in the division. All are now heavy with two armour regiments each. That makes 264 tanks. Then, there are three HQ Squadrons of the three armored brigades, and the HQ squadron of the division itself. Then couple of tanks are required at the training centre and armour school as well for training purposes.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dazzler said:


> 4 more delivered..


What ammo does the VT-4 use? 125-IIM correct? Can it fire any better rounds like Naiza or a better Chinese one. AFAIK 125-III can only be fired by the Type 99s.


----------



## Signalian

Quoting from a document, "The Wrong track: Errors in American tank development in World War II."

"The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Shermans completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired, and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent."

M4 Sherman was a "death trap". Todays tanks are much better overall in reliability, protection, firepower and mobility. Considering that 580% wouldn't be applicable today, still if 100% loss rate is applicable, PA would need double the strength the of VT-4 for just one Armored Division. Not 300 but 600 VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> What ammo does the VT-4 use? 125-IIM correct? Can it fire any better rounds like Naiza or a better Chinese one. AFAIK 125-III can only be fired by the Type 99s.


BTA-4 falls between IIM and 125III

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## truthfollower

PanzerKiel said:


> There are no more light armored brigades in the division. All are now heavy with two armour regiments each. That makes 264 tanks. Then, there are three HQ Squadrons of the three armored brigades, and the HQ squadron of the division itself. Then couple of tanks are required at the training centre and armour school as well for training purposes.


how scouting is done for the area in the age of drones?


----------



## PanzerKiel

truthfollower said:


> how scouting is done for the area in the age of drones?


.... Of course with drones.... They are there as well... 
Apart from armored recce regiments, HAT and LAT units.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

VT4 in Tilla Jogian Firing Range(remix of training video already posted).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dazzler said:


> BTA-4 falls between IIM and 125III


Oh yeah, I forgot that existed, thanks a lot. Do we have any penetration numbers for it?


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> Quoting from a document, "The Wrong track: Errors in American tank development in World War II."
> 
> "The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Shermans completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired, and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent."


Then the Americans make fun of the Soviets for following "quantity is quality itself " doctrine

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @中国兵器第一研究院 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
8 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot that existed, thanks a lot. Do we have any penetration numbers for it?



Classified.


LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 686012
> View attachment 686013
> View attachment 686014
> View attachment 686015
> View attachment 686016
> 
> Via @中国兵器第一研究院 from Weixin



More heart attacks in the neighborhood.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

Un


Dazzler said:


> Classified.
> 
> 
> More heart attacks in the neighborhood.


Understandable, thanks again.


----------



## Imran Khan

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 686012
> View attachment 686013
> View attachment 686014
> View attachment 686015
> View attachment 686016
> 
> Via @中国兵器第一研究院 from Weixin


they are here for training and after sales services i think ?


----------



## Beast

Imran Khan said:


> they are here for training and after sales services i think ?


Yes, they are engineers and designers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

Beast said:


> Yes, they are engineers and designers.


picture show they landed at NUR KHAN AIR BASE not at islamabad airport its means they were came on military aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Imran Khan said:


> picture show they landed at NUR KHAN AIR BASE not at islamabad airport its means they were came on military aircraft


Engineers for NORINCO usually has special military service provided. In case, Indian or US agent steal their data or kidnapped them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fawadqasim1

FuturePAF said:


> Pakistan should stop getting t-72 mods, we should find a way to make more affordable leopard class tanks; something like the Turkish Altay but slightly smaller and more affordable.


Bro calling vt-4 a t72 mod is a bit unfair don't you think.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

Fawadqasim1 said:


> Bro calling vt-4 a t72 mod is a bit unfair don't you think.



a little (but I hope they prove be wrong)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

FuturePAF said:


> Pakistan should stop getting t-72 mods, we should find a way to make more affordable leopard class tanks; something like the Turkish Altay but slightly smaller and more affordable.


What this forum needs is veteran officer from armored corps, who can explain what armored combat is all about. The Operational capability of tanks in warfare and how they are or will be deployed in combat, the logistics and supplies they need and why driving is considered an important factor of armored forces. How are armored operations planned now with modern tanks. Just a glimpse, nothing detailed.

Mere specs like gun, armor, range, Hp of engine, and other few components are discussed mostly for tanks. Specs of all tanks are littered all over the internet.

VT4 or T-72 mod or Leo2 or Altay - Army make does of what it has.

As an example, 38 Cavalry was raised with Sherman tanks in 1971 while India had T-55 tanks since 1966-67. 38 TDU was converted and raised as 38 Cavalry on 1st Oct 1971 and it took part in war. The starting strength of the regiment were 44 x overhauled Sherman tanks, 3 x tank dozers, one officer and 75 men. The engines of these Shermans seized frequently as the sumps and filters had neither been changed or cleaned as they were attached to the body of the tank since 1953. It was too late for over hauling engines of these 44 x tanks so 12 x spare engines went along in combat with tanks. No one complained that Shermans could be facing T-55. Two broken down shermans were destroyed by other Shermans of 38 Cav through HE rounds so they dont fall intact in enemy hands. Most of the tank crew sent to 38 Cavalry from other units had been trained on M-48 Pattons or T-59 tanks. 38 Cav was to be made battle ready in 15 days from 1st Oct. It was deployed in operational area on 30 Oct and it took part in war after 60 days of its raising with 18th Infantry Division in desert, Rajasthan. 

Things have improved today, however operational issues will continue to exist in peace and war.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
14 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Fawadqasim1

We Will in future see more use of stealthy kamakazi drones. Drones that can fire air to surface smart/guided munitions both autonomous and semi autonomous In order to resist electronic warfare moreover it will surely face long range smart artillery shells mlrs with smart submunitions and so on most of these will be fielded within a decade. if tank is to survive as an offensive weapon in the near future it has to be equipped with robust active and passive protection systems along with an excellent c4i.


----------



## redtom

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 686012
> View attachment 686013
> View attachment 686014
> View attachment 686015
> View attachment 686016
> 
> Via @中国兵器第一研究院 from Weixin


From appearance, I would guess from left to right, administrative supervisor, technical supervisor, senior engineer, junior engineer, driver.


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> What this forum needs is veteran officer from armored corps, who can explain what armored combat is all about. The Operational capability of tanks in warfare and how they are or will be deployed in combat, the logistics and supplies they need and why driving is considered an important factor of armored forces. How are armored operations planned now with modern tanks. Just a glimpse, nothing detailed.
> 
> Mere specs like gun, armor, range, Hp of engine, and other few components are discussed mostly for tanks. Specs of all tanks are littered all over the internet.
> 
> VT4 or T-72 mod or Leo2 or Altay - Army make does of what it has.
> 
> As an example, 38 Cavalry was raised with Sherman tanks in 1971 while India had T-55 tanks since 1966-67. 38 TDU was converted and raised as 38 Cavalry on 1st Oct 1971 and it took part in war. The starting strength of the regiment were 44 x overhauled Sherman tanks, 3 x tank dozers, one officer and 75 men. The engines of these Shermans seized frequently as the sumps and filters had neither been changed or cleaned as they were attached to the body of the tank since 1953. It was too late for over hauling engines of these 44 x tanks so 12 x spare engines went along in combat with tanks. No one complained that Shermans could be facing T-55. Two broken down shermans were destroyed by other Shermans of 38 Cav through HE rounds so they dont fall intact in enemy hands. Most of the tank crew sent to 38 Cavalry from other units had been trained on M-48 Pattons or T-59 tanks. 38 Cav was to be made battle ready in 15 days from 1st Oct. It was deployed in operational area on 30 Oct and it took part in war after 60 days of its raising with 18th Infantry Division in desert, Rajasthan.
> 
> Things have improved today, however operational issues will continue to exist in peace and war.


Isn't @PanzerKiel of armoured Corps. I think, he will be the best man for this job. And to a great extent he has been performing this role. Also he is very active, knowledgeable and humble

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Need around 2,000 to retire older model tanks in inventory

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

FuturePAF said:


> a little (but I hope they prove be wrong)


I hope you flip back more earlier thread and stop beating the dead horse of another T-72. If VT-4 is just a modify T-72. Then Leopard 2 A7 is just leopard 1. I do not want to repeat spoon feed you about VT-4. Since it's already bought by PA. It's your responsible to find out more info and pls do yourself a favor by not asking American or indian about VT-4 info.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## FuturePAF

Beast said:


> I hope you flip back more earlier thread and stop beating the dead horse of another T-72. If VT-4 is just a modify T-72. Then Leopard 2 A7 is just leopard 1. I do not want to repeat spoon feed you about VT-4. Since it's already bought by PA. It's your responsible to find out more info and pls do yourself a favor by not asking American or indian about VT-4 info.



I hope your right. I trust the Pakistan army to have checked out the tank and if they are satisfied, the I am satisfied.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## vi-va

FuturePAF said:


> I hope your right. I trust the Pakistan army to have checked out the tank and if they are satisfied, the I am satisfied.


I do believe Pakistan will make the right choice very cautiously. 
Pakistan face thousands of India Tanks, such as T-72, T-90. It's vital and very serious business and threat. The border between 2 countries are mostly flat and quite long. The Tank is the spear of Army, other weapons system designed and used around the tanks. 

If tank is superior, it will give Pakistan Army an edge over India. As we know, Pakistan may not be able to match the numbers, so it's even more important for Pakistan Army to choose the best choice they can have within the budget. 

If there are any better deal Pakistan can get, all my best wishes to Pakistan Army. Go for it.

Friendship is friendship. Business is business. Pakistan Army should always try everything they can to equip brave soldiers, so that they can survive and win the war.

So far, I think Pakistan Army has made their minds, VT-4 won't fail Pakistan Army. We will see.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Signalian

vi-va said:


> Pakistan face thousands of India Tanks, such as T-72, T-90.


The first tank that PA acquired to face T-72 was Type-85. While Type-85 was being procured, initial work on AK had begun in 90's. After Pakistan went for T-80 UDs, the Indians procured T-90s. Coincidentally, AK and T-90 were inducted in the same year in respective armies I think. Apart from Type-85, the way these procurements occurred doesn't ensure that PA acquires tanks solely against Indian Army tank procurements. If you read history of Indo-Pak wars, both armies whenever took initiatives to throw tanks against enemy deployed them against weaker enemy forces, not necessarily against armored forces(khem Karan-Pakistan and Sialkot-India). The defending army would try to employ tanks against tanks along with other anti-tank systems (Sialkot-Pakistan). Its useful to exploit enemy's weakly defended areas with armor unless armor has to face armor in combat and there is no other choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> The first tank that PA acquired to face T-72 was Type-85. While Type-85 was being procured, initial work on AK had begun in 90's. After Pakistan went for T-80 UDs, the Indians procured T-90s. Coincidentally, AK and T-90 were inducted in the same year in respective armies I think. Apart from Type-85, the way these procurements occurred doesn't ensure that PA acquires tanks solely against Indian Army tank procurements. If you read history of Indo-Pak wars, both armies whenever took initiatives to throw tanks against enemy deployed them against weaker enemy forces, not necessarily against armored forces(khem Karan-Pakistan and Sialkot-India). The defending army would try to employ tanks against tanks along with other anti-tank systems (Sialkot-Pakistan). Its useful to exploit enemy's weakly defended areas with armor unless armor has to face armor in combat and there is no other choice.


Yep you don't cut iron with iron


Signalian said:


> The first tank that PA acquired to face T-72 was Type-85. While Type-85 was being procured, initial work on AK had begun in 90's. After Pakistan went for T-80 UDs, the Indians procured T-90s. Coincidentally, AK and T-90 were inducted in the same year in respective armies I think. Apart from Type-85, the way these procurements occurred doesn't ensure that PA acquires tanks solely against Indian Army tank procurements. If you read history of Indo-Pak wars, both armies whenever took initiatives to throw tanks against enemy deployed them against weaker enemy forces, not necessarily against armored forces(khem Karan-Pakistan and Sialkot-India). The defending army would try to employ tanks against tanks along with other anti-tank systems (Sialkot-Pakistan). Its useful to exploit enemy's weakly defended areas with armor unless armor has to face armor in combat and there is no other choice.


Yes you don't cut iron with iron. Armour is usually not used against armour unless for outflanking or preventing outflanking of own forces. PA has especially raised an indp anti armour bde at Gujranwala and the Gujranwala corps was established to relief one corps of taking any defensive moves .same can be said of 4(lahore) and 31(bahwalpur) corps to some extent. It should also be implemented in sindh. 
How do iur type 85s compare with indian t72s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Desert Fox 1 said:


> How do iur type 85s compare with indian t72s


Type-85 II can face T-72 and come on top. It can even face T-90 which is why its deployed in semi/desert region. T-59 II did not perform amicably in the desert therefore a new tank was needed.

If the crew is trained and experienced then T-59 II can hold its ground against T-72, however its slower, has a smaller gun and its protection is just adequate. This is where tactics, strategy, employment of weapon and other factors come in.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> Type-85 II can face T-72 and come on top. It can even face T-90 which is why its deployed in semi/desert region. T-59 II did not perform amicably in the desert therefore a new tank was needed.
> 
> If the crew is trained and experienced then T-59 II can hold its ground against T-72, however its slower, has a smaller gun and its protection is just adequate. This is where tactics, strategy, employment of weapon and other factors come in.


Thanks, are type85s are under v corps ? Similarly what's the area of deployment of AKs, i read one of your post which said that they are usually with inf divs, if so why? And what will happen with the AZs, clearly they are not going to the western front?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Thanks, are type85s are under v corps ? Similarly what's the area of deployment of AKs, i read one of your post which said that they are usually with inf divs, if so why? And what will happen with the AZs, clearly they are not going to the western front?


I have an idea where Type-85 II are deployed, but lets see if anyone else points it out. I had started some threads on PA formations but i was asked to stop later on so I don't really indulge in deployments or procurements. 

AZ is a very impressive upgrade. It could make its way into armored regiments of Infantry Divs and has a good potential to serve in armored brigades. It would be disastrous for Indian military to underestimate AZ.

Reactions: Like Like:
13 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> I have an idea where Type-85 II are deployed, but lets see if anyone else points it out. I had started some threads on PA formations but i was asked to stop later on so I don't really indulge in deployments or procurements.
> 
> AZ is a very impressive upgrade. It could make its way into armored regiments of Infantry Divs and has a good potential to serve in armored brigades. It would be disastrous for Indian military to underestimate AZ.


Another question, will the AZs which have been replaced by vt4s form new regt?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Dazzler said:


> here comes the improved model. Notice the olive green color of the gun, and it now has a muzzle reference sytem as well.
> 
> The older version lacked both these enhancements


thanks brother 
if there was generation classification then where does it stand in the league of Russian T90 or German lepords and US Abrams ?


----------



## vi-va

Irfan Baloch said:


> thanks brother
> if there was generation classification then where does it stand in the league of Russian T90 or German lepords and US Abrams ?


Leopard changed quite a lot since 1980s. depends on which specific version.
T-90 is old tank technology, some upgrade from T-72.
Abrams changed a lot as well since it was born. So it depends which version.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Irfan Baloch

vi-va said:


> Leopard changed quite a lot since 1980s. depends on which specific version.
> T-90 is old tank technology, some upgrade from T-72.
> Abrams changed a lot as well since it was born. So it depends which version.


every thing changed like original F16s
I assumed that people will understand that my question was about the most current and modern variants of the tanks i listed vs this tank.


----------



## truthfollower

Signalian said:


> i was asked to stop later on


if I may ask,
stopped by whom?


----------



## CriticalThinker02

FuturePAF said:


> I hope your right. I trust the Pakistan army to have checked out the tank and if they are satisfied, the I am satisfied.



Oh wow what will we do without your satisfaction

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## HRK

Irfan Baloch said:


> every thing changed like original F16s
> I assumed that people will understand that my question was about the most current and modern variants of the tanks i listed vs this tank.


in that case latest iteration of all 3 tanks which you have quoted fall in gen +3 category, so as VT-4

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

Irfan Baloch said:


> thanks brother
> if there was generation classification then where does it stand in the league of Russian T90 or German lepords and US Abrams ?



Leo 2a4 and M1a2 Sept. Well above the t90.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Another question, will the AZs which have been replaced by vt4s form new regt?


Depends what PA has planned for Type-59 II


truthfollower said:


> if I may ask,
> stopped by whom?


The important question that you should be asking is that do our tank crews have decent education level to fully understand and use the electronics and sensor system of modern tanks like VT4 ? There was a time in past (60s) when laser range finders on M-48s became a difficult task to be taught to tank crews who had little or no education.
Secondly, on what criteria are tank crews chosen to become driver and gunner.
Thirdly, how much time will it take for the crews and commanders to fully understand and employ VT4 in best possible manner for combat.

I dont have answers of all above.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> Depends what PA has planned for Type-59 II
> 
> The important question that you should be asking is that do our tank crews have decent education level to fully understand and use the electronics and sensor system of modern tanks like VT4 ? There was a time in past (60s) when laser range finders on M-48s became a difficult task to be taught to tank crews who had little or no education.
> Secondly, on what criteria are tank crews chosen to become driver and gunner.
> Thirdly, how much time will it take for the crews and commanders to fully understand and employ VT4 in best possible manner for combat.
> 
> I dont have answers of all above.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## truthfollower

Signalian said:


> The important question that you should be asking is that do our tank crews have decent education level to fully understand and use the electronics and sensor system of modern tanks like VT4 ? There was a time in past (60s) when laser range finders on M-48s became a difficult task to be taught to tank crews who had little or no education.
> Secondly, on what criteria are tank crews chosen to become driver and gunner.
> Thirdly, how much time will it take for the crews and commanders to fully understand and employ VT4 in best possible manner for combat.
> 
> I dont have answers of all above.



how good is the situational awareness?
and during war how to differentiate between enemy and friendly tanks?
is there some kind of digital map in the tank? for situational awareness? 
like we see in the games?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Dazzler said:


>


Is it in service? Moreover it said that main gun is controlled (or fired) by the commander?


----------



## Dazzler

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Is it in service? Moreover it said that main gun is controlled (or fired) by the commander?



In service since years. Commander can override and control the gun if he wants.


truthfollower said:


> how good is the situational awareness?
> and during war how to differentiate between enemy and friendly tanks?
> is there some kind of digital map in the tank? for situational awareness?
> like we see in the games?
> 
> View attachment 687172



Battlefield management system is there. For identification, the IFF system does the job.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

truthfollower said:


> how good is the situational awareness?
> and during war how to differentiate between enemy and friendly tanks?
> is there some kind of digital map in the tank? for situational awareness?
> like we see in the games?
> 
> View attachment 687172







__





:: GIDS - PAK-IBMS ::







gids.com.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## truthfollower

Signalian said:


> The important question that you should be asking is that do our tank crews have decent education level to fully understand and use the electronics and sensor system of modern tanks like VT4 ?


better let them play online war games 
it will help 
🤗


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## syed_yusuf

Is VT4 that PA operates is a 4 the gen tank ?


----------



## vi-va

syed_yusuf said:


> Is VT4 that PA operates is a 4 the gen tank ?


no


----------



## Signalian

truthfollower said:


> better let them play online war games
> it will help
> 🤗


Thats handy for drone operators.

@PanzerKiel you saw/tested the driving simulator in Nowshera School ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

Signalian said:


> Thats handy for drone operators.
> 
> @PanzerKiel you saw/tested the driving simulator in Nowshera School ?


Dear, do please allow me to stay quiet on some topics....

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Signalian

PanzerKiel said:


> Dear, do please allow me to stay quiet on some topics....


Okay, i tried it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Signalian said:


> Depends what PA has planned for Type-59 II
> 
> The important question that you should be asking is that do our tank crews have decent education level to fully understand and use the electronics and sensor system of modern tanks like VT4 ? There was a time in past (60s) when laser range finders on M-48s became a difficult task to be taught to tank crews who had little or no education.
> Secondly, on what criteria are tank crews chosen to become driver and gunner.
> Thirdly, how much time will it take for the crews and commanders to fully understand and employ VT4 in best possible manner for combat.
> 
> I dont have answers of all above.


same challenge is faced in Artillery. the gunners have to have a certain level of education specially officers must have science background..
the personnel have continuous educational programs to familiarize with the functioning , maintenance and trouble shooting of the weapon systems depending on the complexities. they would have specialists among them who would have further training to sort out any issues in the filed before having to send the equipment back to repair shops

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

Did we test Duplet versus FY-4 before ordering the latter? Someone should know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

Dazzler said:


> Did we test Duplet versus FY-4 before ordering the latter? Someone should know.





Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition | weapons defence industry military technology UK | analysis focus army defence military industry army


This might be helpful

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Chinese VT4 tank fitted with FY-IV ERA Explosive Reactive Armour against Tandem Warhead ammunition | weapons defence industry military technology UK | analysis focus army defence military industry army
> 
> 
> This might be helpful



I know the answer. I thought someone might know more on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CatSultan

FuturePAF said:


> Pakistan should stop getting t-72 mods, we should find a way to make more affordable leopard class tanks; something like the Turkish Altay but slightly smaller and more affordable.


I think smaller, maneuverable, stealthier and more numerous tanks are going to be the way go in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Inception-06

Dazzler said:


> I know the answer. I thought someone might know more on this.


I noticed that the VT-4 does not have the dozer blade for self entrenchment like the Alkhalid Tanks, is it nowadays outdated ?


----------



## Dazzler

Inception-06 said:


> I noticed that the VT-4 does not have the dozer blade for self entrenchment like the Alkhalid Tanks, is it nowadays outdated ?
> View attachment 689527



Can be installed if needed.


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

CatSultan said:


> I think smaller, maneuverable, stealthier and more numerous tanks are going to be the way go in the future.


Unmanned tanks anyone??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Unmanned tanks anyone??


Cant see them in the near future


----------



## khail007

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Unmanned tanks anyone??











China develops machine gun-mounted robot assault vehicle with 4x4 capabilities


The thigh-high combat robot vehicle is reportedly capable of operating in a wide-variety of terrains and can fire with reasonable accuracy.




auto.hindustantimes.com













Pakistan Army is testing this crazy rocket, grenade, and machine gun firing robot


The IDEAS 2018 showcased some pretty cool ideas including some of the best Pakistan had to offer. One thing that really stood out from the rest of stuff showed at the convention was the EOD




trending.pk





May be the begining ...


Ahmet Pasha said:


> Unmanned tanks anyone??











China develops machine gun-mounted robot assault vehicle with 4x4 capabilities


The thigh-high combat robot vehicle is reportedly capable of operating in a wide-variety of terrains and can fire with reasonable accuracy.




auto.hindustantimes.com













Pakistan Army is testing this crazy rocket, grenade, and machine gun firing robot


The IDEAS 2018 showcased some pretty cool ideas including some of the best Pakistan had to offer. One thing that really stood out from the rest of stuff showed at the convention was the EOD




trending.pk





May be the begining ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

khail007 said:


> China develops machine gun-mounted robot assault vehicle with 4x4 capabilities
> 
> 
> The thigh-high combat robot vehicle is reportedly capable of operating in a wide-variety of terrains and can fire with reasonable accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auto.hindustantimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan Army is testing this crazy rocket, grenade, and machine gun firing robot
> 
> 
> The IDEAS 2018 showcased some pretty cool ideas including some of the best Pakistan had to offer. One thing that really stood out from the rest of stuff showed at the convention was the EOD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trending.pk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May be the begining ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China develops machine gun-mounted robot assault vehicle with 4x4 capabilities
> 
> 
> The thigh-high combat robot vehicle is reportedly capable of operating in a wide-variety of terrains and can fire with reasonable accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auto.hindustantimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan Army is testing this crazy rocket, grenade, and machine gun firing robot
> 
> 
> The IDEAS 2018 showcased some pretty cool ideas including some of the best Pakistan had to offer. One thing that really stood out from the rest of stuff showed at the convention was the EOD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trending.pk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May be the begining ...



From Terminator 3 movie back in the naughties(early 2000s)


----------



## Packee

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Unmanned tanks anyone??


Probably around 2050s, the Russians have said that alot of the Technologies of T-14 Armata will help to develop the tech needed for Unmanned Tanks.


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Glaiviator said:


> Probably around 2050s, the Russians have said that alot of the Technologies of T-14 Armata will help to develop the tech needed for Unmanned Tanks.


With the speed AI and machine learning is progressing I'd say 2030s. With semi autonomous ones around 2040s.


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Ahmet Pasha said:


> With the speed AI and machine learning is progressing I'd say 2030s. With semi autonomous ones around 2040s.


Along with more capable drones to counter them. I wish Pakistan could invest more in strike drones as well as seen in our region.


----------



## khail007

Ahmet Pasha said:


> From Terminator 3 movie back in the naughties(early 2000s)
> View attachment 689578



So concept is already around but not yet adopted in MBTs; may be for some valid reasons or countries are busy secretly on R&D and some day ideas will be fielded as element of surprise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

khail007 said:


> So concept is already around but not yet adopted in MBTs; may be for some valid reasons or countries are busy secretly on R&D and some day ideas will be fielded as element of surprise.


 U.S marines already playing around with AI logistic truck convoys to minimise IED casualty on re supply missions. Literal robot mules to carry supplies. So I'm sure unmanned tanks are not alien for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Aryeih Leib

LKJ86 said:


>


Why Is it that non western engines are smoking be it jet engines ,tank engines or evn engine for ships ? 

I know it's offtopic but please if you could answer


----------



## LKJ86

Aryeih Leib said:


> Why Is it that non western engines are smoking be it jet engines ,tank engines or evn engine for ships ?


Really? Maybe we are not in the same world.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Fawadqasim1

Aryeih Leib said:


> Why Is it that non western engines are smoking be it jet engines ,tank engines or evn engine for ships ?
> 
> I know it's offtopic but please if you could answer


very high tolerances in moving parts precision engineering.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Adnan ash

VT-4 is the most advanced tank currently in the region.








YeBeWarned said:


> Which system VT-4 is using to protect against ATGM's ?


Against ATGMs it employs Soft kill active protection system (LWRs and smoke screens). However GL-5 hardkill APS is also available. don't know Pakistan army variants go with it or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## luciferdd

Aryeih Leib said:


> Why Is it that non western engines are smoking be it jet engines ,tank engines or evn engine for ships ?
> 
> I know it's offtopic but please if you could answer

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Aryeih Leib

luciferdd said:


> View attachment 697539
> 
> View attachment 697541


Which tank is it ?


----------



## luciferdd

Aryeih Leib said:


> Which tank is it ?


leopard2A6

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

Adnan ash said:


> Against ATGMs it employs Soft kill active protection system (LWRs and smoke screens). However GL-5 hardkill APS is also available. don't know Pakistan army variants go with it or not.


Probably not, as it would be cost prohibitive.

Even China didn't equip its tanks with APS. Israel is the only exception as they're constantly in low intensity conflict.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @北方工业 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Maverick

Adnan ash said:


> VT-4 is the most advanced tank currently in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against ATGMs it employs Soft kill active protection system (LWRs and smoke screens). However GL-5 hardkill APS is also available. don't know Pakistan army variants go with it or not.



thank you good comparison I think there are equally matched
one issue for pakistan the Indians have over 2000 t90 main battle tanks in contrast I think pakistan have barely 300 vt4 tanks .
indian t90 fleet is 6 times,the size of your vt4.

one more thing the most powerful.and most modern tank in indian army now is the arjun. 
240 in service and 123 more on order 
Arjun is the only heavy tank fielded in South Asia,they cost twice the cost of t90 or vt4 but are western designed concept tanks or indian equivalent of chinease t99 heavy tanks .
An Arjun v vt4 or T90 my money is on Arjun all.day

Reactions: Haha Haha:
5


----------



## The Maverick




----------



## The Maverick

The Maverick said:


>




India will eventually field 8 regiments (500 TANKS) of heavy Arjun tanks to form the desert sepearhead in rajasthan currentlu only 3 regiments i service mark 1 and 1a but will grow now with mark 2 

There are over 30 regiments of T90 tanks now 2000+ 

And at least 20 regiments of T72 1000+ many of these upgraded but need replacing soon.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

lole . only 124 MK I arjun's are in service while the 118 Mk1As that have been ordered will still take about 3 years till first induction (was 5 years but since the article was 2 years ago so i minus that) according to Indian sources. Arjun's have serious weight issues , hence being based in the desert areas only. Dont think there will be any additional orders for Arjun Mk2 as more T-90s are being ordered. 
Secondly T-90s are well below 2000 number.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

The Maverick said:


> India will eventually field 8 regiments (500 TANKS) of heavy Arjun tanks to form the desert sepearhead in rajasthan currentlu only 3 regiments i service mark 1 and 1a but will grow now with mark 2
> 
> There are over 30 regiments of T90 tanks now 2000+
> 
> And at least 20 regiments of T72 1000+ many of these upgraded but need replacing soon.


When that happens wake me up

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IblinI

biggest fanboy triggered..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

The Maverick said:


> thank you good comparison I think there are equally matched
> one issue for pakistan the Indians have over 2000 t90 main battle tanks in contrast I think pakistan have barely 300 vt4 tanks .
> indian t90 fleet is 6 times,the size of your vt4.
> 
> one more thing the most powerful.and most modern tank in indian army now is the arjun.
> 240 in service and 123 more on order
> Arjun is the only heavy tank fielded in South Asia,they cost twice the cost of t90 or vt4 but are western designed concept tanks or indian equivalent of chinease t99 heavy tanks .
> An Arjun v vt4 or T90 my money is on Arjun all.day



Nope they are not equally matched at all, the VT-4 is far superior to the TY90MS in terms of electronics , armour, mobility etc. This debate has been done, please see the thread earlier.
India does not have anywhere near 2,000 T-90 tanks, it has just over a 1,000, this has also been discussed.


The numbers are here;

*From March 25 2020.

There are currently around 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service*, although the operational readiness rate of the tanks remains unclear. According to one estimate, 850-900 are of the T-90S Bhishma variant. Of the two, the T-90MS MBT is the more advanced design.”









Meet India's T-90M Bhishma Tank: Russian Tech, Indian Made


A good combo?




nationalinterest.org







It entered service with the Russian Army in 1992.* In February 2001, the Indian Army signed a contract for 310 T-90S tanks: 124* were completed in Russia and the rest were delivered in ‘knocked down’ form for final assembly in India.

*The Indian Ministry of Defence placed a $2.8bn contract with the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to licence-build 464 additional T-90S* tanks at its heavy vehicle factory (HVF), Avadi, for the Indian Army in November 2019.










T-90S Main Battle Tank (MBT), Russia


The T-90S main battle tank (MBT) is a powerful Russian tank with increased firepower, mobility and protection.




www.army-technology.com






Pakistan's initial order is 300 tanks yes, but there are plans for over 1,000. Do remember 180 tanks are already being delivered.
The Arjun suffers mobility issues, has less HP ratio than the VT4 and we could go on.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
7


----------



## The Maverick

waz said:


> Nope they are not equally matched at all, the VT-4 is far superior to the TY90MS in terms of electronics , armour, mobility etc. This debate has been done, please see the thread earlier.
> India does not have anywhere near 2,000 T-90 tanks, it has just over a 1,000, this has also been discussed.
> 
> 
> The numbers are here;
> 
> *From March 25 2020.
> 
> There are currently around 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service*, although the operational readiness rate of the tanks remains unclear. According to one estimate, 850-900 are of the T-90S Bhishma variant. Of the two, the T-90MS MBT is the more advanced design.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet India's T-90M Bhishma Tank: Russian Tech, Indian Made
> 
> 
> A good combo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It entered service with the Russian Army in 1992.* In February 2001, the Indian Army signed a contract for 310 T-90S tanks: 124* were completed in Russia and the rest were delivered in ‘knocked down’ form for final assembly in India.
> 
> *The Indian Ministry of Defenc
> e placed a $2.8bn contract with the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to licence-build 464 additional T-90S* tanks at its heavy vehicle factory (HVF), Avadi, for the Indian Army in November 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90S Main Battle Tank (MBT), Russia
> 
> 
> The T-90S main battle tank (MBT) is a powerful Russian tank with increased firepower, mobility and protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army-technology.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan's initial order is 300 tanks yes, but there are plans for over 1,000. Do remember 180 tanks are already being delivered.
> The Arjun suffers mobility issues, has less HP ratio than the VT4 and we could go on.



you have barely 170.vt4 tanks delivered to date out if 300 
plans for 1000 are plans not ordered..as our esteemed friend yasser says,.

India t90 contracts are 1650 MS nearly all delivered and 464 newer t90s 125 delivered thus far .

which ever the ratio between.t90.vt4 today is 6 or 7 to 1 tank. 

as for Arjun that is the largest and heaviest tank in class of t99 Chinese tanks and the hardest to stop as per vedio . mark 2 is the latest variant which had over 70 improvements.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

waz said:


> Nope they are not equally matched at all, the VT-4 is far superior to the TY90MS in terms of electronics , armour, mobility etc. This debate has been done, please see the thread earlier.
> India does not have anywhere near 2,000 T-90 tanks, it has just over a 1,000, this has also been discussed.
> 
> 
> The numbers are here;
> 
> *From March 25 2020.
> 
> There are currently around 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service*, although the operational readiness rate of the tanks remains unclear. According to one estimate, 850-900 are of the T-90S Bhishma variant. Of the two, the T-90MS MBT is the more advanced design.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet India's T-90M Bhishma Tank: Russian Tech, Indian Made
> 
> 
> A good combo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It entered service with the Russian Army in 1992.* In February 2001, the Indian Army signed a contract for 310 T-90S tanks: 124* were completed in Russia and the rest were delivered in ‘knocked down’ form for final assembly in India.
> 
> *The Indian Ministry of Defence placed a $2.8bn contract with the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to licence-build 464 additional T-90S* tanks at its heavy vehicle factory (HVF), Avadi, for the Indian Army in November 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90S Main Battle Tank (MBT), Russia
> 
> 
> The T-90S main battle tank (MBT) is a powerful Russian tank with increased firepower, mobility and protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army-technology.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan's initial order is 300 tanks yes, but there are plans for over 1,000. Do remember 180 tanks are already being delivered.
> The Arjun suffers mobility issues, has less HP ratio than the VT4 and we could go on.


Moreover, as i have clarified this thing on several other threads as well....comparison of numbers can be misleading at times.

Take the example of T90s and VT4s....

All T90s are not geographically located at any one point, rather, they are located at multiple locations seperated by geo obstacles such as wide rivers. These separate concentrations can be isolated and made irrelevant by mere destruction of some critical bridges.......and bridge destruction to stop movement of tank formations is just ONE way of making them irrelevant....

All T-90s, whether they are 1000 or 2000, cannot be thrown together at any one point......most of them will always part of uncommitted reserves which the enemy will always keep in hand for critical situations, or even refrain from applying them in battle, saving them for post war bargaining or recovering of critical territory captured.

In our case, VT4s, all of them, are geolocated at one geo area, part of one Division. Wherever this division is thrown, its will be a whole, homogenous force of VT4s coming for assault together.


The Maverick said:


> as for Arjun that is the largest and heaviest tank in class of t99 Chinese tanks and the hardest to stop as per vedio . mark 2 is the latest variant which had over 70 improvements.


In our terrain of sub continent, heavier tanks mostly can become a liability, they are easily bogged down in soft terrain, whether its plains of Punjab or desert, moreover, they require bridges, and that too not normal bridges, they will actually require 60 ton bridges.....such bridges are seldom found, and very hard to replace once knocked out.

Reactions: Like Like:
17 | Love Love:
5


----------



## Ghost 125

The Maverick said:


> thank you good comparison I think there are equally matched
> one issue for pakistan the Indians have over 2000 t90 main battle tanks in contrast I think pakistan have barely 300 vt4 tanks .
> indian t90 fleet is 6 times,the size of your vt4.
> 
> one more thing the most powerful.and most modern tank in indian army now is the arjun.
> 240 in service and 123 more on order
> Arjun is the only heavy tank fielded in South Asia,they cost twice the cost of t90 or vt4 but are western designed concept tanks or indian equivalent of chinease t99 heavy tanks .
> An Arjun v vt4 or T90 my money is on Arjun all.day


240 arjuns are NOT in service, only three regiments totalling less thn 130
when all T 90 MS delivered (MS, i think is still not in indian service), total number will be around 1600-1650

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## waz

The Maverick said:


> you have barely 170.vt4 tanks delivered to date out if 300
> plans for 1000 are plans not ordered..as our esteemed friend yasser says,.
> 
> India t90 contracts are 1650 MS nearly all delivered and 464 newer t90s 125 delivered thus far .
> 
> which ever the ratio between.t90.vt4 today is 6 or 7 to 1 tank.
> 
> as for Arjun that is the largest and heaviest tank in class of t99 Chinese tanks and the hardest to stop as per vedio . mark 2 is the latest variant which had over 70 improvements.



You don't know anything about deliveries we do. That 300 figure will be met soon, we already have over half that. 
Right about the numbers, do you have links of 1,650 delivered, batch numbers, media reports etc? I showed you links with figure below what you quote.
Yes the ratio is indeed higher, but not for long. The VT4 is also better, you don't take that into account. But you may disagree which is fine.
The Arjun currently is in tiny numbers to make an impact. It certainly isn't suitable for the terrain where both armoured forces would meet. However that being said, it's still a good tank. 









Nobody Cares About The Indian Arjun Tank


One of the highlights from last month’s DEFEXPO 2018–the massive arms show organized by the Indian government and held every two years–was a public demonstration to showcase local…




21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Irfan Baloch

PanzerKiel said:


> All T90s are not geographically located at any one point, rather, they are located at multiple locations seperated by geo obstacles such as wide rivers. These separate concentrations can be isolated and made irrelevant by mere destruction of some critical bridges.......and bridge destruction to stop movement of tank formations is just ONE way of making them irrelevant....


*I will Urge*
everybody please read above quote and then read again. if you don't understand please read this quote few more times . and if you think you understand then read it again one more time.

after you have read it multiple times and absorbed it then I am sure you will understand that expecting the entire inventory of T-90s to be massed up in a single assembly point, all up and running ,fully serviced/ operational, repaired and maintained is not only logistically and physically impossible but goes against every principle of military strategy to bring them all in one place.

and even if a fraction (one half, one fourth) of that armchair number is achieved in a single theatre then it will require equally or bigger number of other logistics , support and defence from other ground and air units to defend it. And at what expense to all other areas from where these T-90s are moved. 

and just final thought how big target it will present to the opposing side which can inflict massive loss though most efficient strikes.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
5


----------



## waz

PanzerKiel said:


> Moreover, as i have clarified this thing on several other threads as well....comparison of numbers can be misleading at times.
> 
> Take the example of T90s and VT4s....
> 
> All T90s are not geographically located at any one point, rather, they are located at multiple locations seperated by geo obstacles such as wide rivers. These separate concentrations can be isolated and made irrelevant by mere destruction of some critical bridges.......and bridge destruction to stop movement of tank formations is just ONE way of making them irrelevant....
> 
> All T-90s, whether they are 1000 or 2000, cannot be thrown together at any one point......most of them will always part of uncommitted reserves which the enemy will always keep in hand for critical situations, or even refrain from applying them in battle, saving them for post war bargaining or recovering of critical territory captured.
> 
> In our case, VT4s, all of them, are geolocated at one geo area, part of one Division. Wherever this division is thrown, its will be a whole, homogenous force of VT4s coming for assault together.



Good solid points brother. Thank you for the input.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Tipu7

The Maverick said:


> one issue for pakistan the Indians have over 2000 t90 main battle tanks


Approximately 1150 T-90S operational in Indian Army. Target of 1250 T-90S will be achieved by 2022.


The Maverick said:


> one more thing the most powerful.and most modern tank in indian army now is the arjun.
> 240 in service and 123 more on order


124 Arjun Mk1 operational. Order for additional 124 Arjun Mk2 is expected.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## KaiserX

waz said:


> Nope they are not equally matched at all, the VT-4 is far superior to the TY90MS in terms of electronics , armour, mobility etc. This debate has been done, please see the thread earlier.
> India does not have anywhere near 2,000 T-90 tanks, it has just over a 1,000, this has also been discussed.
> 
> 
> The numbers are here;
> 
> *From March 25 2020.
> 
> There are currently around 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service*, although the operational readiness rate of the tanks remains unclear. According to one estimate, 850-900 are of the T-90S Bhishma variant. Of the two, the T-90MS MBT is the more advanced design.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet India's T-90M Bhishma Tank: Russian Tech, Indian Made
> 
> 
> A good combo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It entered service with the Russian Army in 1992.* In February 2001, the Indian Army signed a contract for 310 T-90S tanks: 124* were completed in Russia and the rest were delivered in ‘knocked down’ form for final assembly in India.
> 
> *The Indian Ministry of Defence placed a $2.8bn contract with the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to licence-build 464 additional T-90S* tanks at its heavy vehicle factory (HVF), Avadi, for the Indian Army in November 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90S Main Battle Tank (MBT), Russia
> 
> 
> The T-90S main battle tank (MBT) is a powerful Russian tank with increased firepower, mobility and protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army-technology.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan's initial order is 300 tanks yes, but there are plans for over 1,000. Do remember 180 tanks are already being delivered.
> The Arjun suffers mobility issues, has less HP ratio than the VT4 and we could go on.



I think the PA will cap the VT-4 between 400-500. The other 400-500 tanks will be Al-Khalid 1b-2 variants. Remember Pakistan intends to focus on domestic production/upgrades while procuring the latest Chinese products to supplement in numbers and future upgrade TOT for existing domestic products.

Also I wouldnt be suprised if Pakistan started producing its own sub 40 ton light tank in the future. We could build upon the existing Al-zarrar upgrade facilities which already exist. Something along the lines of the VT-5 which would be much more capable/practical than producing an IFV which are light and still even prone to RPG fires.






VT5 Light Tank | Military-Today.com


The VT5 is a new Chinese light tank, that is being proposed for export. This tank has an entirely new design. It is intended for reconnaissance and infantry support opperations.



www.military-today.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

KaiserX said:


> I think the PA will cap the VT-4 between 400-500. The other 400-500 tanks will be Al-Khalid 1b-2 variants. Remember Pakistan intends to focus on domestic production/upgrades while procuring the latest Chinese products to supplement in numbers and future upgrade TOT for existing domestic products.
> 
> Also I wouldnt be suprised if Pakistan started producing its own sub 40 ton light tank in the future. We could build upon the existing Al-zarrar upgrade facilities which already exist. Something along the lines of the VT-5 which would be much more capable/practical than producing an IFV which are light and still even prone to RPG fires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VT5 Light Tank | Military-Today.com
> 
> 
> The VT5 is a new Chinese light tank, that is being proposed for export. This tank has an entirely new design. It is intended for reconnaissance and infantry support opperations.
> 
> 
> 
> www.military-today.com



The thing is production is too slow for that. Just take a look at how many Al-Khalid that around 600, after how many years...
The numbers need to be upped and there is too much to replace.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## KaiserX

waz said:


> The thing is production is too slow for that. Just take a look at how many Al-Khalid that around 600, after how many years...
> The numbers need to be upped and there is too much to replace.



Unfortunately we have far to much state involvement in our military industry. HIT is one of the many SOE that is better off being privatized. For this to happen domestic pakistani companies have to be rich enough to make such purchases... well how would they get rich??? The govt could start subcontracting them and buying their products.

HIT right now is pitiful. It has the capacity to produce 100 Al-khalids a year since the last 15 years yet it has barely been able to produce 35-40 a year. This is the result of sheer mismanagement and no matter how many retired generals we put at the helm nothing has changed. Lets start by atleast making full use of our existing capacity.

More hands in the private arm industries pockets the more R&D we will get. More state guidance and less state control. Similar to Israel and now Turkey.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Adnan ash

The Maverick said:


> thank you good comparison I think there are equally matched
> one issue for pakistan the Indians have over 2000 t90 main battle tanks in contrast I think pakistan have barely 300 vt4 tanks .
> indian t90 fleet is 6 times,the size of your vt4.
> 
> one more thing the most powerful.and most modern tank in indian army now is the arjun.
> 240 in service and 123 more on order
> Arjun is the only heavy tank fielded in South Asia,they cost twice the cost of t90 or vt4 but are western designed concept tanks or indian equivalent of chinease t99 heavy tanks .
> An Arjun v vt4 or T90 my money is on Arjun all.day


First the videos show a comparison between VT-4 and T-90MS not with T-90S
and second, for 2000 T-90's PA has 320 T-80UDs and ~400 AK's Plus Al zarar equipped with thermal sights
India will induct T-90MS. this shows how powerful and most modern Arjun is please read this (120mm FSAPDS only 300mm)
Most heaviest tank in the region that is true


----------



## IblinI

Adnan ash said:


> (120mm FSAPDS only 300mm)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Great Janjua

No doubt the armoured division is getting an boost with these VT-4 tanks but the numbers need to be increased quickly and to be at least capped at 600 hundred


----------



## GriffinsRule

KaiserX said:


> Unfortunately we have far to much state involvement in our military industry. HIT is one of the many SOE that is better off being privatized. For this to happen domestic pakistani companies have to be rich enough to make such purchases... well how would they get rich??? The govt could start subcontracting them and buying their products.
> 
> HIT right now is pitiful. It has the capacity to produce 100 Al-khalids a year since the last 15 years yet it has barely been able to produce 35-40 a year. This is the result of sheer mismanagement and no matter how many retired generals we put at the helm nothing has changed. Lets start by atleast making full use of our existing capacity.
> 
> More hands in the private arm industries pockets the more R&D we will get. More state guidance and less state control. Similar to Israel and now Turkey.


How many tanks and APCs has it overhauled? How much would a privately owned HIT charge for those overhauls?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yasser76

The Maverick said:


> you have barely 170.vt4 tanks delivered to date out if 300
> plans for 1000 are plans not ordered..as our esteemed friend yasser says,.
> 
> India t90 contracts are 1650 MS nearly all delivered and 464 newer t90s 125 delivered thus far .
> 
> which ever the ratio between.t90.vt4 today is 6 or 7 to 1 tank.
> 
> as for Arjun that is the largest and heaviest tank in class of t99 Chinese tanks and the hardest to stop as per vedio . mark 2 is the latest variant which had over 70 improvements.












Army asks for infantry combat vehicles with night vision | India News - Times of India


India News: NEW DELHI: Amid the ongoing military confrontation with China, which is into its fifth month now, the Army is now seeking to upgrade its ageing BMP-2/.




timesofindia.indiatimes.com





"

According to a senior officer T-90 has had its own share of challenges. In a tank biathlon held in Russia in August 2017 where tank crews from 19 countries competed in simulated battlefield conditions to determine which is the best, Indian Army was knocked out after both the main and reserve T-90 tanks developed mechanical problems.

T-90 tanks also suffer from night blindness as its night vision system does not work in high temperatures of the desert regions. Electronic systems of the tank also have failed consistently l in the desert heat. By comparison, Arjun has a much advanced night fighting capability, has not faced any troubles in high temperatures and does not even require any air conditioning due to its rugged systems suited for desert conditions."



https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/will-atmanirbhar-bharat-revive-the-fortunes-of-the-indian-armys-main-battle-tank-arjun/2053964/

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## The Maverick

Yasser76 said:


> Army asks for infantry combat vehicles with night vision | India News - Times of India
> 
> 
> India News: NEW DELHI: Amid the ongoing military confrontation with China, which is into its fifth month now, the Army is now seeking to upgrade its ageing BMP-2/.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timesofindia.indiatimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> According to a senior officer T-90 has had its own share of challenges. In a tank biathlon held in Russia in August 2017 where tank crews from 19 countries competed in simulated battlefield conditions to determine which is the best, Indian Army was knocked out after both the main and reserve T-90 tanks developed mechanical problems.
> 
> T-90 tanks also suffer from night blindness as its night vision system does not work in high temperatures of the desert regions. Electronic systems of the tank also have failed consistently l in the desert heat. By comparison, Arjun has a much advanced night fighting capability, has not faced any troubles in high temperatures and does not even require any air conditioning due to its rugged systems suited for desert conditions."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/will-atmanirbhar-bharat-revive-the-fortunes-of-the-indian-armys-main-battle-tank-arjun/2053964/



The Arjun regiments,which are made up.of mark 1 and 1a, are 240 tanks approx and geared,to operate in desert on indo pak borders,. something I have alluded to from my first post last week . we have mark 2 soon to be ordered which will.take nos to 500 . it's the best suited to heat and the best armour and missle capability in the army..

the t90 operate mainly in punjab Plains or more,recently in ladakh. 
if we,have issues,in 2017 do you not think we will have addressed them.
we just ordered 2.8 billion deal for t90s x 460 tanks I'm sure if a,real deficiencyexisted we would acquired t14 armarta instead.


----------



## Ghost 125

The Maverick said:


> The Arjun regiments,which are made up.of mark 1 and 1a, are 240 tanks approx and geared,to operate in desert on indo pak borders,. something I have alluded to from my first post last week . we have mark 2 soon to be ordered which will.take nos to 500 . it's the best suited to heat and the best armour and missle capability in the army..
> 
> the t90 operate mainly in punjab Plains or more,recently in ladakh.
> if we,have issues,in 2017 do you not think we will have addressed them.
> we just ordered 2.8 billion deal for t90s x 460 tanks I'm sure if a,real deficiencyexisted we would acquired t14 armarta instead.


your information is invalid

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Yasser76

The Maverick said:


> The Arjun regiments,which are made up.of mark 1 and 1a, are 240 tanks approx and geared,to operate in desert on indo pak borders,. something I have alluded to from my first post last week . we have mark 2 soon to be ordered which will.take nos to 500 . it's the best suited to heat and the best armour and missle capability in the army..
> 
> the t90 operate mainly in punjab Plains or more,recently in ladakh.
> if we,have issues,in 2017 do you not think we will have addressed them.
> we just ordered 2.8 billion deal for t90s x 460 tanks I'm sure if a,real deficiencyexisted we would acquired t14 armarta instead.




You continually lie in almost every post. Every source everywhere indicates only 124 Arjuns are in service, and according to most reports only half servicable and those all in traning regiments.



Mods? How much fake news we allowing on here?

*
" Indian Army currently uses 124 (1 regiment -62 Tanks) Arjun Mk 1 across two regiments and 118 new improved versions Mk 1A tanks will be procured by the Indian Army in near future. Arjun is widely criticized for its weight, logistic issues, low serviceability, and timeline. In 2016 Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India report said that Arjun tanks have not been operational since 2013 due to a lack of spares. "*









Is Arjun Tank A Failure? Most Criticised Indian Project.


Arjun tank is criticized for its weight, armament, and timeline. But does these arguments are correct? Let's find out.




www.defencexp.com

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Yasser76 said:


> Army asks for infantry combat vehicles with night vision | India News - Times of India
> 
> 
> India News: NEW DELHI: Amid the ongoing military confrontation with China, which is into its fifth month now, the Army is now seeking to upgrade its ageing BMP-2/.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timesofindia.indiatimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> According to a senior officer T-90 has had its own share of challenges. In a tank biathlon held in Russia in August 2017 where tank crews from 19 countries competed in simulated battlefield conditions to determine which is the best, Indian Army was knocked out after both the main and reserve T-90 tanks developed mechanical problems.
> 
> T-90 tanks also suffer from night blindness as its night vision system does not work in high temperatures of the desert regions. Electronic systems of the tank also have failed consistently l in the desert heat. By comparison, Arjun has a much advanced night fighting capability, has not faced any troubles in high temperatures and does not even require any air conditioning due to its rugged systems suited for desert conditions."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/will-atmanirbhar-bharat-revive-the-fortunes-of-the-indian-armys-main-battle-tank-arjun/2053964/



Why don’t they send Arjun to the tank biathlon then? Maybe Russia is scared that it would give India too big of an advantage?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Maverick

Yasser76 said:


> You continually lie in almost every post. Every source everywhere indicates only 124 Arjuns are in service, and according to most reports only half servicable and those all in traning regiments.
> 
> 
> 
> Mods? How much fake news we allowing on here?
> 
> 
> *" Indian Army currently uses 124 (1 regiment -62 Tanks) Arjun Mk 1 across two regiments and 118 new improved versions Mk 1A tanks will be procured by the Indian Army in near future. Arjun is widely criticized for its weight, logistic issues, low serviceability, and timeline. In 2016 Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India report said that Arjun tanks have not been operational since 2013 due to a lack of spares. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Arjun Tank A Failure? Most Criticised Indian Project.
> 
> 
> Arjun tank is criticized for its weight, armament, and timeline. But does these arguments are correct? Let's find out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defencexp.com




why do you insist on showing cag reports from.2013 and 2016. 
hey Mr.... we are in 2021 do you comprehend this 
yesterday you were showing bsf infantry in another thread from.2017 claiming it was regular indian army until.s fellow poster pulled you up to for this.
but you can't help yourself


----------



## TheDebSahab

My stomach is hurting due to how much I am laughing after reading this shit [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
Oh my, this is just GOLD.


The Maverick said:


> thank you good comparison I think there are equally matched
> one issue for pakistan the Indians have over 2000 t90 main battle tanks in contrast I think pakistan have barely 300 vt4 tanks .
> indian t90 fleet is 6 times,the size of your vt4.
> 
> one more thing the most powerful.and most modern tank in indian army now is the arjun.
> 240 in service and 123 more on order
> Arjun is the only heavy tank fielded in South Asia,they cost twice the cost of t90 or vt4 but are western designed concept tanks or indian equivalent of chinease t99 heavy tanks .
> An Arjun v vt4 or T90 my money is on Arjun all.day

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

The Maverick said:


> if a,real deficiencyexisted we would acquired t14 armarta instead


You've gone wrong here sir

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheDebSahab

It'd be REAL swell if you could back your claims with ANYTHING other than face value. (quite a common thing among Indians) 
The man you're criticising the most recently available information regarding the pitiful state of Arjun.

I URGE you to provide any source for the claims you pull from your ***. And for f's sake don't link Indians state media.


The Maverick said:


> why do you insist on showing cag reports from.2013 and 2016.
> hey Mr.... we are in 2021 do you comprehend this
> yesterday you were showing bsf infantry in another thread from.2017 claiming it was regular indian army until.s fellow poster pulled you up to for this.
> but you can't help yourself

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yasser76

The Maverick said:


> why do you insist on showing cag reports from.2013 and 2016.
> hey Mr.... we are in 2021 do you comprehend this
> yesterday you were showing bsf infantry in another thread from.2017 claiming it was regular indian army until.s fellow poster pulled you up to for this.
> but you can't help yourself



Provide one link showing 240 Arjuns in service as per your claim, if not I suggest Mods inflict another ban for continous fake news.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yasser76

The Maverick said:


> I think you have missed the large insightful thread that I started after mark 2 Arjun tank passed 90.improvements and the 4tn February report in Indian media that the army are ordering 2 more regiments of Arjun following several.years of testing.
> that the army will.look.to increase numbers to 500 tanks.
> check the thread and the clips .
> 
> and please... this nonsense of indian sources don't count. for God's sake it's a indian main battle tanks who else are we suppose to seek. news from.the Cubans.
> it's our project.
> if the critical cag reports are relevant for your criticism.fron.2013 and 2016 and you jump on those Indian sources that are years old why is it when the Indians confirm.we have made 90 improvements and are Idris g 2 more regiments it deemed indian fake news let's report to mods.
> 
> you have my thread read it from.the start there is the full details from news on 4th February.




Still avoiding answer? Please give one source to back up your claim of 240 Arjuns in service. I will keep asking

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## The Maverick

Yasser76 said:


> Provide one link showing 240 Arjuns in service as per your claim, if not I suggest Mods inflict another ban for continous fake news.



bans,are for abuse,and trolling my Arjun thread started with Y tube clip confirming intent to order 118 more tanks mark 1a,after successful.trials last 3 years.
it's,genuine Indian news, not fake 

just like my thread of s400 first regiment in October is real.news 

or the news,regarding 83 tejas,mark1a ordered is real.news

or the thread that our new defense budget is 64 billion dollars for this,fiscal year is real.

for some reason you take great offense,it sticks in your throat a lot. 

I back each post with evidence Be it y tube or written article


----------



## Yasser76

The Maverick said:


> bans,are for abuse,and trolling my Arjun thread started with Y tube clip confirming intent to order 118 more tanks mark 1a,after successful.trials last 3 years.
> it's,genuine Indian news, not fake
> 
> just like my thread of s400 first regiment in October is real.news
> 
> or the news,regarding 83 tejas,mark1a ordered is real.news
> 
> or the thread that our new defense budget is 64 billion dollars for this,fiscal year is real.
> 
> for some reason you take great offense,it sticks in your throat a lot.
> 
> I back each post with evidence Be it y tube or written article




3rd time I am asking, just one link or source to your claim of 240 Arjuns in service

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Maverick

Yasser76 said:


> 3rd time I am asking, just one link or source to your claim of 240 Arjuns in service












Two regiments of Indigenous Arjun 1A tanks to be ordered by Indian Army: Defense sources - See Latest


According to recent reports, the Indian Army has sought additional 118 units of Arjun MBT for its armored corps. It marks Army's further step towards promoting the 'Make in India' initiative. Indian A




www.seelatest.com





See the opening line buddy it states,242 Arjun tanks in service already 

i DID START my thread of 500 Arjun tanks in future with this article


The Maverick said:


> and for the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two regiments of Indigenous Arjun 1A tanks to be ordered by Indian Army: Defense sources - See Latest
> 
> 
> According to recent reports, the Indian Army has sought additional 118 units of Arjun MBT for its armored corps. It marks Army's further step towards promoting the 'Make in India' initiative. Indian A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.seelatest.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the opening line buddy it's clearly staying indian army has 242 tanks in service already... read it please
> 
> i DID START my thread of 500 Arjun tanks in future with this very same article so etji g
> something you took real.offence too.thinking you will.rely on a 8 year old indian CAG report and audit commissions



you seem to hell bent on suggesting I'm just plucking numbers from.the air
I'm not it's researched, and then I state my case so quit your one man campaign to get me banned. 

if you want latest information re our armed forces,ie info from 2021 not 2015 or 2017 ask me I will.update you .


----------



## TheDebSahab

The Maverick said:


> I think you have missed the large insightful thread that I started after mark 2 Arjun tank passed 90.improvements and the 4tn February report in Indian media that the army are ordering 2 more regiments of Arjun following several.years of testing.
> that the army will.look.to increase numbers to 500 tanks.
> check the thread and the clips .
> 
> and please... this nonsense of indian sources don't count. for God's sake it's a indian main battle tanks who else are we suppose to seek. news from.the Cubans.
> it's our project.
> if the critical cag reports are relevant for your criticism.fron.2013 and 2016 and you jump on those Indian sources that are years old why is it when the Indians confirm.we have made 90 improvements and are Idris g 2 more regiments it deemed indian fake news let's report to mods.
> 
> you have my thread read it from.the start there is the full details from news on 4th February.


I request you to reply with some links about what I asked, not about the improvements. And if your did give a linknin a thread already, please give it here as I can't scroll endlessly to find it

I expect an actual defence analysis that supports your claims other than Indian media because we all know Indian media isnprone to blatantly lying.

Remember Karachi Civil War?
Remember F16 "kill" lmao?
Remember "Pakistan is in Dark grey list"? [emoji23][emoji23]
Remember 350 terrorists killed?
Remember 40% JF-17 are broken [emoji1787][emoji1787]?
Remember SURGICAL STRIKE of 2016?
Remember Iran surgical strike?

These are all just minor examples of Indian lying media.

So you must understand my concern when you link Indian media.
An Indian Army official's tweet or interview that supports your claim would also be acceptable.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## TheDebSahab

The Maverick said:


> Two regiments of Indigenous Arjun 1A tanks to be ordered by Indian Army: Defense sources - See Latest
> 
> 
> According to recent reports, the Indian Army has sought additional 118 units of Arjun MBT for its armored corps. It marks Army's further step towards promoting the 'Make in India' initiative. Indian A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.seelatest.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the opening line buddy it states,242 Arjun tanks in service already
> 
> i DID START my thread of 500 Arjun tanks in future with this article
> 
> 
> you seem to hell bent on suggesting I'm just plucking numbers from.the air
> I'm not it's researched, and then I state my case so quit your one man campaign to get me banned.
> 
> if you want latest information re our armed forces,ie info from 2021 not 2015 or 2017 ask me I will.update you .


Even the Indian dominated Wikipedia states this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yasser76

The Maverick said:


> Two regiments of Indigenous Arjun 1A tanks to be ordered by Indian Army: Defense sources - See Latest
> 
> 
> According to recent reports, the Indian Army has sought additional 118 units of Arjun MBT for its armored corps. It marks Army's further step towards promoting the 'Make in India' initiative. Indian A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.seelatest.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the opening line buddy it states,242 Arjun tanks in service already
> 
> i DID START my thread of 500 Arjun tanks in future with this article
> 
> 
> you seem to hell bent on suggesting I'm just plucking numbers from.the air
> I'm not it's researched, and then I state my case so quit your one man campaign to get me banned.
> 
> if you want latest information re our armed forces,ie info from 2021 not 2015 or 2017 ask me I will.update you .




As per the link you posted

*" As per defense reports, the Indian Army has sought two regiments of the new indigenous Arjun 1A tank. DRDO has developed them and it incorporates 71 improvements from the original version. The Defence Acquisition Council and the Cabinet Committee on Security will have to clear it. The deal is worth Rs 8,956 crore, not just for the tanks but also, spares and servicing. "*

So the very link you posted as evidence contradicts you. Not only that, but every single source in the world. Even India's tank factory will tell you they have not produced 240 Arjuns.

We can play this game all day, you look more and more stupid with every post

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Ignore him. He is a over enthusiastic guy who often lose the difference between fiction and reality. 


Yasser76 said:


> As per the link you posted
> 
> *" As per defense reports, the Indian Army has sought two regiments of the new indigenous Arjun 1A tank. DRDO has developed them and it incorporates 71 improvements from the original version. The Defence Acquisition Council and the Cabinet Committee on Security will have to clear it. The deal is worth Rs 8,956 crore, not just for the tanks but also, spares and servicing. "*
> 
> So the very link you posted as evidence contradicts you. Not only that, but every single source in the world. Even India's tank factory will tell you they have not produced 240 Arjuns.
> 
> We can play this game all day, you look more and more stupid with every post

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## The Maverick

Yasser76 said:


> As per the link you posted
> 
> *" As per defense reports, the Indian Army has sought two regiments of the new indigenous Arjun 1A tank. DRDO has developed them and it incorporates 71 improvements from the original version. The Defence Acquisition Council and the Cabinet Committee on Security will have to clear it. The deal is worth Rs 8,956 crore, not just for the tanks but also, spares and servicing. "*
> 
> So the very link you posted as evidence contradicts you. Not only that, but every single source in the world. Even India's tank factory will tell you they have not produced 240 Arjuns.
> 
> We can play this game all day, you look more and more stupid with every post



you asked me to post s single source you got it ... 
you have no idea your a arm.chair Pakistani with no links to indian military what so ever..
so you have access to open source material 
you cherry pick some cag report probably 5 years,old taking that as,a an excuse to malign progress which you find difficult to stomach. 
you do t know more than rest of us .
regardless of whether it's 242 or 123 or 118 the simply fact is more Arjuns are coming so take it on the chin.
just like more tejas are coming 
and more nuke subs are coming 
and more guided missle frigates are coming 
billions of dollars and thousands of.jobs to.i Indian workers.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Yasser76

The Maverick said:


> you asked me to post s single source you got it ...
> you have no idea your a arm.chair Pakistani with no links to indian military what so ever..
> so you have access to open source material
> you cherry pick some cag report probably 5 years,old taking that as,a an excuse to malign progress which you find difficult to stomach.
> you do t know more than rest of us .
> regardless of whether it's 242 or 123 or 118 the simply fact is more Arjuns are coming so take it on the chin.
> just like more tejas are coming
> and more nuke subs are coming
> and more guided missle frigates are coming
> billions of dollars and thousands of.jobs to.i Indian workers.




So now you are back tracking on your original claim

*"regardless of whether it's 242 or 123 or 118 the simply fact is more Arjuns are coming so take it on the chin."*

Does Indian Army have 240 Arjuns as you claimed earlier, yes or no? If no (which is a universal truth) will you apologise for lying?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## The Maverick

Yasser76 said:


> So now you are back tracking on your original claim
> 
> *"regardless of whether it's 242 or 123 or 118 the simply fact is more Arjuns are coming so take it on the chin."*
> 
> Does Indian Army have 240 Arjuns as you claimed earlier, yes or no? If no (which is a universal truth) will you apologise for lying?




in shared the link and it states 242 you have your source 

9000 crore rupee deal.for another 118.tanks is 1.3 billion dollars but this will
include Arjun infrastructure support including weapon ..bridge laying capability and transport lorries specifically designed to carry the 60 tonne heavy tanks 
typical. regiment has between.59 and 62 tanks .
242 plus 118 equals 360 by 2025 in.guessing 
and then. further order for mark 2 in future as we keep on progressing 
more pictures coming yasser


----------



## Yasser76

The Maverick said:


> in shared the link and it states 242 you have your source
> 
> 9000 crore rupee deal.for another 118.tanks is 1.3 billion dollars but this will
> include Arjun infrastructure support including weapon ..bridge laying capability and transport lorries specifically designed to carry the 60 tonne heavy tanks
> typical. regiment has between.59 and 62 tanks .
> 242 plus 118 equals 360 by 2025 in.guessing
> and then. further order for mark 2 in future as we keep on progressing
> more pictures coming yasser



No, the link clearly stats only two regiments and potentially another 124 will be ordered. Your own link says that, Indian Army and Indian Tank factories state 124 tanks in service. Yu got caught lying and now you are desperatly trying to change the subject. You have no source, you twisted one sentence in a report that then goes on to state only 2 regiments in service. The whole forum has seen you exposed again as a liar and fake news peddler.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## The Maverick

Yasser76 said:


> No, the link clearly stats only two regiments and potentially another 124 will be ordered. Your own link says that, Indian Army and Indian Tank factories state 124 tanks in service. Yu got caught lying and now you are desperatly trying to change the subject. You have no source, you twisted one sentence in a report that then goes on to state only 2 regiments in service. The whole forum has seen you exposed again as a liar and fake news peddler.




You carry on like a broken record .............

You asked me where i got it from HERE IT IS


*Two regiments of Indigenous Arjun 1A tanks to be ordered by Indian Army: Defense sources*
*According to recent reports, the Indian Army has sought additional 118 units of Arjun MBT for its armored corps. It marks Army's further step towards promoting the 'Make in India' initiative. Indian Army already has 242 Arjun Tanks in its service.*
By *Harkirpal Singh*, Updated : Feb 05, 2021 11:48 IST


I started my thread with this very aticle .......... You asked where ............GO CHECK THE THREAD I STARTED #
500 Arjuns planned in future ............ I started with this ..


----------



## waz

*Can we leave the Arjun talk now, there is a thread in the Indian defence section. *

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Basel

waz said:


> Nope they are not equally matched at all, the VT-4 is far superior to the TY90MS in terms of electronics , armour, mobility etc. This debate has been done, please see the thread earlier.
> India does not have anywhere near 2,000 T-90 tanks, it has just over a 1,000, this has also been discussed.
> 
> 
> The numbers are here;
> 
> *From March 25 2020.
> 
> There are currently around 1,000-1,100 T-90 MBTs of both the MS and Bhishma S variants in service*, although the operational readiness rate of the tanks remains unclear. According to one estimate, 850-900 are of the T-90S Bhishma variant. Of the two, the T-90MS MBT is the more advanced design.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet India's T-90M Bhishma Tank: Russian Tech, Indian Made
> 
> 
> A good combo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It entered service with the Russian Army in 1992.* In February 2001, the Indian Army signed a contract for 310 T-90S tanks: 124* were completed in Russia and the rest were delivered in ‘knocked down’ form for final assembly in India.
> 
> *The Indian Ministry of Defence placed a $2.8bn contract with the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to licence-build 464 additional T-90S* tanks at its heavy vehicle factory (HVF), Avadi, for the Indian Army in November 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90S Main Battle Tank (MBT), Russia
> 
> 
> The T-90S main battle tank (MBT) is a powerful Russian tank with increased firepower, mobility and protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army-technology.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan's initial order is 300 tanks yes, but there are plans for over 1,000. Do remember 180 tanks are already being delivered.
> The Arjun suffers mobility issues, has less HP ratio than the VT4 and we could go on.



Indians totally underestimate PA capabilities our T-80UD, AKs & Al Zarars can tackle any threat in NCW envionrment as now tanks dont fight alone they also have other assets to support them which includes ATGMs too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## waz

Guys any more talk about Arjun will result in thread bans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## TheDebSahab

Can I add one more comment?


waz said:


> Guys any more talk about Arjun will result in thread bans.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## waz

TheDebSahab said:


> Can I add one more comment?



Sorry brother no, it create a snowball effect, then everyone would want one last comment.
There is a thread for Arjun.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## TheDebSahab

Alright, bruv.


waz said:


> Sorry brother no, it create a snowball effect, then everyone would want one last comment.
> There is a thread for Arjun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

waz said:


> Sorry brother no, it create a snowball effect, then everyone would want one last comment.
> There is a thread for Arjun.
> @PanzerKiel bro do you know this Arjun guy, he’s very popular everyone is asking about him.


That last line is rather counter-intuitive, is it not? Inviting comment on something you (rightly) don't want talked about in this thread.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

@PanzerKiel sir 
can you tell us on how war games are held?

Reactions: Wow Wow:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Yasser76 said:


> As per the link you posted
> 
> *" As per defense reports, the Indian Army has sought two regiments of the new indigenous Arjun 1A tank. DRDO has developed them and it incorporates 71 improvements from the original version. The Defence Acquisition Council and the Cabinet Committee on Security will have to clear it. The deal is worth Rs 8,956 crore, not just for the tanks but also, spares and servicing. "*
> 
> So the very link you posted as evidence contradicts you. Not only that, but every single source in the world. Even India's tank factory will tell you they have not produced 240 Arjuns.
> 
> We can play this game all day, you look more and more stupid with every post



Even if this is true, when you polish a turd...


----------



## farooqbhai007

lol
>

we just ordered 2.8 billion deal for t90s x 460 tanks I'm sure if a,real deficiencyexisted we would acquired t14 armarta instead.


abhi armata export kay liyay clear nahi huwa , aur nah to Armata ki full scale production start huwi hai , still low rate production, program is plagued by delays , pata nahi kis dunya mey rehtay yeh ,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## TheDebSahab

Sach me. Even if Armata was available to sell, it would be idiotic to buy it. So expensive. And when will indians understand that going on a buying spree is just plain stupid?

Armata isn't even in service within the Russian Army yet. And it's too heavy to be of much use agaisnt Pakistan or China.


farooqbhai007 said:


> lol
> >
> 
> we just ordered 2.8 billion deal for t90s x 460 tanks I'm sure if a,real deficiencyexisted we would acquired t14 armarta instead.
> 
> 
> abhi armata export kay liyay clear nahi huwa , aur nah to Armata ki full scale production start huwi hai , still low rate production, program is plagued by delays , pata nahi kis dunya mey rehtay yeh ,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## flameboard

Imran Khan said:


> NOTHING is so secrets these days sir .


It’s about principle and at least trying to follow protocol.

I’m sure Pakistan has many secrets that are still secure and need to be kept secure

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @魅力一机 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Love Love:
1


----------



## waz

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 717369
> View attachment 717370
> View attachment 717371
> View attachment 717372
> View attachment 717373
> View attachment 717374
> View attachment 717375
> View attachment 717376
> View attachment 717377
> 
> Via @魅力一机 from Weixin



Any commentary brother?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> Any commentary brother?


Norinco keeps producing VT-4 during Chinese new year.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Signalian

Desert Fox 1 said:


> @PanzerKiel sir
> can you tell us on how war games are held?


Poori presentation with video recordings maang lo  

Baksh do uss ko, kiyun uss becharay ki nokri k peechay parr gaye ho

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
6


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> Poori presentation with video recordings maang lo
> 
> Baksh do uss ko, kiyun uss becharay ki nokri k peechay parr gaye ho


I meant just an over view. Matlab mota mota.
Still, i also feel that panzerkeil sir is a bit overused. Anyone can ask him any question but the good thing is that he will answer them without revealing much. He is approachable that's why no one hesitates from asking him

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362671684059193344

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Ghessan

LKJ86 said:


> Norinco keeps producing VT-4 during Chinese new year.



why is men in uniform working on the project? or is it that they are there for their own procurements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Ghessan said:


> why is men in uniform working on the project? or is it that they are there for their own procurements.


They are just workers dressed in camouflage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Affan-khan



Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

So some keep saying we have already received near to 200 and here it says it will be after 2 years!


----------



## KaiserX

Dreamer. said:


> So some keep saying we have already received near to 200 and here it says it will be after 2 years!



I believe the initial 50 have been received.


----------



## arjunk

Dreamer. said:


> So some keep saying we have already received near to 200 and here it says it will be after 2 years!



As long as it's before the next Indian elections it's fine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

LKJ86 said:


> They are just workers dressed in camouflage.


The guy in first picture the one with moustache. He looks like a Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Zarvan said:


> The guy in first picture the one with moustache. He looks like a Pakistani.



Probably there for QA.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Raja Porus

Affan-khan said:


> View attachment 718085


500?? The initial batch comprises of about 300 tanks as they will re-equip an armoured div. The follow up order may be increased if Alkhalids'production fails to catch up or if we want to retire the t59/69 a bit quicker

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

USA makes one type of MBT and keeps upgrading it. Germany does the same with Leo2, though Germany doesn't go to war as much as USA does. For rapid deployment, USA puts a 105mm cannon on a light gun platform, Stryker. Pakistan doesn't need rapid deployment by air but neither does Pakistan envision one MBT type slated for future upgrades through versions or blocks. Russia operates different T-series which have commonality between them. T-72 with T-90 and T-64 with T-80. The best that Pakistan has done is to have commonality of parts to avoid a logistical and parts nightmare. 

Now that a supplier with production line sits next door for Pakistan, the issue of supply by sea or air of American equipment/parts (by friendly countries not USA) in an event of war has ceased, minus the embargo from USA. One could imagine VT-4s rolling down Khunjerab pass if a war occurs. That would be an excellent method to replace losses. So even if HIT is "hit" and POF goes up in flames, the redundancy exists through China.

Reactions: Like Like:
14 | Love Love:
5 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## syed_yusuf

500 mbt is a good sizeable number wonder what is the future of t80ud in Pakistan army

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

the future of t80 ud is very bright in PA

Reactions: Wow Wow:
4


----------



## Raja Porus

Reichmarshal said:


> the future of t80 ud is very bright in PA


Oplot if it is *very* bright.🤔

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ghessan

LKJ86 said:


> They are just workers dressed in camouflage.



camouflage, in what circumstance?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

Desert Fox 1 said:


> 500?? The initial batch comprises of about 300 tanks as they will re-equip an armoured div. The follow up order may be increased if Alkhalids'production fails to catch up or if we want to retire the t59/69 a bit quicker



With a price of 5-7 million each comped to older types it’s all about $$

300x5 million is 1500 million or 1.5B just for tanks ??
Basically ak2 may be local version of vt-4

lastly all Chinese’s and HIT tanks has commonality which was advertised by hit
Ak had 55% , t85 had 45% t69 had xx% so on .. for example with t-59


----------



## Reichmarshal

Al Khalid is a totally different project and other than a few sub systems does not share anything with VT4.
AK is going very strong and very soon will hit the production benchmark of 50 tanks per year.

AK2 at the moment is on paper and when it sees the light of the day it will be superior to anything in south Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## SD 10

Reichmarshal said:


> AK/AK1/AK2 is a totally different project and other than a few sub systems does not share anything with VT4.
> AK is going very strong and very soon will it the production benchmark of 50 tanks per year by HIT.
> 
> AK2 at the moment is on paper and when it sees the light of the day it will be superior to anything in south Asia.


dont you think by that time tanks will be obsolete? Already we are seeing a shift in india's bying spree and they are trying to shift focus towards UCAVs, perhaps we should too. also how are we going to cover our armored collumns when we dont have any significant air defence capavbilities considering india now has apches too!


----------



## Ghessan

Reichmarshal said:


> Al Khalid is a totally different project and other than a few sub systems does not share anything with VT4.
> AK is going very strong and very soon will hit the production benchmark of 50 tanks per year.
> 
> AK2 at the moment is on paper and when it sees the light of the day it will be superior to anything in south Asia.



AK production hit due to finances, VT-4 route helped acquisition timely. no doubt AK once in full production will join to fill in quick numbers. 

how far is AK2 from prototype stage?


----------



## Reichmarshal

SD 10 said:


> dont you think by that time tanks will be obsolete? Already we are seeing a shift in india's bying spree and they are trying to shift focus towards UCAVs, perhaps we should too. also how are we going to cover our armored collumns when we dont have any significant air defence capavbilities considering india now has apches too!



every weapon that has ever seen the light of the day has always been met with a counter/anti weapon system to neutralize that weapon. The novelty factor of any weapon does not last long. Similarly, we are seeing electromagnetic/ laser weapons to counter UAV/UCAV. 

The king of the battle is here to stay


Ghessan said:


> AK production hit due to finances, VT-4 route helped acquisition timely. no doubt AK once in full production will join to fill in quick numbers.
> 
> how far is AK2 from prototype stage?


AK production was hit during zardari era but has been going from strength to strength to strength ever since.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Signalian

Reichmarshal said:


> AK is going very strong and very soon will hit the production benchmark of 50 tanks per year.


This figure is encouraging if PA is transitioning from infantry dominated force to majorly armored force like Egypt, KSA etc who have more armored units than infantry units.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Signalian said:


> This figure is encouraging if PA is transitioning from infantry dominated force to majorly armored force like Egypt, KSA etc who have more armored units than infantry units.


I would not go that far but certainly the no. of armor units raised in the last few years points to a change in the overall strategy.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Signalian

Reichmarshal said:


> I would not go that far but certainly the no. of armor units raised in the last few years points to a change in the overall strategy.


combined arms

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Signalian said:


> combined arms


Like I said over all strategy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Reichmarshal said:


> AK2 at the moment is on paper and when it sees the light of the day it will be superior to anything in south Asia.


😆


SD 10 said:


> dont you think by that time tanks will be obsolete? Already we are seeing a shift in india's bying spree and they are trying to shift focus towards UCAVs, perhaps we should too. also how are we going to cover our armored collumns when we dont have any significant air defence capavbilities considering india now has apches too!


Unless humans decide that their habitations should no longer be subject to gravity, tanks are not going to become obsolete. Few weapons, including the AC-130s and naval ships, offer as much firepower as tanks, while almost none combine such firepower with equal or greater mobility and self-protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## arjunk

RAMPAGE said:


> 😆
> Unless humans decide that their habitations should no longer be subject to gravity, tanks are not going to become obsolete. Few weapons, including the AC-130s and naval ships, offer as much firepower as tanks, while almost none combine such firepower with equal or greater mobility and self-protection.



F-16 Block 50/52 can carry 10 CBU-87/97 cluster bombs and Su-25 can carry up to 256 anti tank rockets if I recall correctly. Quite a lot of firepower.


----------



## RAMPAGE

arjunk said:


> F-16 Block 50/52 can carry 10 CBU-87/97 cluster bombs and Su-25 can carry up to 256 anti tank rockets if I recall correctly. Quite a lot of firepower.


To point out the obvious: there was a reason the Americans and the Pakistan Army descended after the initial airstrikes in their respective offensives against the Taliban and Al-Qaida, which were carried out to weaken the enemy defenses. 

It is not obligatory to defend your existing convictions when a sufficiently convincing reason arguing the opposite has been to provided.


----------



## Dazzler

Oplot and VT-4 playing bullseye

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Inception-06

Dazzler said:


> Oplot and VT-4 playing bullseye



which tank would you personally choose if you could ?


----------



## Beast

Inception-06 said:


> which tank would you personally choose if you could ?


This question shall reserve for Royal Thai army personnel who handle both tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

Beast said:


> This question shall reserve for Royal Thai army personnel who handle both tanks.



I would take a VT-4, but with some cosmetic changes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## obj 705A

Nowadays tanks are very vulnerable to ATGMs anyway so there really is no difference as far as capability goes between tanks, as long as it is available, modern and of good quality then any tank is good enough.

Abrams used by mid east were quite weak, their armour get's penetrated by the oldest of Soviet era ATGMs as if it is made out of paper. The export variant of the Abrams is far inferior to the one used by the Americans, and you can be sure if Pakistan would buy an Abrams then the US would be selling the heavily downgraded export variant.
The Leopard 2 was getting penetrated all the time by ATGMs in Syria, 8-10 were destroed within days of being deployed.
The T-72 is like an iron coffin, not suitable for war and should only exist in museums.
the T-90 (don't know which variant) in Syria was a mixed bag, sometimes it is an invincible tank capable of withstanding multiple ATGM hits without getting penetrated, other times it would get penned especially if it's shoot in the side or rear. I suppose this has to do with how well trained is the crew.

In the end the VT-4 is the best option for Pakistan, because China shares a border with them so if war breaks out between Pakistan and India, China would be able to replinish Pakistan as soon as possible with spare parts and in addition to perhaps more tanks. The US and Russia cannot be trusted on that because in case of a war both of them may favor India over Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> This question shall reserve for Royal Thai army personnel who handle both tanks.



They like the vt4 better.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vi-va

obj 705A said:


> Nowadays tanks are very vulnerable to ATGMs anyway so there really is no difference as far as capability goes between tanks, as long as it is available, modern and of good quality then any tank is good enough.
> 
> Abrams used by mid east were quite weak, their armour get's penetrated by the oldest of Soviet era ATGMs as if it is made out of paper. The export variant of the Abrams is far inferior to the one used by the Americans, and you can be sure if Pakistan would buy an Abrams then the US would be selling the heavily downgraded export variant.
> The Leopard 2 was getting penetrated all the time by ATGMs in Syria, 8-10 were destroed within days of being deployed.
> The T-72 is like an iron coffin, not suitable for war and should only exist in museums.
> the T-90 (don't know which variant) in Syria was a mixed bag, sometimes it is an invincible tank capable of withstanding multiple ATGM hits without getting penetrated, other times it would get penned especially if it's shoot in the side or rear. I suppose this has to do with how well trained is the crew.
> 
> In the end the VT-4 is the best option for Pakistan, because China shares a border with them so if war breaks out between Pakistan and India, China would be able to replinish Pakistan as soon as possible with spare parts and in addition to perhaps more tanks. The US and Russia cannot be trusted on that because in case of a war both of them may favor India over Pakistan.


ATGMs has no armor. ATGMs has no chance to survive under creeping barrage

























Barrage (artillery) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## S10

Inception-06 said:


> which tank would you personally choose if you could ?


If I was low on budget, then T-84. It's essentially built with a refurbished T-80 chassis with upgraded weapons, sensors, and engines. VT-4 is much more expensive on the other hand, but has better performance in general.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Nigeria VT-4

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1371130999598370819

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

So 47 cavalry has also been equipped with VT4S along with 6 Lancers

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Love Love:
3


----------



## farooqbhai007

bahoot nice pic hai

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Tipu7



Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
2


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Tipu7 said:


> View attachment 727853
> View attachment 727854
> View attachment 727855


Lovely images would love to see these tough guys nail the enemy hard one day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Wow VT4 making itself known! I wonder how many have been delivered for a fair few to be at the parade.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Raja Porus

waz said:


> Wow VT4 making itself known! I wonder how many have been delivered for a fair few to be at the parade.


Only one VT4 was there. I was expecting atleast 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Flankerhunter

Desert Fox 1 said:


> So 47 cavalry has also been equipped with VT4S along with 6 Lancers
> View attachment 727828


47 cavalry is part of independent armored brigade?


----------



## Beast

1300/1500hp auto transmission engine....

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Raja Porus

First the 6th armd div will be equipped with VT4S


Flankerhunter said:


> 47 cavalry is part of independent armored brigade?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## vi-va

An Indian flag spotted. A fantastic cup of tea logo is missing.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Paul2

RAMPAGE said:


> 😆
> Unless humans decide that their habitations should no longer be subject to gravity, tanks are not going to become obsolete. Few weapons, including the AC-130s and naval ships, offer as much firepower as tanks, while almost none combine such firepower with equal or greater mobility and self-protection.


Tanks are the only offensive weapon which can survive any much close to a nuke blast.

For as long as nuclear warfare will be with us, a portable nuclear bunker on tracks, which is a tank, will be too.

Effectively, _tanks are the one, and only mean to win a nuclear war_.


obj 705A said:


> Nowadays tanks are very vulnerable to ATGMs anyway so there really is no difference as far as capability goes between tanks, as long as it is available, modern and of good quality then any tank is good enough.
> 
> Abrams used by mid east were quite weak, their armour get's penetrated by the oldest of Soviet era ATGMs as if it is made out of paper. The export variant of the Abrams is far inferior to the one used by the Americans, and you can be sure if Pakistan would buy an Abrams then the US would be selling the heavily downgraded export variant.
> The Leopard 2 was getting penetrated all the time by ATGMs in Syria, 8-10 were destroed within days of being deployed.
> The T-72 is like an iron coffin, not suitable for war and should only exist in museums.
> the T-90 (don't know which variant) in Syria was a mixed bag, sometimes it is an invincible tank capable of withstanding multiple ATGM hits without getting penetrated, other times it would get penned especially if it's shoot in the side or rear. I suppose this has to do with how well trained is the crew.
> 
> In the end the VT-4 is the best option for Pakistan, because China shares a border with them so if war breaks out between Pakistan and India, China would be able to replinish Pakistan as soon as possible with spare parts and in addition to perhaps more tanks. The US and Russia cannot be trusted on that because in case of a war both of them may favor India over Pakistan.


War is a rock, paper, scissors game. No universal weapon, for each offensive weapon, there is its natural enemy. Infantry - artillery, tanks - airforce, airforce - offence on airfield, and logistics, infantry - tanks, ATGM squads - elite light infantry, ICBM force - saboteurs, and commandos, helicopters - modern SPAAGs.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RAMPAGE

@Dazzler

I imagine the AKs can be easily upgraded to VT4 standard?


----------



## farooqbhai007

RAMPAGE said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> I imagine the AKs can be easily upgraded to VT4 standard?


ab kya upgrade karna hai , bas zyada ERA thop do aur countermeaures laga do

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

RAMPAGE said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> I imagine the AKs can be easily upgraded to VT4 standard?


Of course not...


----------



## Beast

RAMPAGE said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> I imagine the AKs can be easily upgraded to VT4 standard?


No.


----------



## Raja Porus

RAMPAGE said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> I imagine the AKs can be easily upgraded to VT4 standard?


Upgrading baseline AKs to AK-I would be more effective and economical.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SD 10

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Upgrading baseline AKs to AK-I would be more effective and economical.


whats the diff?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

SD 10 said:


> whats the diff?


AK-1 is powered by 6td2*e* version. Moreover AK-1 has 3rd gen TI sight as standard, a better muzzle reference system and gun bending sensor, enhanced multi process FCC, improved sensors. Overall, the situation awareness of the Ak-1 has been improved.
@Dazzler sir, which TI has been used? And has there been an improvement in the battle management system as well?

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> AK-1 is powered by 6td2*e* version. Moreover AK-1 has 3rd gen TI sight as standard, a better muzzle reference system and gun bending sensor, enhanced multi process FCC, improved sensors. Overall, the situation awareness of the Ak-1 has been improved.
> @Dazzler sir, which TI has been used? And has there been an improvement in the battle management system as well?


AK-1 (and late model AKs) use SAGEM MATIS TI. Older AKs use Chatherine (2nd Gen). 

AK-1 cannot be upgraded to VT-4, at least not economically/ The hull itself has changes, turret is redesigned, basically everything is different. We don’t exactly need to convert AK-1 to VT-4, VT-4 is better but AK-1 is indigenous and more cost effective. VT-4 also has Third Gen TI

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sulman Badshah

SD 10 said:


> whats the diff?


> Ammunition capacity increased to 49 125 mm rounds, 1,500 12.7 mm rounds and 7,100 7.62 mm rounds.
> Advance fire-control system which is now a more advanced multi-process fire control computer
> 3rd Gen Segem Thermal Imagers
> Upgraded Solid State Autoloader bidirectional tray movement and ammo availability info on screen, info on empty and full trays and types of available rounds, bigger carousel for longer rounds, (rate of fire increased to 9 rounds per minute)
> digital driver panel, IBMS, side-skirts, trackpads

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Paul2

AK/VT1, VT1A, VT2, VT4 and VT4A are very different tanks with only similar names. Do not confuse them. Half of VT4, and VT4A motive components are incompatible, and their hulls are different.

VT4A as a newer design naturally gets 201x era electronics, but the main difference is the new hull because of a different engine.

6TD VTs have transverse engine mount, two gearboxes, engine powered hydraulic equipment, and a very unconventional air/cooling system.

V8 and V12 4 stroke diesel engined VTs use much more conventional setup, but at the cost of bulk, and weight.

Upgrading one to another will require way more than hull modification, but also changing hydraulics, cooling, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal.

Paul2 said:


> AK/VT4 and VT4A are very different tanks with only similar names. Do not confuse them. Half of their motive components are incompatible, and their hulls are different.
> 
> VT4A as a newer design naturally gets 201x era electronics, but the main difference is the new hull because of a different engine.
> 
> 6TD VTs have transverse engine mount, two gearboxes, engine powered hydraulic equipment, and a very unconventional air/cooling system.
> 
> V8 and V12 4 stroke diesel engined VTs use much more conventional setup, but at the cost of bulk, and weight.
> 
> Upgrading one to another will require way more than hull modification, but also changing hydraulics, cooling, etc.



AK is VT1 not VT4.


----------



## Paul2

Bilal. said:


> AK is VT1 not VT4.


Yes, fixed. Quite a naming confusion.


----------



## Bilal.

Paul2 said:


> Yes, fixed. Quite a naming confusion.



Add MBT2000, MBT3000 and Type90-IIM to the mix and....


----------



## Dazzler

90IIM was the prototype of AK
MBT2000 was for export with all chinese systems and Malashev powerplant/transmission
Vt1A was the improved version incorporating ideas from AK mixed with Chinese systems

AK1 is an improved VT1A with indigenous systems western optics and Ukrainian power pack/ transmission.

VT4 is a more like 99 for export with drastic changes. PAs VT4 have specific changes and fy4 heavy ERA which makes it the most well protected mbt in this region

Still confused 🤔

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> AK-1 (and late model AKs) use SAGEM MATIS TI. Older AKs use Chatherine (2nd Gen).
> 
> AK-1 cannot be upgraded to VT-4, at least not economically/ The hull itself has changes, turret is redesigned, basically everything is different. We don’t exactly need to convert AK-1 to VT-4, VT-4 is better but AK-1 is indigenous and more cost effective. VT-4 also has Third Gen TI


Thanks sir. The sagem sights are completely indigenous?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via https://www.gettyimages.com/search/...rapher=AAMIR QURESHI&sort=mostpopular#license

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Thanks sir. The sagem sights are completely indigenous?


Not fully indigenous, joint project between GIDS and SAGEM. They are produced in Pakistan under license, SAGEM was a French company, it has since been renamed SAFRAN S.A. after merger with another defense company. The integration and production work is done by HIT and SAGEM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> Not fully indigenous, joint project between GIDS and SAGEM. They are produced in Pakistan under license, SAGEM was a French company, it has since been renamed SAFRAN S.A. after merger with another defense company. The integration and production work is done by HIT and SAGEM.


Thanks.At taxila?
Also, our type 85s have the same Catherine sights? And are Catherine sights also manufactured in Pakistan?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Thanks.At taxila?
> Also, our type 85s have the same Catherine sights? And are Catherine sights also manufactured in Pakistan?



Yes, integrated by Shibli

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

Dazzler said:


> Yes, integrated by Shibli


Thank you,sir.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> 90IIM was the prototype of AK
> MBT2000 was for export with all chinese systems and Malashev powerplant/transmission
> Vt1A was the improved version incorporating ideas from AK mixed with Chinese systems
> 
> AK1 is an improved VT1A with indigenous systems western optics and Ukrainian power pack/ transmission.
> 
> VT4 is a more like 99 for export with drastic changes. PAs VT4 have specific changes and fy4 heavy ERA which makes it the most well protected mbt in this region
> 
> Still confused 🤔


Will we be seeing the AK2 anytime soon?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal.

Dazzler said:


> Yes, integrated by Shibli


Off topic but why has Shibli taken tarsier off of their website?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Thanks.At taxila?
> Also, our type 85s have the same Catherine sights? And are Catherine sights also manufactured in Pakistan?


Type 85, T80UD and Older AKs all use Catherine, manufactured and integrated by SHIBLI. 
Al-Zarrar uses THETIS.
AK-1 uses SAGEM MATIS, made by GIDS, integrated at HIT.
VT4s is unknown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> Type 85, T80UD and Older AKs all use Catherine, manufactured and integrated by SHIBLI.
> Al-Zarrar uses THETIS.
> AK-1 uses SAGEM MATIS, made by GIDS, integrated at HIT.
> VT4s is unknown.



3rd gen for gunner, 2nd gen for commander. CITV arrangement.


Bilal. said:


> Off topic but why has Shibli taken tarsier off of their website?



No idea

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Bilal. said:


> Off topic but why has Shibli taken tarsier off of their website?



No idea


iLION12345_1 said:


> Type 85, T80UD and Older AKs all use Catherine, manufactured and integrated by SHIBLI.
> Al-Zarrar uses THETIS.
> AK-1 uses SAGEM MATIS, made by GIDS, integrated at HIT.
> VT4s is unknown.











Inhouse Integration/ manufacturing of thermal imagers, Optics, fire control systems for AFVs


Shibli Electronics licensed Key Industrial Partner of Thales provides the best innovative Thermal Imaging systems integration solutions for various land platforms including Armored Vehicles and Mechanized Infantry. The highly skilled and THALES certified manpower including engineers and...



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abid123

Will the Al Khalid 2 be as good as the VT-4?


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Dazzler said:


> 90IIM was the prototype of AK
> MBT2000 was for export with all chinese systems and Malashev powerplant/transmission
> Vt1A was the improved version incorporating ideas from AK mixed with Chinese systems
> 
> AK1 is an improved VT1A with indigenous systems western optics and Ukrainian power pack/ transmission.
> 
> VT4 is a more like 99 for export with drastic changes. PAs VT4 have specific changes and fy4 heavy ERA which makes it the most well protected mbt in this region
> 
> Still confused 🤔


Can AK2 become a version of VT4?


----------



## Cookie Monster

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Can AK2 become a version of VT4?


Wouldn't that mean basically scrapping most of the research that has gone on for AK2 thus far?


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Cookie Monster said:


> Wouldn't that mean basically scrapping most of the research that has gone on for AK2 thus far?


That's assuming we haven't been drawing on the VT4 already (especially its engine and other subsystems).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Can AK2 become a version of VT4?



Unlikely at this point but who knows.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Can AK2 become a version of VT4?


As dazzler said it is unlikely at this point. AK-2 has a lot of its design work done already. And China will continue to develop on VT4 into a “VT-4A” like it does with all its tanks, which might be what Pakistan gets in its second (or likely third) order of VT4, since Pakistan is ordering so many.
What we could see is parts from the VT4 being carried over to AK2 and vice versa, to increase interchangeability and improve the two platforms, but for major things like engine or ERA to carry over, AK-2 would need changes to its hull and such.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Can AK2 become a version of VT4?


Since AK-2 is not finalised yet, absorbing the best of VT-4 design into AK-2's final version, i.e. combining the best of the two into one, would be a smart move.


----------



## iLION12345_1

lcloo said:


> Since AK-2 is not finalised yet, absorbing the best of VT-4 design into AK-2's final version, i.e. combining the best of the two into one, would be a smart move.


There are already certain similarities between the two as VT-4 in a way is an evolution of the AK platform; but changing the base design of a tank is not easy work, like the hull or the turret design, while certain parts could be carried over from each tank to the other, Wether they want to redesign the AK2 to make it closer to the VT4 would depend on how much time they’re willing to take to continue the design phase and redo it, and we don’t really what decision they’ll make in this regard. They could keep AK-2 completely independent, increase interchangeability between the two, or just redesign AK-2 to be closer to VT-4.

One thing they might consider is Powerpacks, AK-2 could do with a more powerful engine IMO. Like a 1500HP one. But they’d need to redesign engine bay for that, not that it’s current engine isn’t good enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## ghazi52

A nice picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## syed_yusuf

ghazi52 said:


> A nice picture.
> 
> View attachment 733247


Smart tank. I have been comparing Pakistani vt4 to other 4th gen tank specs. Could not find much difference. Please correct me


----------



## Raja Porus

syed_yusuf said:


> Smart tank. I have been comparing Pakistani vt4 to other 4th gen tank specs. Could not find much difference. Please correct me


All current tanks ( with the exception of Armata) are 3rd gen.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## IblinI

Desert Fox 1 said:


> All current tanks ( with the exception of Armata) are 3rd gen.


Armata with early 10s tech trees aren't qualify for the definition of next gen battle tank.
The rus are a bit hasty there.
As far as I know about our project, it contains element like ETC/electromagnetic gun, low profile with two men crew, electro reactive armor..etc, and this isn't anything in the far future but within this decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## vi-va

Desert Fox 1 said:


> All current tanks ( with the exception of Armata) are 3rd gen.


Armata is bad design, even Russian didn't equip those tanks. It will take another 10 years or so to see next generation tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## obj 705A

vi-va said:


> Armata is bad design, even Russian didn't equip those tanks. It will take another 10 years or so to see next generation tanks.


It's probably the most advanced tank mankind has seen that is currently available, the reason why they are not aquiring it is because they have no money, this is what always happens with them, they spend alot of time and money developing weapons and then when the time comes to buy them they find out they can't afford, the T-14 was supposed to cost just 3.7$ million but the real unit cost ended being much higher than that. In any case they say this time they will recieve it either at the end of 2021or 2022 so let's see whether that would be the case or due to budget limits they would delay it further. Buying 100 of them in one year would cost several hundreds of millions of $, so you never know they may again decide to delay it in favor of using the money to buy another submarine or something.



IblinI said:


> As far as I know about our project, it contains element like ETC/electromagnetic gun, low profile with two men crew, electro reactive armor..etc, and this isn't anything in the far future but within this decade.



Wait that is the first time this tank was mentioned here, the tank you are talking about is obviously not the Type 99 what is your source for this news?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

obj 705A said:


> It's probably the most advanced tank mankind has seen that is currently available, the reason why they are not aquiring it is because they have no money, this is what always happens with them, they spend alot of time and money developing weapons and then when the time comes to buy them they find out they can't afford, the T-14 was supposed to cost just 3.7$ million but the real unit cost ended being much higher than that. In any case they say this time they will recieve it either at the end of 2021or 2022 so let's see whether that would be the case or due to budget limits they would delay it further. Buying 100 of them in one year would cost several hundreds of millions of $, so you never know they may again decide to delay it in favor of using the money to buy another submarine or something.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait that is the first time this tank was mentioned here, the tank you are talking about is obviously not the Type 99 what is your source for this news?


from Mao ming,the chief designer of 99A's 2015 magazine interview, he stated it was no more a concept.


----------



## vi-va

obj 705A said:


> It's probably the most advanced tank mankind has seen that is currently available, the reason why they are not aquiring it is because they have no money, this is what always happens with them, they spend alot of time and money developing weapons and then when the time comes to buy them they find out they can't afford, the T-14 was supposed to cost just 3.7$ million but the real unit cost ended being much higher than that. In any case they say this time they will recieve it either at the end of 2021or 2022 so let's see whether that would be the case or due to budget limits they would delay it further. Buying 100 of them in one year would cost several hundreds of millions of $, so you never know they may again decide to delay it in favor of using the money to buy another submarine or something.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait that is the first time this tank was mentioned here, the tank you are talking about is obviously not the Type 99 what is your source for this news?


If Armata is the best tank, 

why Russia is buying infrared sensors from France Thales? After sanction, Russia turn to China for infrared sensor.
Russia APFSDS is weaker than western/China, this is well known.
Russia engine and transmission is not as good as Germany nor Chinese.
Just take a look at VT-4, auto transmission, torque converter.
Last but not least, China has better armor as well.
All in all, China has better electronic, better power pack, better APFSDS, and better armor.

Armata is on trial, not a mature design at all. Armata is far from best tank in the world if you are serious tank fan.

Btw, I am not against Russia nor Russian. I am just listing the facts.


----------



## obj 705A

vi-va said:


> Russia APFSDS is weaker than western/China, this is well known.
> 
> Last but not least, China has better armor as well.


any proof for these two claims?
the Armata tank is using a new gun with new ammo, Russia is the only country which has this gun for now so how did any one evaluate the new Russian gun if no one ever touched it or saw it beside the Russians? 
same thing for the armour how did any one outside Russia evaluate how effective it was? the only way to evaluate it's armour is if Russia openly stated the armour and protection values and limits of their new tank, did they do that? because if not then any attempt to evaluate armour effectiviness of a tank could and should be dismissed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

obj 705A said:


> any proof for these two claims?
> the Armata tank is using a new gun with new ammo, Russia is the only country which has this gun for now so how did any one evaluate the new Russian gun if no one ever touched it or saw it beside the Russians?
> same thing for the armour how did any one outside Russia evaluate how effective it was? the only way to evaluate it's armour is if Russia openly stated the armour and protection values and limits of their new tank, did they do that? because if not then any attempt to evaluate armour effectiviness of a tank could and should be dismissed.





vi-va said:


> If Armata is the best tank,
> 
> why Russia is buying infrared sensors from France Thales? After sanction, Russia turn to China for infrared sensor.
> Russia APFSDS is weaker than western/China, this is well known.
> Russia engine and transmission is not as good as Germany nor Chinese.
> Just take a look at VT-4, auto transmission, torque converter.
> Last but not least, China has better armor as well.
> All in all, China has better electronic, better power pack, better APFSDS, and better armor.
> 
> Armata is on trial, not a mature design at all. Armata is far from best tank in the world if you are serious tank fan.
> 
> Btw, I am not against Russia nor Russian. I am just listing the facts.
> View attachment 733648
> 
> 
> View attachment 733652



No idea what that guy is going off, the T-14, from what we know, is simply better than any other tank employed by any military atm, especially anything employed by China. And that’s with the little information we do have on it. It not being inducted yet has nothing to do with it not being a good tank, that’s more to do with costs and the Russian economy, in fact it’s exports variants will be in service before Russian variants due to cost reasons.
He says Russian APFSDS is not as good as Chinese one, but apart from 125-III APFSDS (who’s numbers remain classified but are likely nowhere near the best stuff fielded by the west or the Russians), all chinese APFSDS has been rather…poor for its time, since Russian and western ammo achieved those numbers 5-10 years prior. 
Same with Chinese ERA. FY-4 is a generation behind what Armata and T90MS have, it is still a very good ERA. But it’s short of the best Russia has to offer. 

Russians have a lot more experience buildings tanks and their parts and T-14 is solid proof of that, it’s not an untested design, because it’s not some alien tank, it’s based off 70 years of Russian tank expertise. It’s simply ahead of it’s time for the Russian economy, just like the Zummwalt destroyers were for the USA.

Also Russia has recently_ switched _from Thales sights to its own, not went to China or France for them. Again, no idea what this guy is smoking. Also the Armata power pack itself is a generation ahead of anything fielded in China and most of what’s fielded in the west. Apart from Leo 2A7, nothing comes close to the T90MS, let alone the Armata. Even the US is designing a new, next gen tank now. 
The only decent Chinese tank is the newest Type 99 variant and the VT4. And the VT4 has piss-poor firepower due to BTA-4 when compared to western and Russian ammunition. (600mm at 2km/0 deg compared to 1000+mm for both vacuum 1 and vacuum 2). It’s still very good for other countries like Pakistan or Thailand. But when compared to the stuff Germany, USA and Russia are using, it’s not even close.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

iLION12345_1 said:


> No idea what that guy is going off, the T-14, from what we know, is simply better than any other tank employed by any military atm, especially anything employed by China. And that’s with the little information we do have on it. It not being inducted yet has nothing to do with it not being a good tank, that’s more to do with costs and the Russian economy, in fact it’s exports variants will be in service before Russian variants due to cost reasons.
> He says Russian APFSDS is not as good as Chinese one, but apart from 125-III APFSDS (who’s numbers remain classified but are likely nowhere near the best stuff fielded by the west or the Russians), all chinese APFSDS has been rather…poor. Same with Chinese ERA. FY-4 is a generation behind what Armata and T90MS have.
> Russians have a lot more experience buildings tanks and their parts and T-14 is solid proof of that, it’s not an untested design, because it’s not some alien tank, it’s based off 70 years of Russian tank expertise. It’s simply ahead of it’s time for the Russian economy, just like the Zummwalt destroyers were for the USA.
> 
> Also Russia has recently_ switched _from Thales sights to its own, not went to China or France for them. Again, no idea what this guy is smoking. Also the Armata power pack itself is a generation ahead of anything fielded in China and most of what’s fielded in the west. Apart from Leo 2A7, nothing comes close to the T90MS, let alone the Armata.
> The only decent Chinese tank is the newest Type 99 variant and the VT4. And the VT4 has piss-poor firepower due to BTA-4 when compared to western and Russian ammunition. (600mm at 2km/0 deg compared to 1000+mm for both vacuum 1 and vacuum 2)


So indian tanks' firepower and protection is better than pakistan's..?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dreamer. said:


> So indian tanks' firepower and protection is better than pakistan's..?


Nope, india has no “modern” Russian tanks. They use T90S, which is a base model T90 export, a decent tank, id say on Par with original AK (but not AK-1). Half of their T72s are stock, obsolete. Half have been modernized, something similar to Type 85UG. The Arjun MK-1 is a joke. The MK-1A is decent technologically, but has probably the worst gun ever on a modern MBT and very poor side and turret armor, as well as very very high weight.

The biggest issue with Indian tanks is ammo, india only recently started inducting Mango APFSDS in 2019, which is a Russian round from the 80s (having 460mm of pen/0 deg at 2KM). Most of their tanks still use even older APFSDS.

On the other hand Pakistani APFSDS (locally made one at that) had this capability in the early 2000s. Currently Pakistan uses Naiza DU on AZ and AK (550-570mm of pen/0 deg at 2km) and BTA-4 on Type 85UG, T84 and VT4 (600+ mm of pen/0deg at 2km). Far, far superior to anything india has.
BTA-4 is basically the best APFSDS China offers for export (they use 125-III themselves, which is not offered for export and is better than BTA-4, likely a bit closer to modern western/Russian rounds, but I wouldn’t say it’s better than them). BTA-4 is only average by modern Russian and western standards but for the indo-Pak theatre it is best APFSDS in service by far, followed by the Naiza DU. Tanks can always be upgraded to fire better projectiles, something Pakistan will obviously look into once needed, but there’s no need to spend that much money on these upgrades when the adversary is still that much behind.

As for protection, VT-4 is easily the most protected MBT in South Asia with its FY4 ERA. Indian tanks still use Kontakt-5, which is previous gen Russian ERA, despite their claims, they have made No armor changes to their T90S, since they simply can’t without Russian permission, something they have never gotten and often complain about. Our last tank to have previous gen ERA (the T80UD) is getting upgraded right now with Nozh, the next gen Ukrainian ERA, apart from other upgrades. While AK, AZ and Type 85UG would be equipped with Pakistani Aorak MK.2 , which itself is based on FY-3 and Nozh. The T90S likely has better base armor than all but VT-4, and due to its better ERA coverage it’s protection would be comparable to AK, even with its older ERA, but it’s falling behind in basically everything else at the moment.

If we are to classify stuff by generations, Kontakt 5 is second Gen ERA, FY4 and Nozh are basically like 3rd Gen, like Russian Relikt, which they use on T72B3, T90MS, T80BVM etc, while T-14 uses Malachit, which is 4th Gen ERA.
Same with projectiles, Though there are no actual generations for them, if BTA4 and Naiza are hypothetically “3rd Gen projectiles”, then india is still using second Gen, while Germany, USA and Russia use “4th gen” projectiles.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## vi-va

obj 705A said:


> any proof for these two claims?
> the Armata tank is using a new gun with new ammo, Russia is the only country which has this gun for now so how did any one evaluate the new Russian gun if no one ever touched it or saw it beside the Russians?
> same thing for the armour how did any one outside Russia evaluate how effective it was? the only way to evaluate it's armour is if Russia openly stated the armour and protection values and limits of their new tank, did they do that? because if not then any attempt to evaluate armour effectiviness of a tank could and should be dismissed.


It's not my responsibility to provide proof. You claim Armata is the best tank first, you should provide proof. But I can list some Russian data here, you can search around if you want to know the well known facts.

*Russia APFSDS development history:*

3bm42
3BM46 Depleted uranium
3BM42M monobloc tungsten alloy rod penetrator





The one in the middle is 3BM42. *No saddle-shaped sabot. *Just take a look, you will know this is 10-20 years behind western one back than. 





This is Russia 3BM66 and 3BM44-1, start using *saddle-shaped sabot*, 10-20 years behind.






Russia 3BM66 and 3BM44-1 are trying to catch up with Rheinmetall Rh-120 APFSDS








German 120mm Tank Ammunition


This blogpost takes a look at the history and specifications of German 120mm tank ammunition. It will include parts with speculative...




germanarmor.blogspot.com






































Rheinmetall Rh-120 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


















This is Russia 2A46
*Chamber pressure 500+MPA
Muzzle energy 9+MPA, far behind Chinese one which is 11+MPA*






This is latest Russia APFSDS, *aluminium alloy sabot. While western one and Chinese one is Carbon fiber composites.*

The proof is everywhere, I think it's enough.

Basically, Russia APFSDS is 10-20 years behind, this is well known.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vi-va

vi-va said:


> It's not my responsibility to provide proof. You claim Armata is the best tank first, you should provide proof. But I can list some Russian data here, you can search around if you want to know the well known facts.
> 
> *Russia APFSDS development history:*
> 
> 3bm42
> 3BM46 Depleted uranium
> 3BM42M monobloc tungsten alloy rod penetrator
> 
> View attachment 733866
> 
> The one in the middle is 3BM42. *No saddle-shaped sabot. *Just take a look, you will know this is 10-20 years behind western one back than.
> 
> View attachment 733867
> 
> This is Russia 3BM66 and 3BM44-1, start using *saddle-shaped sabot*, 10-20 years behind.
> 
> 
> View attachment 733877
> 
> Russia 3BM66 and 3BM44-1 are trying to catch up with Rheinmetall Rh-120 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German 120mm Tank Ammunition
> 
> 
> This blogpost takes a look at the history and specifications of German 120mm tank ammunition. It will include parts with speculative...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> germanarmor.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733873
> 
> 
> View attachment 733874
> 
> 
> View attachment 733875
> 
> 
> View attachment 733876
> 
> 
> View attachment 733870
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rheinmetall Rh-120 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733872
> 
> View attachment 733871
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733868
> 
> This is Russia 2A46
> *Chamber pressure 500+MPA
> Muzzle energy 9+MPA, far behind Chinese one which is 11+MPA*
> 
> 
> View attachment 733869
> 
> This is latest Russia APFSDS, *aluminium alloy sabot. While western one and Chinese one is Carbon fiber composites.*
> 
> The proof is everywhere, I think it's enough.
> 
> Basically, Russia APFSDS is 10-20 years behind, this is well known.



Some more Russia ASPFDS development history pictures FYI:






Soviet 3BM-9 APFSDS






Soviet 3BM-15 APFSDS








Soviet 3BM-22 APFSDS







Soviet 3BM-32 APFSDS







Soviet 3BM-42 APFSDS







Soviet 3BM-42 APFSDS







Germany DM-13 APFSDS







Germany DM-13 APFSDS








US M829 APFSDS







US M829A2 APFSDS







British L23A1 APFSDS

APFSDS is no magic, billions of money, new materials, tens of thousands of test, new theory, and the cycle goes on, money, new materials, test, new theory.

Because of Soviet collapsed, Russia lack of investment, while the west and China keep investing, that's how it becomes today.

Armata is not mature at all. I can assure you Russia won't buy it in bulk. It need at least 5-10 years to be mature, most likely 10 years.

Russia electronic lag behind much more than other areas. Have you ever heard of Russia semiconductor chips? No.

Engine, transmission, come on. Germany is best so far.




Germany MT883Ka501






China150HB which is not the best China currently has. The best is in the ZTQ-15 tank.

Russia engine, transmission is at least 10-20 years behind.

Engine, transmission are no magic, billions of money, new materials, tens of thousands of test, new theory, and the cycle goes on, money, new materials, test, new theory.

Russia lack of investment, while the west and China keep investing, that's how it becomes today.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

vi-va said:


> It's not my responsibility to provide proof. You claim Armata is the best tank first, you should provide proof. But I can list some Russian data here, you can search around if you want to know the well known facts.
> 
> *Russia APFSDS development history:*
> 
> 3bm42
> 3BM46 Depleted uranium
> 3BM42M monobloc tungsten alloy rod penetrator
> 
> View attachment 733866
> 
> The one in the middle is 3BM42. *No saddle-shaped sabot. *Just take a look, you will know this is 10-20 years behind western one back than.
> 
> View attachment 733867
> 
> This is Russia 3BM66 and 3BM44-1, start using *saddle-shaped sabot*, 10-20 years behind.
> 
> 
> View attachment 733877
> 
> Russia 3BM66 and 3BM44-1 are trying to catch up with Rheinmetall Rh-120 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German 120mm Tank Ammunition
> 
> 
> This blogpost takes a look at the history and specifications of German 120mm tank ammunition. It will include parts with speculative...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> germanarmor.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733873
> 
> 
> View attachment 733874
> 
> 
> View attachment 733875
> 
> 
> View attachment 733876
> 
> 
> View attachment 733870
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rheinmetall Rh-120 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733872
> 
> View attachment 733871
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733868
> 
> This is Russia 2A46
> *Chamber pressure 500+MPA
> Muzzle energy 9+MPA, far behind Chinese one which is 11+MPA*
> 
> 
> View attachment 733869
> 
> This is latest Russia APFSDS, *aluminium alloy sabot. While western one and Chinese one is Carbon fiber composites.*
> 
> The proof is everywhere, I think it's enough.
> 
> Basically, Russia APFSDS is 10-20 years behind, this is well known.


Again, you are looking at Russian and western ammunition that is 30 YEARS OLD. Russia inducted 3BM69 “Vacuum 1” and 3BM70 “vacuum 2” in 2005. Both of which have 1000+ mm of pen/0 deg at 2km. Something NO CHINESE APFSDS has ever achieved. Chinese APFSDS was achieving numbers of 460/0 deg (the 125-I) in the 90s while Russians had did this in the 80s with the 3BM42 “Mango” , which was also a much more advanced design overall at that time. Even the Russian 3BM59 Svinets (740mm/0 deg at 2km) from early 2000s is superior to BTA-4 (600mm/0 deg at 2km) which is what China was making in the early 2000s. Given these numbers there’s absolutely no way 125-III even comes close to Vacuum series.
and what is the “3BM66” and “3BM44-1”? Neither of these rounds even exist. BM46 is mango, Russian round from the 80s. Current Russian rounds are BM69 and BM70. The picture you posted is of Svinets APFSDS from late 90s. Not the most Russian modern APFSDS as 3 more designs have come since. 

“This is Russian 2A46” is a useless argument because it’s been modernized so many times. that’s like saying the Leo 2 is a bad tank because it’s old . Just having higher pressure doesn’t make the gun instantly better, especially when there’s a dozen other metrics to consider. Compare the most modern variant of the 2A46 then. USA and Germany are already looking to replace their guns with 130 and 140MM.

DM63 is a round from NINETIES and has better penetration than what China was making in the Mid 2000s. The next German round will be closer to Vacuum series, again far surpassing anything China makes, which you consider better, despite there being no numbers available to back that up.

You did the exact same with your second post, a bunch of pictures of Russian APFSDS from the times when China couldn’t even make APFSDS and was copying Russian designs.
you did the same with the engine, you post a picture and say “there you go it’s 20 years behind Chinese designs”
Do you realize that literally all helicopter, jet and missile engines/turbojets China uses are of Russian origin because they are better? How are current Chinese engines better when you have absolutely nothing to prove this. The discussion isn’t that Russia is behind the west, it’s that China is behind both of them. Russia still makes the best ammunition and armor (Vacuum and Malachit) of any tank producing country, while western electronics, engines, transmissions and sights are still the best.

I don’t doubt that China is catching up very rapidly to western and Russian tech, but it’s simply not there yet. Chinese defense industries are still a few years behind Russians in most categories, especially in tank making. And at least a decade behind still compared to American and European ones. Just 20 years ago literally all Chinese designs were French or Russian copies. Many of the things still are, but China has caught up quick and will surpass them, just not yet.

Anyways, we should get back on topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## vi-va

iLION12345_1 said:


> Again, you are looking at Russian and western ammunition that is 30 YEARS OLD. Russia inducted Vacuum 1 and 2 in 2005. Both of which have 1000+ mm of pen/0 deg at 2km. Something NO CHINESE APFSDS has ever achieved. Chinese APFSDS was achieving numbers of 460/0 deg (the 125-I) in the 90s while Russians had did this in the 80s with the Mango, which was also a much more advanced design overall. Even the Russian Svinets from early 2000s is superior to BTA-4, which is what China was making in the early 2000s. Given these numbers there’s absolutely no way 125-III even comes close to Vacuum series.
> and what is the “3BM66” and “3BM44-1”? Neither of these rounds even exist. BM46 is mango, Russian round from the 80s. Current Russian rounds are BM69 and BM70.
> 
> “This is Russian 2A46” is a useless argument because it’s been modernized so many times. that’s like saying the Leo 2 is a bad tank because it’s old. You just post a picture or something and say “this is why Chinese xyz is 20 years ahead” without any reason. While China was copying everything Russian and western 20 years ago. Just having higher pressure doesn’t make the gun instantly better, especially when there’s a dozen other metrics to consdier
> 
> DM63 is a round from NINETIES and has better penetration than what China was making in the Mid 2000s. The next German round will be closer to Vacuum series, again far surpassing anything China makes, which you consider better, despite there being no numbers available to back that up.
> 
> You did the exact same with your second post, a bunch of pictures of Russian APFSDS from the times when China couldn’t even make APFSDS and was copying Russian designs.
> you did the same with the engine, you post a picture and say “there you go it’s 20 years behind Chinese designs”
> Do you realize that literally all helicopter, jet and missile engines/turbojets China uses are of Russian origin because they are better? And that China was copying Russians engines until the 2000s? How are current Chinese engines better when you have absolutely nothing to prove this. The discussion isn’t that Russia is behind the west, it’s that China is behind both of them. Russia still makes the best ammunition and armor (Vacuum and Malachit) of any tank producing country, while western electronics, engines, transmissions and sights are still the best.
> 
> I don’t doubt that China is catching up very rapidly to western and Russian tech, but it’s simply not there yet. Chinese defense industries are still a few years behind Russians in most categories, especially in tank making. And at least a decade behind still compared to American and European ones. Just 20 years ago literally all Chinese designs were French or Russian copies. Many of the things still are, but China has caught up quick and will surpass them, just not yet.
> 
> Anyways, we should get back on topic.


China may be the one of country who did the most research on Russia weapons, and first hand experience on almost all Russia weapons.

The claim 1000+ mm of pen/0 deg at 2km, I don't want to debunk, I don't know where the data comes from.

But one thing for sure, Russia military complex is famous on marketing. I never trust those numbers.

Chinese did a lot of research, we knew how to manipulate those data for marketing, but the truth is Russia invested much less.

US military budget 700-800 billions USD
China 250-300 billions USD
Russia 44-55 billions USD.

I don't think Americans and China lag behind because of low IQ, if they have the same level of IQ, the money itself can kill any chance that Russia take the lead.

Just take a look at Stealthy Fighter Jet, Destroyer, Russia far behind, lack of investment and technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## iLION12345_1

vi-va said:


> China may be the one of country who did the most research on Russia weapons, and first hand experience on almost all Russia weapons.
> 
> The claim 1000+ mm of pen/0 deg at 2km, I don't want to debunk, I don't know where the data comes from.
> 
> But one thing for sure, Russia military complex is famous on marketing. I never trust those numbers.
> 
> Chinese did a lot of research, we knew how to manipulate those data for marketing, but the truth is Russia invested much less.
> 
> US military budget 700-800 billions USD
> China 250-300 billions USD
> Russia 440-550 billions USD.
> 
> I don't think Americans and China lag behind because of low IQ, if they have the same level of IQ, the money itself can kill any chance that Russia take the lead.
> 
> Just take a look at Stealthy Fighter Jet, Destroyer, Russia far behind, lack of investment and technology.



I believe Russian numbers the same as Chinese ones, because in the past Russia has backed up its numbers with tests, and other countries have tested their equipment.

Russia is slowly falling behind due to their economy now, especially after Soviet Union. China has surpassed Russia in naval tech yes. But J20 is just as unproven as SU57 for now, and T14 is still the better tank, though Russia is having issues producing both because they have no money. Their development is good because of their experience but it will not be for too long if their economic situation doesn’t improve.

the difference is that China is progressing much more rapidly than Russia and even the west, soon it will overtake both because it has the people and the money. J20/J31 and whatever tank China makes next will develop much further and be produced a lot more.
China has made more progress in the last decade than both combined. I don’t doubt Chinese technology like many people in the west who brush it off just as copies, but it is important to make a fair comparison. I personally hope in 10 years time China overtakes them both anyways. Because Pakistans advancement in this regard is tried to China too. So in that sense whatever lead Russia or the west had in the past will really not matter.
Sorry if I was a little rude earlier. I did not mean to be, and thank you for having a civil discussion

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## vi-va

iLION12345_1 said:


> I believe Russian numbers the same as Chinese ones, because in the past Russia has backed up its numbers with tests, and other countries have tested their equipment.
> 
> Russia is slowly falling behind due to their economy now, especially after Soviet Union. China has surpassed Russia in naval tech yes. But J20 is just as unproven as SU57 for now, and T14 is still the better tank, though Russia is having issues producing both because they have no money. Their development is good because of their experience but it will not be for too long if their economic situation doesn’t improve.
> 
> the difference is that China is progressing much more rapidly than Russia and even the west, soon it will overtake both because it has the people and the money. J20/J31 and whatever tank China makes next will develop much further and be produced a lot more.
> China has made more progress in the last decade than both combined. I don’t doubt Chinese technology like many people in the west who brush it off just as copies, but it is important to make a fair comparison. I personally hope in 10 years time China overtakes them both anyways. Because Pakistans advancement in this regard is tried to China too. So in that sense whatever lead Russia or the west had in the past will really not matter.
> Sorry if I was a little rude earlier. I did not mean to be, and thank you for having a civil discussion


Thank you, my Pakistan friend. 

I hope the weapons development of Pakistan goes well, which need a stable government, a secure society, and prosper economy.

As long as both China and Pakistan stand firmly together, we both have a bright future. 

Back to topic, I basically agree with you that India tank is 2nd generation, maybe 2nd+, but 3rd- generation. 

In South Asia, VT-4 is good enough to counter balance India ones. If India upgrade their tanks, Pakistan can upgrade armor and ammunition as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

vi-va said:


> Thank you, my Pakistan friend.
> 
> I hope the weapons development of Pakistan goes well, which need a stable government, a secure society, and prosper economy.
> 
> As long as both China and Pakistan stand firmly together, we both have a bright future.
> 
> Back to topic, I basically agree with you that India tank is 2nd generation, maybe 2nd+, but 3rd- generation.
> 
> In South Asia, VT-4 is good enough to counter balance India ones. If India upgrade their tanks, Pakistan can upgrade armor and ammunition as well.



I hope the same, as long as China and Pakistan are working together there’s a lot that can be done. Pakistan has a lot to learn from China.

Indians often make fun of “joint projects” but really everything made in the west is a join project because it’s simply cheaper and gives a better output. Maybe they just complain because no one wants to work with them, because all modern Chinese tech is in high demand

And that’s true, VT-4 and other Pakistani tanks too can easily be upgraded, Pakistan will only upgrade them when India starts to catch up, but until then China will be another generation ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## vi-va

vi-va said:


> Some more Russia ASPFDS development history pictures FYI:
> 
> View attachment 733894
> 
> Soviet 3BM-9 APFSDS
> 
> 
> View attachment 733895
> 
> Soviet 3BM-15 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733885
> 
> Soviet 3BM-22 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733886
> 
> Soviet 3BM-32 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733887
> 
> Soviet 3BM-42 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733888
> 
> Soviet 3BM-42 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733889
> 
> Germany DM-13 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733890
> 
> Germany DM-13 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733891
> 
> US M829 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733892
> 
> US M829A2 APFSDS
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 733893
> 
> British L23A1 APFSDS
> 
> APFSDS is no magic, billions of money, new materials, tens of thousands of test, new theory, and the cycle goes on, money, new materials, test, new theory.
> 
> Because of Soviet collapsed, Russia lack of investment, while the west and China keep investing, that's how it becomes today.
> 
> Armata is not mature at all. I can assure you Russia won't buy it in bulk. It need at least 5-10 years to be mature, most likely 10 years.
> 
> Russia electronic lag behind much more than other areas. Have you ever heard of Russia semiconductor chips? No.
> 
> Engine, transmission, come on. Germany is best so far.
> View attachment 733879
> 
> Germany MT883Ka501
> 
> 
> View attachment 733880
> 
> China150HB which is not the best China currently has. The best is in the ZTQ-15 tank.
> 
> Russia engine, transmission is at least 10-20 years behind.
> 
> Engine, transmission are no magic, billions of money, new materials, tens of thousands of test, new theory, and the cycle goes on, money, new materials, test, new theory.
> 
> Russia lack of investment, while the west and China keep investing, that's how it becomes today.


Comparison of WHA（Tungsten Heavy Alloy）and DU
说到穿甲弹不得不提钨铀之争，一般来说贫铀合金弹芯的侵彻性能在同等情况下较钨合金弹芯高10-15%，实验表明两者的明显区别在于贫铀合金材料的临界绝热剪切应变率和临界绝热剪切应变值较低，易于发射绝热剪切断裂，具有“自锐”效应，即穿甲侵彻过程中残余弹体不出现“蘑菇头”，导致侵彻阻力增大，侵彻力降低。

Pure W 纯钨
WHA（Tungsten Heavy Alloy）高密度钨合金
DU-3/Ti 一种贫铀合金（含Ti/V，钛/钒）
同等弹芯直径条件下，贫铀合金弹孔直径最小，穿甲阻力最小。





DU disadvantage
但是贫铀合金也有缺点，除了健康环保问题外，铀的熔点为1133°C，而钨的熔点在3370°C，熔点决定材料被高速冲击时的流变极限强度。贫铀合金的弹性模量约合普通钢相等，为钨合金的二分之一左右，也就是说钨合金的刚度比贫铀合金要大，以美制长径比30弹芯，10MJ动能为例，如果着速在1750m/s以上，那么贫铀合金的流变极限劣势就会开始显现，自锐性就会开始下降。



Penetration data 下图为不同材料的弹芯在不同着速下对不同材料目标的穿深线图。

WHA（Tungsten Heavy Alloy）高密度钨合金
DU（Depleted Uranium）贫铀
Steel 钢
Target 目标
BHN（Brinell Hardness Number）布氏硬度，后面的数字越大，材料越硬。


----------



## LKJ86

ZTZ-99A tank

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

LKJ86 said:


> ZTZ-99A tank



What he says about the US WW2 film, what he says abou the current middle eastern conflict äs related to tanks. How is thisVideo related to the VT-4 ?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Can anyone provide me with sources for the names or specifications of the thermals and the FCS? Like the range and performance and such?
Some members here are knowledgeable about these things but it’s hard to use their words as a source in a document or a video.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Abid123

Pakistan currently has 176 VT-4s in service and with 300 planned in total. In my opinion 300 is a low number. We have 160 1st generation Type-69 tanks and 400 1st generation Type 59 tanks. We need to desperately replace these 1st generation tanks with VT-4. I think Pakistan Army should consider 500 VT-4 tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Beast

Abid123 said:


> Pakistan currently has 176 VT-4s in service and with 300 planned in total. In my opinion 300 is a low number. We have 160 1st generation Type-69 tanks and 400 1st generation Type 59 tanks. We need to desperately replace these 1st generation tanks with VT-4. I think Pakistan Army should consider 750 VT-4 tanks.


I am not sure how long will it take to replaces those as these tank per pieces are at least $5 million each. It will take some time plus production capacity will also be another factor.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abid123

Beast said:


> I am not sure how long will it take to replaces those as these tank per pieces are at least $5 million each. It will take some time plus production capacity will also be another factor.


I have heard that the Type-99A only costs around 3 million USD. Is it true? Is the VT-4 or Type-99A better? It will probably take around 10 years+ to replace all of the 1st generation tanks. Also Al Khalid ll will enter service in 2022. It could be that Al Khalid ll is basically a pakistani version of the VT-4. So my 750 number of VT-4 is a little high. 500 VT-4 should be enough for Pakistan Army, considering that Al Khalid ll is coming next year....


----------



## iLION12345_1

Abid123 said:


> I have heard that the Type-99A only costs around 3 million USD. Is it true? Is the VT-4 or Type-99A better? It will probably take around 10 years+ to replace all of the 1st generation tanks. Also Al Khalid ll will enter service in 2022. It could be that Al Khalid ll is basically a pakistani version of the VT-4. So my 750 number of VT-4 is a little high. 500 VT-4 should be enough for Pakistan Army, considering that Al Khalid ll is coming next year....


Type 99A is more expensive and superior to VT-4, Especially when it comes to protection and the advanced ammunition it can fire, but technology and sensory wise they are close. VT-4 (the Pakistani variant at least) may have better mobility. 

AK-2 service is unlikely in 2022. AK-1 was just started last year (keep in mind AK-1 revealed in 2014 is not the same as the one that recently started production. The recent one was upgraded to make up for the late production.) Depending on what they want from the AK-2 we could see it anywhere from a couple of years to over 5 years later. But 2022 is too optimistic.

VT-4 will be inducted in large numbers, Likely 500+, if China makes more advanced versions of it, like VT-4A down the line, we will see Pakistan order that instead.

It will not take “10+” years to replace 1st Gen tanks. Type 59 is not in active service, most have been replaced by AZ and or are being replaced by VT-4, AK-1. Type 85 and UDs have been modernized too. Few type 69s remain in service, they will be gone in a couple of years at most, we will not be seeing any non-modern tank in service beyond 2025, by 10+ years we will be looking to replace Al-Zarrar.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Jamie Brooks

LKJ86 said:


> ZTZ-99A tank


Why does he say at 1:25 (整个对99A坦克来说呢) jiǔjiǔA instead of jiǔshíjiǔ A tank? Was it not Ninety nine A and rather called Nine Nine A ? Do Chinese follow this type of naming ? If you know the correct naming please enlighten me.


----------



## zhxy

iLION12345_1 said:


> *Type 99A is more expensive and superior to VT-4*, Especially when it comes to protection and the advanced ammunition it can fire, but technology and sensory wise they are close. VT-4 (the Pakistani variant at least) *may have better mobility.*



The Type-99A is not superior to the VT-4

The Type-99 was created in preparation for large-scale tank battles and head-to-head tank battles. Hence its front armor was very thick and its side armor was thin

VT-4 was developed for export purposes, it has been redesigned to be sleeker, lighter, highly maneuverable and fully protected on all sides with active defense system and have automatic machine guns

China's military doctrine is to avoid bringing tanks into the city, so it doesn't integrate active defense and automatic machine guns on the Type-99A.

Many people assume that the Type-99 moves faster than the VT-4 because it has a 1500 horsepower engine. This is not entirely true. The engine of the Type-99 is more powerful than the VT-4, but the weight of the Type-99 is also greater so the speed and maneuverability of the two tanks is similar. If the VT-4 uses a similar engine to the Type-99 (1500 hp), then the VT-4 will be faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## khanasifm

Beast said:


> I am not sure how long will it take to replaces those as these tank per pieces are at least $5 million each. It will take some time plus production capacity will also be another factor.




Everything in subcontinent is a beast [emoji23] 

Indian beast 
Pak beast 
Bangala beast 

[emoji23] 












Kidding

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

zhxy said:


> The Type-99A is not superior to the VT-4
> 
> The Type-99 was created in preparation for large-scale tank battles and head-to-head tank battles. Hence its front armor was very thick and its side armor was thin
> 
> VT-4 was developed for export purposes, it has been redesigned to be sleeker, lighter, highly maneuverable and fully protected on all sides with active defense system and have automatic machine guns
> 
> China's military doctrine is to avoid bringing tanks into the city, so it doesn't integrate active defense and automatic machine guns on the Type-99A.
> 
> Many people assume that the Type-99 moves faster than the VT-4 because it has a 1500 horsepower engine. This is not entirely true. The engine of the Type-99 is more powerful than the VT-4, but the weight of the Type-99 is also greater so the speed and maneuverability of the two tanks is similar. If the VT-4 uses a similar engine to the Type-99 (1500 hp), then the VT-4 will be faster.


Not exactly accurate, Type99A is much superior to VT4 when it comes to armor, VT4s armor without FY4 is rather poor as Pakistani and Thai trials showed. Type99A has much higher ERA coverage aswell. Also Type99A can fire 125-III APFSDS which is one of the worlds most advanced, VT4 does not have this. Type 99A has an APS too, one that is more used and tested than GL5. The only thing it is missing is an RWS, and no Chinese local tanks have that as per their doctrine.

VT4 can match the 99A in technology as a lot of their stuff is shared in that regard. But China does save the best for itself.

Type99A is similarly mobile to VT4, maybe apart from the Pakistani upgraded variant, the power and torque difference is significant. Torque is a better metric of power in tanks than HP. Large doesn’t mean immobile, Leo2 is massive yet extremely mobile. Also keep in mind that Pakistani VT4 is likely closer to 53-54 tons as compared to 52 for the other ones due to much heavier and more coverage of FY4. While Type99A is around 58 tons.
VT-4s chassis is closer to VT1A than 99A, but VT4 gets the upgraded composites from 99A as well as more base armor, a redesigned turret and a larger engine bay, but the starting point for VT4 hull was closer to VT1A and not 99.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Abid123 said:


> I have heard that the Type-99A only costs around 3 million USD. Is it true? Is the VT-4 or Type-99A better? It will probably take around 10 years+ to replace all of the 1st generation tanks. Also Al Khalid ll will enter service in 2022. It could be that Al Khalid ll is basically a pakistani version of the VT-4. So my 750 number of VT-4 is a little high. 500 VT-4 should be enough for Pakistan Army, considering that Al Khalid ll is coming next year....


VT-4 sold to RTA at USD $5.2-$5.4 a piece. China and thailand r/s are quite good and this is consider a very good price we sold to them.


----------



## Zarvan

Abid123 said:


> Pakistan currently has 176 VT-4s in service and with 300 planned in total. In my opinion 300 is a low number. We have 160 1st generation Type-69 tanks and 400 1st generation Type 59 tanks. We need to desperately replace these 1st generation tanks with VT-4. I think Pakistan Army should consider 500 VT-4 tanks.


800 is the number to go for. 500 is also not the right number. 800 of these 800 of AL KHALID I and then move on to AL KHALID II.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Beast said:


> VT-4 sold to RTA at USD $5.2-$5.4 a piece. China and thailand r/s are quite good and this is consider a very good price we sold to them.


Similar price for Pakistan, despite the upgrades, Chinese always give us the better deal

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Abid123

iLION12345_1 said:


> Similar price for Pakistan, despite the upgrades, Chinese always give us the better deal



Friendly discount

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Zarvan said:


> 800 is the number to go for. 500 is also not the right number. 800 of these 800 of AL KHALID I and then move on to AL KHALID II.


800 al Khalid 1 means 16 years at 50 tanks a year


iLION12345_1 said:


> Not exactly accurate, Type99A is much superior to VT4 when it comes to armor, VT4s armor without FY4 is rather poor as Pakistani and Thai trials showed. Type99A has much higher ERA coverage aswell. Also Type99A can fire 125-III APFSDS which is one of the worlds most advanced, VT4 does not have this. Type 99A has an APS too, one that is more used and tested than GL5. The only thing it is missing is an RWS, and no Chinese local tanks have that as per their doctrine.
> 
> VT4 can match the 99A in technology as a lot of their stuff is shared in that regard. But China does save the best for itself.
> 
> Type99A is similarly mobile to VT4, maybe apart from the Pakistani upgraded variant, the power and torque difference is significant. Torque is a better metric of power in tanks than HP. Large doesn’t mean immobile, Leo2 is massive yet extremely mobile. Also keep in mind that Pakistani VT4 is likely closer to 53-54 tons as compared to 52 for the other ones due to much heavier and more coverage of FY4. While Type99A is around 58 tons.
> VT-4s chassis is closer to VT1A than 99A, but VT4 gets the upgraded composites from 99A as well as more base armor, a redesigned turret and a larger engine bay, but the starting point for VT4 hull was closer to VT1A and not 99.


PA version of vt4 is one of a kind and very close to type 99A. It includes some major modifications over the orignal variant. As during the trials they were all pointed out

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> 800 al Khalid 1 means 16 years at 50 tanks a year
> 
> PA version of vt4 is one of a kind and very close to type 99A. It includes some major modifications over the orignal variant. As during the trials they were all pointed out


Not very close to Type 99A. Cannot be, technologically and mobility wise yes, armor and firepower wise definitely not. Type 99A is bigger, much better ERA coverage and Thicker Base armor. Pakistans VT-4s also do not have APS installed, Type 99A has it as standard, but hopefully we will be getting that soon. Firepower wise it can fire 125-III APFSDS that has over 800MM/0 Deg at 2KM penetration, much superior to VT4s 650MM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Reichmarshal

When vt4 failed the trials china offered to sell type 99a to Pakistan.
But PA went for the hybrid of vt 4 type 99a.

Now this certainly does not means that our vt4 is type 99...all the modifications demanded by PA came from type 99a. It's a one of a kind

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> Not very close to Type 99A. Cannot be, technologically and mobility wise yes, armor and firepower wise definitely not. Type 99A is bigger, much better ERA coverage and Thicker Base armor. Pakistans VT-4s also do not have APS installed, Type 99A has it as standard, but hopefully we will be getting that soon. Firepower wise it can fire 125-III APFSDS that has over 800MM/0 Deg at 2KM penetration, much superior to VT4s 650MM.



Apfsds figures are wrong. Type III barely does 700mm at 0deg.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Reichmarshal said:


> When vt4 failed the trials china offered to sell type 99a to Pakistan.
> But PA went for the hybrid of vt 4 type 99a.
> 
> Now this certainly does not means that our vt4 is type 99...all the modifications demanded by PA came from type 99a. It's a one of a kind


That's new


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> When vt4 failed the trials china offered to sell type 99a to Pakistan.
> But PA went for the hybrid of vt 4 type 99a.
> 
> Now this certainly does not means that our vt4 is type 99...all the modifications demanded by PA came from type 99a. It's a one of a kind


Type 99A was never offered to Pakistan. If Anything based on the ZTZ-99 platform is offered to Pakistan, it will not have 125-III APFSDS and the ZTZ-99As hybrid APS (though I think in that regard, GL5 APS is superior anyways.) it will be a downgraded version between 99A and base 99. If 99A was offered to Pakistan and they picked VT-4 over it then all of those who made that decision should be fired.

The VT-4 did not come from Type 99A, it came from VT-1A platform upgraded with Type 99A technologies. You can compare them side by side, the Hull is literally the same shape as VT-1A with modifications to turret, base armor and engine compartment. That doesn’t mean it’s an upgraded VT-1A or Type 96, it’s a unique tank, rather it’s an evolution of those designs and not a part of the ZTZ-99 family. 
Pakistans VT-4 is one of a kind, that’s for sure, it’s much better compared to what Thailand and Nigeria got, but it’s not based of 99A. That’s why I said our VT-4s are technologically and mobility wise close to 99A, but not when it comes to protection and firepower.


Dazzler said:


> Apfsds figures are wrong. Type III barely does 700mm at 0deg.


Exact figures are unknown, sources state 800MM+, has the 700MM figure been reported anywhere?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Reichmarshal said:


> When vt4 failed the trials china offered to sell type 99a to Pakistan.
> But PA went for the hybrid of vt 4 type 99a.
> 
> Now this certainly does not means that our vt4 is type 99...all the modifications demanded by PA came from type 99a. It's a one of a kind


There was never the hybrid VT-4 tank. It was always the same offer from day one. The one PA received is some modification requested based on customer need after their trial. VT-4 is a tank tested extensively from dried and hot xinjiang area to high attitude near Tibet and wet/moisture area in South China to extreme cold place in inner mongolia. Before finalised as VT-4 and offered to RTA as the first customer.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Beast said:


> There was never the hybrid VT-4 tank. It was always the same offer from day one. The one PA received is some modification requested based on customer need after their trial. VT-4 is a tank tested extensively from dried and hot xinjiang area to high attitude near Tibet and wet/moisture area in South China to extreme cold place in inner mongolia. Before finalised as VT-4 and offered to RTA as the first customer.


By hybrid he means it has more upgrades over the other VT-4s, which is correct, It has 1500 HP compared to 1300, FY-4 ERA instead of FY-2 (plus ERA on the roof), Better stabilizers etc. 
The engine, armor and stabilizer upgrades were requested as these faults were found in VT-4 during testing, The engine (original one) had a couple of failures, the original stabilizers developed some issues and the protection was rather poor compared to Oplot (then again, oplot is one of the most protected tanks currently in service.)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> By hybrid he means it has more upgrades over the other VT-4s, which is correct, It has 1500 HP compared to 1300, FY-4 ERA instead of FY-2 (plus ERA on the roof), Better stabilizers etc.
> The engine, armor and stabilizer upgrades were requested as these faults were found in VT-4 during testing, The engine (original one) had a couple of failures, the original stabilizers developed some issues and the protection was rather poor compared to Oplot (then again, oplot is one of the most protected tanks currently in service.)


According to my source, there is no engine issue. The source is from Chinese engineer send to Pakistan involved in the trial. In fact, the engine and mobility are the most impressive thing that impress PA during the VT-4 trial. If not, why VT-4 is selected? Of cos, there are other matters that involved but most issue for VT-4 trial are minor and mostly are preference require by PA to suit their operation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

Beast said:


> According to my source, there is no engine issue. The source is from Chinese engineer send to Pakistan involved in the trial. In fact, the engine and mobility are the most impressive thing that impress PA during the VT-4 trial. If not, why VT-4 is selected? Of cos, there are other matters that involved but most issue for VT-4 trial are minor and mostly are preference require by PA to suit their operation.


you cannot prove the authenticity of your source. The VT-4s engine failed twice in Pakistani desert trials, and if the PA was so impressed by the mobility, why did they ask them to increase the horsepower? Not to mention both the Thais and Pakistanis confirmed It has poor armor as compared to Oplot (before FY4 anyways). 
‘I know you are very nationalistic, but nothing anyone makes is perfect, the VT-4 is one of the best tanks in service today, but it had its issues too, like any other machine, the difference is that the chinese were very efficient and helpful, they quickly fixed any issue that came up with it, that’s what’s very impressive in this case.

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> you cannot prove the authenticity of your source. The VT-4s engine failed twice in Pakistani desert trials, and if the PA was so impressed by the mobility, why did they ask them to increase the horsepower? Not to mention both the Thais and Pakistanis confirmed It has poor armor as compared to Oplot (before FY4 anyways).
> ‘I know you are very nationalistic, but nothing anyone makes is perfect, the VT-4 is one of the best tanks in service today, but it had its issues too, like any other machine, the difference is that the chinese were very efficient and helpful, they quickly fixed any issue that came up with it, that’s what’s very impressive in this case.


Neither you can prove your authenticity. It was thru Chinese forum we communicate thru an engineer working for the project. It was also thru his confirmation, we have beforehand knew VT-4 will win the tender.
I am not nationalistic, it more like you cant accept VT-4 is the better one of all from start. I dont know why you all love to criticize a product chosen by PA with so many misinfo. You seems didnt have much faith on PA professional handling of the tank selection? Will PA pick an ill qualify product for its need?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Beast said:


> Neither you can prove your authenticity. It was thru Chinese forum we communicate thru an engineer working for the project. It was also thru his confirmation, we have beforehand knew VT-4 will win the tender.
> I am not nationalistic, it more like you cant accept VT-4 is the better one of all from start. I dont know why you all love to criticize a product chosen by PA with so many misinfo. You seems didnt have much faith on PA professional handling of the tank selection? Will PA pick an ill qualify product for its need?


I can prove my authenticity, scroll back in this thread. Serving members of the PA have confirmed what i said.
I do not mistrust either the PA or Chinese products, I am merely a realist. I see the fault where there is one, Chinese products are not perfect. I never said the oplot was a better tank than the VT-4, I said it is better protected (or was without FY-4), which is a fact, the VT-4s engines failing before they were upgraded is also a fact. But in all other metrics, VT-4 proved superior, hence it was picked. Not to mention Ukraine’s delivery issued meant any shortcomings the VT-4 had were made up. You claim you are not nationalistic but argue with anyone on the forum who even says one thing against Chinese products, even when it’s a fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> I can prove my authenticity, scroll back in this thread. Serving members of the PA have confirmed what i said.
> I do not mistrust either the PA or Chinese products, I am merely a realist. I see the fault where there is one, Chinese products are not perfect. I never said the oplot was a better tank than the VT-4, I said it is better protected (or was without FY-4), which is a fact, the VT-4s engines failing before they were upgraded is also a fact. But in all other metrics, VT-4 proved superior, hence it was picked. Not to mention Ukraine’s delivery issued meant any shortcomings the VT-4 had were made up. You claim you are not nationalistic but argue with anyone on the forum who even says one thing against Chinese products, even when it’s a fact.


Really? I guess you really failed to scroll the very early of this thread and see what I have post. I have mention very early during the tender that I am confident of VT-4 winning it. Not a single one believed and the rest is history.

I will not reply this again since a Pakistan member ask me to let bygones be bygones since VT-4 as what I mention, won this tender. This will be my last reply to you regarding the selection story. If you are really interested, scroll from page 1 all the way to last. And see how the story unfold.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Beast said:


> According to my source, there is no engine issue. The source is from Chinese engineer send to Pakistan involved in the trial. In fact, the engine and mobility are the most impressive thing that impress PA during the VT-4 trial. If not, why VT-4 is selected? Of cos, there are other matters that involved but most issue for VT-4 trial are minor and mostly are preference require by PA to suit their operation.


beast is right and if you pick up my posts from the time of the trials I have constantly stated that the best part about vt4 is the engine. *PA was so impressed by the engine that initially they only wanted the engine*.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> beast is right and if you pick up my posts from the time of the trials I have constantly stated that the best part about vt4 is the engine. *PA was so impressed by the engine that initially they only wanted the engine*.


I am aware. I did not call the engine bad, simply that it had issues, they were addressed however, the engine in our VT-4s is not changed, simply modified to increase the power and reliability
The PA was so impressed by it because it is so much superior to the Ukrainian 6TD series used in AK and oplot, that series has very poor torque for the HP it makes, but is very compact. The Chinese series on the other hand makes excellent torque and HP while also being almost as reliable and is still compact enough. By all means, A very good series of engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

RadarGudumluMuhimmat said:


> I just dropped the post in the wrong place, you didn't need to like it


its not about post or the poster but the information .... even if shared mistakenly by poster ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Scorpiooo

Reichmarshal said:


> When vt4 failed the trials china offered to sell type 99a to Pakistan.
> But PA went for the hybrid of vt 4 type 99a.
> 
> Now this certainly does not means that our vt4 is type 99...all the modifications demanded by PA came from type 99a. It's a one of a kind


Why PA was not interested in type 99A , it the cost factors or is its size and specifications?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> Why PA was not interested in type 99A , it the cost factors or is its size and specifications?


Logistics, size, price, doctrine, a large defense acquisition has a lot of factors influencing it. 
PA was somewhat interested in it after the first VT-4 trials, but the upgraded version of VT-4 fits our requirements and was a better deal. Keep in mind that regardless of PAs interest, ZTZ-99A was never intended or offered for export, so it wouldn’t matter anyways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> Type 99A was never offered to Pakistan. If Anything based on the ZTZ-99 platform is offered to Pakistan, it will not have 125-III APFSDS and the ZTZ-99As hybrid APS (though I think in that regard, GL5 APS is superior anyways.) it will be a downgraded version between 99A and base 99. If 99A was offered to Pakistan and they picked VT-4 over it then all of those who made that decision should be fired.
> 
> The VT-4 did not come from Type 99A, it came from VT-1A platform upgraded with Type 99A technologies. You can compare them side by side, the Hull is literally the same shape as VT-1A with modifications to turret, base armor and engine compartment. That doesn’t mean it’s an upgraded VT-1A or Type 96, it’s a unique tank, rather it’s an evolution of those designs and not a part of the ZTZ-99 family.
> Pakistans VT-4 is one of a kind, that’s for sure, it’s much better compared to what Thailand and Nigeria got, but it’s not based of 99A. That’s why I said our VT-4s are technologically and mobility wise close to 99A, but not when it comes to protection and firepower.
> 
> Exact figures are unknown, sources state 800MM+, has the 700MM figure been reported anywhere?
> View attachment 741441


Exactly if it is offered and cost difference was not that much, they why PA goes for lower end instead of higher end options. 
Totally confusing, why china want to share downgraded specifications, they already working on much higher variants


iLION12345_1 said:


> Logistics, size, price, doctrine, a large defense acquisition has a lot of factors influencing it.
> PA was somewhat interested in it after the first VT-4 trials, but the upgraded version of VT-4 fits our requirements and was a better deal. Keep in mind that regardless of PAs interest, ZTZ-99A was never intended or offered for export, so it wouldn’t matter anyways.


Yes never heard about 99A option for PA. But may be .. cant say

VT-4 id 5 million what is cost for type 99A ?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> Exactly if it is offered and cost difference was not that much, they why PA goes for lower end instead of higher end options.
> Totally confusing, why china want to share downgraded specifications, they already working on much higher variants


All countries keep their best stuff for themselves, since they don’t want the tech to get out that quickly. VT-4 is not a bad tank by any means, it’s the best one in the subcontinent and one of the most modern ones in the world, Especially Pakistans VT-4s, they’re not far off the ZTZ-99A in most metrics.
ZTZ-99A is bigger, expensive and hence better. Like how JF-17 and F16 are both 4th Gen aircraft but one is better simply because it’s bigger and expensive.

Keep in mind China often makes an exception for Pakistan, selling us the non-downgraded variants of their weapons instead of the export variants, this is seen in the Hangor submarines as well as our VT4s. Also seen in the Z-10s that were offered to us, plus some of the Weapon systems of the JF like it’s EW pod. FY4 ERA is not exported to anyone else. In the past 125-IIM DU rounds were also not exported to anyone, but Pakistan got them (granted we opted for our local Naiza instead)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Abid123

Scorpiooo said:


> Exactly if it is offered and cost difference was not that much, they why PA goes for lower end instead of higher end options.
> Totally confusing, why china want to share downgraded specifications, they already working on much higher variants
> 
> Yes never heard about 99A option for PA. But may be .. cant say
> 
> VT-4 id 5 million what is cost for type 99A ?


The cost of Type 99A is around the same as VT-4 I think.


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> I am aware. I did not call the engine bad, simply that it had issues, they were addressed however, the engine in our VT-4s is not changed, simply modified to increase the power and reliability
> The PA was so impressed by it because it is so much superior to the Ukrainian 6TD series used in AK and oplot, that series has very poor torque for the HP it makes, but is very compact. The Chinese series on the other hand makes excellent torque and HP while also being almost as reliable and is still compact enough. By all means, A very good series of engines.


Oplot was never bad option, only problem is its supply chain, even i heard they PA even considered going for 2 plateform due to pros and cons


----------



## Scorpiooo

Lets hope when Chinese have CSU-152 based tank came to production. They Type 99A will available as it is


----------



## iLION12345_1

Abid123 said:


> The cost of Type 99A is around the same as VT-4 I think.


For China yes, not for export, export means price increased in most cases. And it’s not offered for export so we won’t know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Fellas, everyone must keep in mind that export variants are essentially stripped down versions of original product and have more flexible layout for tailoring as per customer requirements.

In most of cases, an export version is bit inferior than actual product. Take Russian T-90M and T-90MS as an example where T-90M is a superior machine than T-90MS. Same was true for T-90A vs T-90S.

Similar pattern can be observed in China tank industry. ZTZ-99A2 is a tank exclusively for PLA. Its not available for export. If anyone want a high end Chinese tank, VT4 is available which can modified further - even with non Chinese systems. Similar relationship is shared by VT1 (export version of ZTZ-90), VT2 (export version of ZTZ-96A/B), VT3 (export version of ZTZ-59G), and VT5 (export version of ZTQ-15).

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> Oplot was never bad option, only problem is its supply chain, even i heard they PA even considered going for 2 plateform due to pros and cons


It was not yes, supply chain was its biggest issue, however VT-4 overall is a better platform than oplot due to the technological advantage, among other reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Reichmarshal

Pakistan and china relationship is like the u.s n isreal relationship.
everything and anything is available to Pakistan, nothing is off-limits. 
In the words of a Chinese foreign office official, "Pakistan is to China what isreal is to the u.s".

the best way to understand the difference between the PA variant of a vt4 and type99 is the same as the difference between a jf17 block3 and a j10c.

oplot was never seriously in consideration as HIT had a bad experience with the quality and price of the parts being provided by ukraine required for the major overhaul of the t80ud fleet and that was just the requirement for the pilot project before they commence the fleet-wide overhaul.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Beast

Let me add on something, just becos 99A is not allow to be exported doesn't mean VT-4 is very far off from it. Remember Norinco has designed this tank to compete with western tank in open market. In fact Norinco is confident most spec of VT-4 tank surpass even Leopard A7 , Lerlerc and M1A2 in many aspect.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI

There was a similar discussion of VT4 vs Type 99A on the Chinese social media and forum not long ago, but it was more intense,lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Beast said:


> Let me add on something, just becos 99A is not allow to be exported doesn't mean VT-4 is very far off from it. Remember Norinco has designed this tank to compete with western tank in open market. In fact Norinco is confident most spec of VT-4 tank surpass even Leopard A7 , Lerlerc and M1A2 in many aspect.


Add to that the modifications made for the Pakistani variant of vt4.
It's a beast of a machine....wouldn't u say beast.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Reichmarshal said:


> Add to that the modifications made for the Pakistani variant of vt4.
> It's a beast of a machine....wouldn't u say beast.


VT-4 is a competitive and good tank. It has gain export to 3 countries despite the saturated and competitive tank market.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> For China yes, not for export, export means price increased in most cases. And it’s not offered for export so we won’t know.


But in some case we get subsidized cost from chinese


IblinI said:


> There was a similar discussion of VT4 vs Type 99A on the Chinese social media and forum not long ago, but it was more intense,lol.


What was then outcome of that discussion?


----------



## Scorpiooo

There is a possibility that if in future PA order next Vt then these 300, may be we got aome advance and superior version of VT4


----------



## alimobin memon

Reichmarshal said:


> Pakistan and china relationship is like the u.s n isreal relationship.
> everything and anything is available to Pakistan, nothing is off-limits.
> In the words of a Chinese foreign office official, "Pakistan is to China what isreal is to the u.s".
> 
> the best way to understand the difference between the PA variant of a vt4 and type99 is the same as the difference between a jf17 block3 and a j10c.
> 
> *oplot was never seriously in consideration as HIT had a bad experience with the quality and price of the parts being provided by ukraine required for the major overhaul of the t80ud fleet and that was just the requirement for the pilot project before they commence the fleet-wide overhaul.*



Exactly this last para is right. I remember in this forum 3 to 4 yrs ago in some topic it was complained by some senior members that t80UD is expensive to maintain and so should be the case for oplot tank. Plus, the way Russia is towards Ukraine we dont know when there will be next issues and there is no guarantee we will get them in time. Plus, the way t80UD we got is a history to remember.

Why is no one focusing on the point as mentioned here by some members that China officially and confidently claimed vt4 surpasses in many aspects to latest variants of leopard. Just look at vt4 tank turret moment damn that roles so fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

VT4 excels in automation, CnC, ammo, datalinks, engine and fcs/optics. 90M and oplot can only dream of competing in these.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Dazzler said:


> VT4 excels in automation, CnC, ammo, datalinks, engine and fcs/optics. 90M and oplot can only dream of competing in these.


Can T90 achieve this dream via MS upgrade?


----------



## Paul2

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Can T90 achieve this dream via MS upgrade?


VT4 is just a much newer machine, thus having nearly a decade advantage in electronics in comparison to anything on the market. Until T-14 will be on the international market, VT4 is the best tank money can buy with post-nineties level electronics.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Can T90 achieve this dream via MS upgrade?


T90M is far superior to VT-4 in almost every metric, mobility and some electronics will be the only exception.
T90MS is the export variant of this tank. It is also superior to VT-4 in the same metrics. These are only operated by Russia. 

T90AM is the previous modernization of T90, its export version is T90SM. That is the one india was considering, but will never get, they ordered more old T90S instead. 
The SM (not the AM) has Relikt ERA and an APS and if equipped with the Svinets series of ammunition, it beats the VT4 in protection and firepower any day of the week. But VT-4 has better technology and mobility than this variant.

It is unfair to compare Oplot-M to T90M. Oplot is nowhere near as good, not even as good as VT-4. 90M on the other hand is even better than T-14 in some regards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Paul2

iLION12345_1 said:


> T90M is far superior to VT-4 in almost every metric, mobility and some electronics will be the only exception.
> T90MS is the export variant of this tank. It is also superior to VT-4 in the same metrics. These are only operated by Russia.
> 
> T90AM is the previous modernization of T90, its export version is T90SM. That is the one india was considering, but will never get, they ordered more old T90S instead.
> The SM (not the AM) has Relikt ERA and an APS and if equipped with the Svinets series of ammunition, it beats the VT4 in protection and firepower any day of the week. But VT-4 has better technology and mobility than this variant.
> 
> It is unfair to compare Oplot-M to T90M. Oplot is nowhere near as good, not even as good as VT-4. 90M on the other hand is even better than T-14 in some regards.


ERA is useless against latest APFSDS rounds, nothing saves you from the kinetic energy of 30kg of tungsten.

Latest ATGMs too can be made simply large enough to defeat any armour, or use top attack, or be launched in quantities to defeat armour in repetitive hits

Not being hit in the first place is a key.

And if you don't have sensors to detect the direction of attack, it means you loose at least 3-4 tanks if the first tank hit can't relay the info where it was shot from.

Even if the tank will survive a hit heavily damaged, it means nothing if it can't fire back.

It will likely be immobilised, with crew incapacitated, and be finished by the next hit.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## iLION12345_1

Paul2 said:


> ERA is useless against latest APFSDS rounds, nothing saves you from the kinetic energy of 30kg of tungsten.
> 
> Latest ATGMs too can be made simply large enough to defeat any armour, or use top attack, or be launched in quantities to defeat armour in repetitive hits
> 
> Not being hit in the first place is a key.
> 
> And if you don't have sensors to detect the direction of attack, it means you loose at least 3-4 tanks if the first tank hit can't relay the info where it was shot from.
> 
> Even if the tank will survive a hit heavily damaged, it means nothing if it can't fire back.
> 
> It will likely be immobilised, with crew incapacitated, and be finished by the next hit.


Modern ERA is literally designed with modern projectiles in mind. That’s why 3rd and 4th Gen ERA was created Ukrainian Duplet ERA can defeat some of the most modern APFSDS in service, if you throw 30KG of tungsten at it, it throws even more back. 
not getting hit is definitely important, that’s why the best tanks have APS. Russian APS present on T-14 and T90MS is one of the most advanced in existence, right next to trophy. 
GL-5 seems to be very good too, I really hope Pakistan gets GL-5 for its VT-4s and AK-II.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Can T90 achieve this dream via MS upgrade?


MS is the export version of 90M


iLION12345_1 said:


> T90M is far superior to VT-4 in almost every metric, mobility and some electronics will be the only exception.
> T90MS is the export variant of this tank. It is also superior to VT-4 in the same metrics. These are only operated by Russia.
> 
> T90AM is the previous modernization of T90, its export version is T90SM. That is the one india was considering, but will never get, they ordered more old T90S instead.
> The SM (not the AM) has Relikt ERA and an APS and if equipped with the Svinets series of ammunition, it beats the VT4 in protection and firepower any day of the week. But VT-4 has better technology and mobility than this variant.
> 
> It is unfair to compare Oplot-M to T90M. Oplot is nowhere near as good, not even as good as VT-4. 90M on the other hand is even better than T-14 in some regards.



Yeah right ☺️

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Paul2

iLION12345_1 said:


> Modern ERA is literally designed with modern projectiles in mind. That’s why 3rd and 4th Gen ERA was created Ukrainian Duplet ERA can defeat some of the most modern APFSDS in service, if you throw 30KG of tungsten at it, it throws even more back.
> not getting hit is definitely important, that’s why the best tanks have APS. Russian APS present on T-14 and T90MS is one of the most advanced in existence, right next to trophy.
> GL-5 seems to be very good too, I really hope Pakistan gets GL-5 for its VT-4s and AK-II.


Dupet ERA cuts incoming round into pieces. Now cut 30kg of tungsten flying at 2000m/s into pieces. You had 60MJ flying in once piece, now flying as 60MJ of tungsten shot. 60MJ of kinetic energy will still have to be dissipated somewhere. Steel vaporises at 6MJ per kg. It can vaporise 10kg of steel. Even as a shot, it will punch through any armour.

This could've probably worked against decades old Soviet APFSDS, but not modern one which have like 3 times more energy than first 125mm guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> T90M is far superior to VT-4 in almost every metric, mobility and some electronics will be the only exception.
> T90MS is the export variant of this tank. It is also superior to VT-4 in the same metrics. These are only operated by Russia.
> 
> T90AM is the previous modernization of T90, its export version is T90SM. That is the one india was considering, but will never get, they ordered more old T90S instead.
> The SM (not the AM) has Relikt ERA and an APS and if equipped with the Svinets series of ammunition, it beats the VT4 in protection and firepower any day of the week. But VT-4 has better technology and mobility than this variant.
> 
> It is unfair to compare Oplot-M to T90M. Oplot is nowhere near as good, not even as good as VT-4. 90M on the other hand is even better than T-14 in some regards.


What is the price for export for T90MS ?
There was news from Russia media once that Pakistan is interested in T90M


----------



## Raja Porus

Scorpiooo said:


> What is the price for export for T90MS ?
> There was news from Russia media once that Pakistan is interested in T90M


That news was from 2016 during Raheel shareef's era. It was just a symbolic offer as our relations had just started to grow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Desert Fox 1 said:


> That news was from 2016 during Raheel shareef's era. It was just a symbolic offer as our relations had just started to grow.



We tested it too in Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> What is the price for export for T90MS ?
> There was news from Russia media once that Pakistan is interested in T90M


depends on the deal you get. Russia was buying them for 4.5 mil a tank in 2017. Export would be more expensive, especially in 2021.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alimobin memon

iLION12345_1 said:


> T90M is far superior to VT-4 in almost every metric, mobility and some electronics will be the only exception.
> T90MS is the export variant of this tank. It is also superior to VT-4 in the same metrics. These are only operated by Russia.
> 
> T90AM is the previous modernization of T90, its export version is T90SM. That is the one india was considering, but will never get, they ordered more old T90S instead.
> The SM (not the AM) has Relikt ERA and an APS and if equipped with the Svinets series of ammunition, it beats the VT4 in protection and firepower any day of the week. But VT-4 has better technology and mobility than this variant.
> 
> It is unfair to compare Oplot-M to T90M. Oplot is nowhere near as good, not even as good as VT-4. 90M on the other hand is even better than T-14 in some regards.



There is no confirmed data but if Chinese claim vt4 is comparable to leopard variants like 2a6 than I'm sure there is nothing special t90M provides other than aps which I'm pretty sure in coming years u will also see in Pakistan army VT 4 and Al Khalid's. Plus, era does not protect all types of threats and in most cases tank against tank would be engagement of armor piercing rounds and in such cases most of the test cases show even in heavy era that penetration still happens and damages tank. Overall its the agility of the tanks that would matter and t90M does not provide anything superior in that case plus, other thank relict and aps which also would be resolved. plus, tank on tank engagement nullifies the effectiveness of APS im pretty sure the kinetic energy and speed of apfsds will by pass aps. APS used to counter slow rocket propellers or atgms.


----------



## Scorpiooo

PA has Gap of 600 + tanks to be inducted as per there past plan, VT 4 covers 300 tanks, so still 300 plus tanks required, if we assume HIT in 2020 able to produce 50 tank per year target then they will take 2028 for completion of this Gap or even plus.

So in IMO we can see follow up order of VT4 or there can other Tank induction from 150 to 200 to fill this as early as possible.

PA can consider any other ecnomical but reliable solid option in future, even those can used ans upgraded once well to save the cost


----------



## serenity

In what areas are T14 less than T90M? Every way I can think of except for maybe certain mobility, T14 should be much better than T90M.


----------



## Scorpiooo

An other area indian are getting 350 plus light tanks, so PA should consider it to, open a thread for it






Light weight tanks for Pakistan Army


India is considering to induct 350 light tanks after China india conflict of last years, as they have seen the chines type 15 light tank effectively and advantages. Problem is that these will not only placed with Chinese border they will also be placed on Kashmir LoC, thats way indian are...



defence.pk


----------



## iLION12345_1

comparison of T84 Oplot and VT-4 in Thai trials. These shortcomings were noted in the Pakistani trials and some major changes were made including:

Inclusion of front removable barrel.
Much thicker FY-4 ERA all around, plus ERA coverage on turret roof.
Addition of armored side skirts (still rather poor side protection, but at least there’s option for APS).
Entirely new stabilizers.
Engine Up-tuned to 1500HP.
Data-link system.

Apart from protection, Pakistani VT-4s should be superior to Oplot in every metric, and with the new ERA protection is brought closer to Oplot as well. If Pakistan orders GL-5 APS down the line, then that would be easily superior as well.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
17 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> comparison of T84 Oplot and VT-4 in Thai trials. These shortcomings were noted in the Pakistani trials and some major changes were made including:
> 
> Inclusion of front removable barrel.
> Much thicker FY-4 ERA all around, plus ERA coverage on turret roof.
> Addition of armored side skirts (still rather poor side protection, but at least there’s option for APS).
> Entirely new stabilizers.
> Engine Up-tuned to 1500HP.
> Data-link system.
> 
> Apart from protection, Pakistani VT-4s should be superior to Oplot in every metric, and with the new ERA protection is brought closer to Oplot as well, without it, it was rather abysmal to say the least.
> View attachment 750489


Someone please give him a positive rating.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Someone please give him a positive rating.


Thank you, but I did not make this, I had asked some Chinese friends who translated it and posted it on another site called SH forum, they sent it to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

View attachment 750489

a few other interesting points;

VT-4 has 8xx mm of protection against APFSDS projectiles with FY-2 ERA on turret and Hull front. Even if we assume the lowest possible value of 800mm, with FY-4E ERA like the Pakistani ones have, the Front protection of VT-4 is superior to Indian T90S (which has around 800-880MM depending on the exact region). Not a small accomplishment considering how good Russian armor is.
It also shows that Al-Khalids armor is not that far behind VT-4 and T90S, which makes sense considering it has High-hardened steel base+ Ukrainian/Russian style composites + NERA inserts and newer ERA. Al-khalid needs better side protection and turret ERA coverage, hopefully something we will see in the next version.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> turret ERA coverage


This location in particular.


----------



## HRK

iLION12345_1 said:


> Thank you, but I did not make this, I had asked some Chinese friends who translated it and posted it on another site called SH forum, they sent it to me.


do you have uncensored version if yes plz PM me ...


----------



## iLION12345_1

HRK said:


> do you have uncensored version if yes plz PM me ...


Uncensored version was not released publicly, I have checked Chinese forums and defense sites for it as well but did not find it. China wants to keep some things hidden i suppose, good for us as well, the enemy doesn’t know it’s exact capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> Uncensored version was not released publicly, I have checked Chinese forums and defense sites for it as well but did not find it. China wants to keep some things hidden i suppose, good for us as well, the enemy doesn’t know it’s exact capability.



Someone has access to it somewhere.


----------



## siegecrossbow

iLION12345_1 said:


> Uncensored version was not released publicly, I have checked Chinese forums and defense sites for it as well but did not find it. China wants to keep some things hidden i suppose, good for us as well, the enemy doesn’t know it’s exact capability.



Which Chinese forums? They all got nuked in April this year.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dazzler said:


> Someone has access to it somewhere


That someone is sadly not me.


siegecrossbow said:


> Which Chinese forums? They all got nuked in April this year.


SinoDefence, Chinese section on this forum, Chinese section on East Asia forum, ChineseMilitaryDefense forum (doesn’t work anymore so I presume nuked), some Chinese social media (I honestly wasn’t keeping track of the names of the sites, sorry) and another one which was entirely in Chinese so I don’t know it’s name but my Chinese friend referred to it as “SH” and that’s where they posted this as well.


----------



## siegecrossbow

iLION12345_1 said:


> That someone is sadly not me.
> 
> SinoDefence, Chinese section on this forum, Chinese section on East Asia forum, ChineseMilitaryDefense forum (doesn’t work anymore so I presume nuked), some Chinese social media (I honestly wasn’t keeping track of the names of the sites, sorry) and another one which was entirely in Chinese so I don’t know it’s name but my Chinese friend referred to it as “SH” and that’s where they posted this as well.



Lol I thought you meant Chinese language forums. SInodefence is a. English language forum talking about Chinese military equipment. We get a lot of our info from Chinese forums and blogs but if late a lot of them got killed off.


----------



## iLION12345_1

siegecrossbow said:


> Lol I thought you meant Chinese language forums. SInodefence is a. English language forum talking about Chinese military equipment. We get a lot of our info from Chinese forums and blogs but if late a lot of them got killed off.


I went to some Chinese language forums too, I just don’t recall their names as I wasn’t keeping track of them (they were in Chinese after all), but I’m sure I was only scratching the surface of all of them since it’s difficult to figure out where exactly to look. I was mostly just on English ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> Uncensored version was not released publicly, I have checked Chinese forums and defense sites for it as well but did not find it. China wants to keep some things hidden i suppose, good for us as well, the enemy doesn’t know it’s exact capability.


Make sense, what's the timeline for induction of 300 VT4 in PA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> Make sense, what's the timeline for induction of 300 VT4 in PA


Considering the speed at which Chinese build stuff and the current delivery rate, I would guess the first order of 300 will be done by 2024. Considering the PAs Requirements, more will likely be ordered, this may turn into a long term acquisition plan where if China unveils an improved version, like a “VT-4A”, PA might order that instead, since VT-4 and AK-1 (or the AK-2, whenever that comes) are going to be the mainstay of the future of Pakistani armor.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> Considering the speed at which Chinese build stuff and the current delivery rate, I would guess the first order of 300 will be done by 2024. Considering the PAs Requirements, more will likely be ordered, this may turn into a long term acquisition plan where if China unveils an improved version, like a “VT-4A”, PA might order that instead, since VT-4 and AK-1 (or the AK-2, whenever that comes) are going to be the mainstay of the future of Pakistani armor.


Quite likely that this order will go beyond 300 units , you rightly said after this follow up order can be advanced variant of VT4 as till then chines possiblely introduce 1 to 2 advance version of VT4 (by looking at there overall defense equipment improvement speed).

As i remember if not wrong PAA requirements of tanks is around 1000 units in coming years , so Alkahlid can not full fill this numbers (even HIT) improve there production rate, So VT4 and its coming variants will fill major part of it) if PAA dont go for any other foreigner tank option (most unlikely) in future

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanasifm

Scorpiooo said:


> Quite likely that this order will go beyond 300 units , you rightly said after this follow up order can be advanced variant of VT4 as till then chines possiblely introduce 1 to 2 advance version of VT4 (by looking at there overall defense equipment improvement speed).
> 
> As i remember if not wrong PAA requirements of tanks is around 1000 units in coming years , so Alkahlid can not full fill this numbers (even HIT) improve there production rate, So VT4 and its coming variants will fill major part of it) if PAA dont go for any other foreigner tank option (most unlikely) in future



The issues was never production capacity which is 50 per year of HIT but finances which only allowed for half at the most 

Anyway paa internal folks can shed more light maybe vt4 is better suited for Morden battle field and delay in ak2 may be the reason moving on better not guesstimate


----------



## Dazzler

khanasifm said:


> The issues was never production capacity which is 50 per year of HIT but finances which only allowed for half at the most
> 
> Anyway paa internal folks can shed more light maybe vt4 is better suited for Morden battle field and delay in ak2 may be the reason moving on better not guesstimate


VT4-p has better stabilizer (electromechanical) and similar protection to 99A thanks to fy4. The unique feature is auto boresight and RCWS slaved to panoramic sight which the 99a lacks. C4I is the best in the region.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408320162206474242

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408320162206474242


Quiet an old news now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408320162206474242


That’s from March…another entire regiment has arrived since, in may…over a hundred tanks now believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> That’s from March…another entire regiment has arrived since, in may…over a hundred tanks now believe.
> View attachment 756254


Whats that ToT for?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Whats that ToT for?


Unsure, maybe for local maintenance, repair and overhaul capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> Unsure, maybe for local maintenance, repair and overhaul capability.


I read it as if it says "ammo tank tot".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

@Tipu7 why question mark with AL hiader ? , can it possible that Al haider to be separate project them procurement of VT-4 as Alhiader


Desert Fox 1 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408320162206474242


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> @Tipu7 why question mark with AL hiader ? , can it possible that Al haider to be separate project them procurement of VT-4 as Alhiader


Al-Haider was a project to make a new tank in Pakistan in a similar project to Al-Khalid, foreign design, Pakistani components, it didn’t work out because Pakistan didn’t get ToT for VT-4. Technically it is what we got for the “Al-Haider” program.
probably the only Full HD photos of Pakistani VT-4s without watermarks on the internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## PanzerKiel

iLION12345_1 said:


> Al-Haider was a project to make a new tank in Pakistan in a similar project to Al-Khalid, foreign design, Pakistani components, it didn’t work out because Pakistan didn’t get ToT for VT-4. Technically it is what we got for the “Al-Haider” program.
> probably the only Full HD photos of Pakistani VT-4s without watermarks on the internet.
> View attachment 756419
> View attachment 756420
> View attachment 756421


These are the basic versions.... We've just got the upgraded versions...lots of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
5


----------



## iLION12345_1

PanzerKiel said:


> These are the basic versions.... We've just got the upgraded versions...lots of them.


Really? I thought these ones already had the Pakistan specific upgrades like the new ERA, stabilizers etc (the pictures are from the recent parade). Does the latest delivery have even more upgrades?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

iLION12345_1 said:


> Really? I thought these ones already had the Pakistan specific upgrades like the new ERA, stabilizers etc (the pictures are from the recent parade). Does the latest delivery have even more upgrades?


Pakistan wants more of the upgrades, and its getting them.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> Al-Haider was a project to make a new tank in Pakistan in a similar project to Al-Khalid, foreign design, Pakistani components, it didn’t work out because Pakistan didn’t get ToT for VT-4. Technically it is what we got for the “Al-Haider” program.
> probably the only Full HD photos of Pakistani VT-4s without watermarks on the internet.
> View attachment 756419
> View attachment 756420
> View attachment 756421


Thanks for sharing, i have same information that now vT4 = al haider but @Tipu7 Tweet asking VT4 as Al haider with question mark.. arises question , (as still a chance Al hiader not equal to VT4


----------



## Zarvan

PanzerKiel said:


> Pakistan wants more of the upgrades, and its getting them.


I really hope the final number is at least 500 of these beasts if not more.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Scorpiooo said:


> Thanks for sharing, i have same information that now vT4 = al haider but @Tipu7 Tweet asking VT4 as Al haider with question mark.. arises question , (as still a chance Al hiader not equal to VT4


We don't want so many tanks in its inventory.wa


PanzerKiel said:


> Pakistan wants more of the upgrades, and its getting them.


Wait till you get asked about active protection.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Wait till you get asked about active protection.


I'm not telling even one word about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
9


----------



## Sayfullah

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm not telling even one word about it.



Is Pakistan getting active protection system for its tanks tho?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
9


----------



## Amaa'n

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm not telling even one word about it.


let me send a friend request from my Gori wala account

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
13


----------



## waz

How many VT-4 have been delivered so far?
72 tanks per regiment, two regiments so far so that's 144?


----------



## iLION12345_1

waz said:


> How many VT-4 have been delivered so far?
> 72 tanks per regiment, two regiments so far so that's 144?


44 tanks per regiment, 3 regiments so far, 128 total.
first were 47 cavalry and then 6 lancers, third batch delivered in may, not sure to which regiment.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Scorpiooo said:


> Thanks for sharing, i have same information that now vT4 = al haider but @Tipu7 Tweet asking VT4 as Al haider with question mark.. arises question , (as still a chance Al hiader not equal to VT4


We still don't know how we are going to 'brand' these tanks. VT4 is awkward name. Pakistan specific version, which is in process of absorbing more systems, should/may have a specific name. 
I won't rule out the 'Al-Haider' title.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## farooqbhai007

Found this while browsing on twitter apparently this is viral on tik tok. From a week ago.








moazzamali on TikTok


@kingzzs0786 @stefania0950 @hoormahaveera7675




www.tiktok.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PanzerKiel

iLION12345_1 said:


> 44 tanks per regiment, 3 regiments so far, 128 total.
> first were 47 cavalry and then 6 lancers, third batch delivered in may, not sure to which regiment.
> View attachment 756456


You've got the numbers and regiments badly mixed up.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Tipu7 said:


> We still don't know how we are going to 'brand' these tanks. VT4 is awkward name. Pakistan specific version, which is in process of absorbing more systems, should/may have a specific name.
> I won't rule out the 'Al-Haider' title.



What about Sherdil?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## khanasifm

waz said:


> How many VT-4 have been delivered so far?
> 72 tanks per regiment, two regiments so far so that's 144?



Not sure where is 72 came from visited a unit while back 44 with 4 tank squadrons and each sqn has 3/4 troops of 3/4


----------



## PanzerKiel

khanasifm said:


> Not sure where is 72 came from visited a unit while back 44 with 4 tank squadrons and each sqn has 3/4 troops of 3/4


Every regiment has three Squadrons, total 44 tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## iLION12345_1

PanzerKiel said:


> You've got the numbers and regiments badly mixed up.


Oh, my bad, I assumed those two because that’s the regiment they were first inducted in and the second we saw in the parade. (Looking at the markings on the tanks). From the two regiments seen and the third delivery in may I assumed 128 tanks, But if I’m wrong that’s good, rather this information be hidden than be public, thanks for the correction

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

iLION12345_1 said:


> Oh, my bad, I assumed those two because that’s the regiment they were first inducted in and the second we saw in the parade. (Looking at the markings on the tanks). From the two regiments seen and the third delivery in may I assumed 128 tanks, But if I’m wrong that’s good, rather this information be hidden than be public, thanks for the correction


Regiments get changed, new regiments take over the equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Incog_nito

I thought PA already has 300 VT-4s in its fleet.

Besides VT-4s is PA looking to order 300 T-84 Oplot tanks from Ukraine; along with the degradation of the T-80 UDs?

As new Armies don't rely on big numbers of tanks, rather on smaller numbers of Modern Main Battle Tanks.

Are there any options open for PA for any Western Tanks?

Reactions: Wow Wow:
3


----------



## Dazzler

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm not telling even one word about it.


It's not gl-5

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Dazzler said:


> It's not gl-5

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
7


----------



## Dazzler

PanzerKiel said:


> View attachment 756626


I'm not asking. Just sayinn

Reactions: Haha Haha:
8


----------



## iLION12345_1

Incog_nito said:


> I thought PA already has 300 VT-4s in its fleet.
> 
> Besides VT-4s is PA looking to order 300 T-84 Oplot tanks from Ukraine; along with the degradation of the T-80 UDs?
> 
> As new Armies don't rely on big numbers of tanks, rather on smaller numbers of Modern Main Battle Tanks.
> 
> Are there any options open for PA for any Western Tanks?


PA is not ordering Oplots, Ukraine probably can’t even deliver if we order that many. Only Rebuild and maybe some upgrades for T80UD fleet.

That’s not true for all or really any army, only a few are downsizing their tank fleet in the name of modernization because they don’t need them, the only real example that comes to mind is UK because they’re an island with no threat of being invaded, they only need a small number of tanks for foreign deployments such as Afghanistan. Other countries like Germany and France also don’t need large tank armies because they don’t have a large ground threat to them + NATO factor for combined defense, but they’re not downsizing. They’re just modernizing their fleets as they have the money.

None of this applies to countries like Pakistan, india, China, Russia etc. these countries still need massive tank fleets to support their military doctrines, which means keeping older models in service to keep numbers up as well.
PAs armor numbers nearly match those of India, and the Tech is already far beyond what they operate.

Why would PA want western tanks though, they’re not good for our terrain and logistics, too big and heavy, they don’t have auto-loaders so diffrent training and doctrine, they use guns and ammo we don’t have and apart from Germany and US there are really no good “western” tanks on the market right now, and one of those is never gonna sell them. VT-4 is better than basically everything except Modern Leo 2s and Abrams and it actually fits in with our doctrine and supply chain.

Reactions: Like Like:
 3


----------



## HRK

PanzerKiel said:


> View attachment 756626










iLION12345_1 said:


> PA is not ordering Oplots, Ukraine probably can’t even deliver if we order that many. Only Rebuild and maybe some upgrades for T80UD fleet.
> 
> That’s not true for all or really any army, only a few are downsizing their tank fleet in the name of modernization because they don’t need them, the only real example that comes to mind is UK because they’re an island with no threat of being invaded, they only need a small number of tanks for foreign deployments such as Afghanistan. Other countries like Germany and France also don’t need large tank armies because they don’t have a large ground threat to them + NATO factor for combined defense, but they’re not downsizing. They’re just modernizing their fleets as they have the money.
> 
> None of this applies to countries like Pakistan, india, China, Russia etc. these countries still need massive tank fleets to support their military doctrines, which means keeping older models in service to keep numbers up as well.
> PAs armor numbers nearly match those of India, and the Tech is already far beyond what they operate.
> 
> Why would PA want western tanks though, they’re not good for our terrain and logistics, too big and heavy, they don’t have auto-loaders so diffrent training and doctrine, they use guns and ammo we don’t have and apart from Germany and US there are really no good “western” tanks on the market right now, and one of those is never gonna sell them. VT-4 is better than basically everything except Modern Leo 2s and Abrams and it actually fits in with our doctrine and supply chain.


this ID is the new incarnation of @nishan101 .....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
4 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Sayfullah

Dazzler said:


> I'm not asking. Just sayinn



So their getting a active protection system but not gl-5?
Could gl-5 be put on our older tanks like type-85ug?

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Inception-06

HRK said:


> this ID is the new incarnation of @nishan101 .....



I thought it’s @Zarvan bye the way I miss the guy !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Thought India would be the first one to introduce aps in the region.
Hate to see mech Warfare getting more complex

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Jf-17 block 3 said:


> So their getting a active protection system but not gl-5?
> Could gl-5 be put on our older tanks like type-85ug?



No APS in the package just yet


----------



## akramishaqkhan

Desert Fox 1 said:


> We don't want so many tanks in its inventory.wa
> 
> Wait till you get asked about active protection.


VT-4s have active protection. The question is what is the level of digitization, do they have a digital battle field management system, do they have real-time threat detection and counter-measures, and generally what is the level of sophistication of the above mentioned suite of systems. That information is likely to remain classified for a long time.

APS are diverse, have generational evolution, and counter measure too are varied and diverse.


----------



## iLION12345_1

akramishaqkhan said:


> VT-4s have active protection. The question is what is the level of digitization, do they have a digital battle field management system, do they have real-time threat detection and counter-measures, and generally what is the level of sophistication of the above mentioned suite of systems. That information is likely to remain classified for a long time.
> 
> APS are diverse, have generational evolution, and counter measure too are varied and diverse.


Our VT4s do not have either a soft kill or a hard kill active protection system. They have Laser warning receivers though. GL5 hard kill APS is offered but not ordered yet. 
Tank APS aren’t that diverse either, there’s only a few systems in the world, even fewer that are considered good, most working on similar principles, generally hard-kill systems are preferred like Trophy. 

VT-4 has all of the things you mentioned (apart from active countermeasures, only smoke-screen), there’s many videos available online showing it’s digital BMS and other stuff. It’s the most digitized tank in the region by a major margin…among the most digitized in the world actually. Even more so than Chinese 99A and Russian T90MS. Not much that’s classified about it, it’s an export product after all.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Bilal.

Active countermeasures are a hazard to troops beside the tank. Maybe PA will deploy them selectively.

on a related topic I wonder if PA will be interested in VN17 IFV.


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> Our VT4s do not have either a soft kill or a hard kill active protection system. They have Laser warning receivers though. GL5 hard kill APS is offered but not ordered yet.
> Tank APS aren’t that diverse either, there’s only a few systems in the world, even fewer that are considered good, most working on similar principles, generally hard-kill systems are preferred like Trophy.
> 
> VT-4 has all of the things you mentioned (apart from active countermeasures, only smoke-screen), there’s many videos available online showing it’s digital BMS and other stuff. It’s the most digitized tank in the region by a major margin…among the most digitized in the world actually. Even more so than Chinese 99A and Russian T90MS. Not much that’s classified about it, it’s an export product after all.


Still on papers VT4 seems advance then AK 2 specifications


----------



## Abid123

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Thought India would be the first one to introduce aps in the region.
> Hate to see mech Warfare getting more complex


Pakistan has 1116 3rd generation right now. That number needs to be increased to 2000.


----------



## Scorpiooo

Bilal. said:


> Active countermeasures are a hazard to troops beside the tank. Maybe PA will deploy them selectively.
> 
> on a related topic I wonder if PA will be interested in VN17 IFV.


VN17 will be expensive as its based of VT5 body

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> Still on papers VT4 seems advance then AK 2 specifications


We don’t know what AK-2 specifications are so we can’t really say that. PA and HIT have never officially said anything about AK-2 at all, it’s all just been assumptions, considering AK-2 will come after VT-4 and likely not anytime soon, it will be building on VT-4 to improve whatever is possible. PA is already getting more upgrades on VT-4s. 
However VT-4 is superior to AK-1 in a few metrics, even then, AK-1 is better than anything India operates. The best they have is closer to our T80UDs and AKs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> We don’t know what AK-2 specifications are so we can’t really say that. PA and HIT have never officially said anything about AK-2 at all, it’s all just been assumptions, considering AK-2 will come after VT-4 and likely not anytime soon, it will be building on VT-4 to improve whatever is possible. PA is already getting more upgrades on VT-4s.
> However VT-4 is superior to AK-1 in a few metrics, even then, AK-1 is better than anything India operates. The best they have is closer to our T80UDs and AKs.


Yes possible that HIt enhance AK ll with some inheritance from VT4 and other from AK1 .
But question is HIT can deliver something equal or above VT-4 (big question mark)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Bilal. said:


> Active countermeasures are a hazard to troops beside the tank. Maybe PA will deploy them selectively.
> 
> on a related topic I wonder if PA will be interested in VN17 IFV.


If they are employed infantry will get proper training on how to function with them. They don’t stand near a tank in combat anyways…ERA will blow a person to bits, so will any incoming fire towards the tank (fragments from enemy tank rounds)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## spectregunship

__ https://www.facebook.com/1656878391276275/posts/2797816113849158

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

spectregunship said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/1656878391276275/posts/2797816113849158


noticed some subtle differences…cage armor extends further. I assume the different looking Camera/LWR sensor is just a cover. 3 different camos so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

spectregunship said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/1656878391276275/posts/2797816113849158


I'm also there somewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
8 | Wow Wow:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm also there somewhere.


Is this a new batch or from the original two batches? Any reason why there’s both digital and non digital camos?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

iLION12345_1 said:


> Is this a new batch or from the original two batches? Any reason why there’s both digital and non digital camos?


As I mentioned on VT4 thread... New batches, New upgrades...

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## iLION12345_1

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm also there somewhere.


Came to Gujranwala and didn’t say hi

Reactions: Sad Sad:
2


----------



## ghazi52



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## farooqbhai007

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm also there somewhere.







😆

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
9


----------



## PanzerKiel

iLION12345_1 said:


> Came to Mangla and didn’t say hi


This video and demo was done in Gujranwala, not Mangla.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

PanzerKiel said:


> This video and demo was done in Gujranwala, not Mangla.


Was typo on my part 
Gujranwala is my hometown, that’s what I meant

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

iLION12345_1 said:


> Gujranwala is my hometown, that’s what I meant


It's mine as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
3 | Wow Wow:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

PanzerKiel said:


> It's mine as well.


Having seen how the military is just one giant workplace I’m willing to bet you’ve run into one of my military family members there somewhere

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Inception-06

PanzerKiel said:


> It's mine as well.



I am born in village near the Gujranwala, Lade wala warraich.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Is Pakistan going to induct 300 or the target is much higher??? Also any update of Armored Vehicles or IFV??


----------



## iLION12345_1

Muhammad Omar said:


> Is Pakistan going to induct 300 or the target is much higher??? Also any update of Armored Vehicles or IFV??


More than 300, A few armored vehicles being tested currently. Ukraine’s BTR4E being in the lead. Serbian LAZAR 2 was also present a few years back so maybe that’s being considered too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## TsAr

PanzerKiel said:


> It's mine as well.


kab invite kar rahay han Khizar tikka par....

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Raja Porus

PanzerKiel said:


> It's mine as well.





PanzerKiel said:


> It's mine as well.


Found ya..





Gujjar von Manstein..... Fakhr-e- Gujranwala...

Reactions: Haha Haha:
13


----------



## Thorough Pro

I know, that empty seat, you invisible devil!



PanzerKiel said:


> I'm also there somewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Sayfullah

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm also there somewhere.



Sir you’re in army? 
If yes how do you get enough time to come on this forum? 
And what rank in army are you in?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## TsAr

Jf-17 block 3 said:


> Sir you’re in army?
> If yes how do you get enough time to come on this forum?
> And what rank in army are you in?


bhai army walay 24 ghantay duty nai daitay

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## Sayfullah

PanzerKiel said:


> I'm also there somewhere.



Sir since you’re in army do you think ceasefire on loc will be broken anytime soon? 
Pakistan should kill Indian occupation forces on loc as retaliation for what their proxies doing in Balochistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Jf-17 block 3 said:


> Sir since you’re in army do you think ceasefire on loc will be broken anytime soon?
> Pakistan should kill Indian occupation forces on loc as retaliation for what their proxies doing in Balochistan


They are getting killed in retaliation, but not on LOC.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
9 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Sayfullah

PanzerKiel said:


> They are getting killed in retaliation, but not on LOC.



Does Pakistan still support Kashmiri mujahideen?

Reactions: Wow Wow:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Jf-17 block 3 said:


> Does Pakistan still support Kashmiri mujahideen?


it’s much easier to ask those questions than to answer them, especially for a serving PA officer

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Sad Sad:
2


----------



## Sayfullah

iLION12345_1 said:


> it’s much easier to ask those questions than to answer them, especially for a serving PA officer


 
I thought he’d react like he normally does with either 😍 for yes or 😞 for no but this time he reacted with 😮

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Thorough Pro

why not ask for his phone number and home address and his unit and where it is posted and what it's main responsibilities are etc. etc. etc. you indian spies are so pathetic




Jf-17 block 3 said:


> Sir since you’re in army do you think ceasefire on loc will be broken anytime soon?
> Pakistan should kill Indian occupation forces on loc as retaliation for what their proxies doing in Balochistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
8


----------



## iLION12345_1

Jf-17 block 3 said:


> I thought he’d react like he normally does with either 😍 for yes or 😞 for no but this time he reacted with 😮


Is it of one of those automated systems at call-support centers that react with Yes or no to messages and questions 😂
I guess the latter is for when no answer is to be given, it’s a public forum after all, I wouldn’t expect an answer, best not to ask such questions…the reason you can see above. You’re now a RAW spy 🤣

Reactions: Love Love:
2


----------



## Tipu7

Fellas, VT-4... It's a VT-4 thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## ali_raza

is this the tank with 1500 hp engine or still 1200hp is being used

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blacklight

ali_raza said:


> is this the tank with 1500 hp engine or still 1200hp is being used


1500hp

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## ali_raza

Blacklight said:


> 1500hp


btw military equipment has wifi?


----------



## Blacklight

ali_raza said:


> btw military equipment has wifi?


YouTube and spotify too

Jokes aside can you elaborate your question pls

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
5


----------



## ali_raza

Blacklight said:


> YouTube and spotify too
> 
> Jokes aside can you elaborate your question pls


u know these latest cars have wifi which let cars have different features like weather traffic gps songs etc etc 
like one built in network which is connected to either internet or army’s own version on internet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

Tipu7 said:


> Fellas, VT-4... It's a VT-4 thread.


Is VT-4 going to be known as simply 'VT-4' in PA service or is it going to be get another name?

AFAIK, I don't think we have ever given a local name to a tank that was simply bought off the shelf without any local production. What do you guys think?
@PanzerKiel @Blacklight @Tipu7 @iLION12345_1 @Dazzler

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## SQ8

ali_raza said:


> u know these latest cars have wifi which let cars have different features like weather traffic gps songs etc etc
> like one built in network which is connected to either internet or army’s own version on internet


There is network connectivity to receive images and other data messages updated via UHF Software defined radios. This has been available (if not operational) to the primary Pakistani radio PRC-9661.

Caveat is compatible consuming hardware is connected. So possible acting as data modem for any C3I systems built into the vehicle.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

iLION12345_1 said:


> More than 300, A few armored vehicles being tested currently. Ukraine’s BTR4E being in the lead. Serbian LAZAR 2 was also present a few years back so maybe that’s being considered too.


Any idea as to roughly what numbers of armored vehicles Pak is looking to acquire or is that not shareable info at this moment?
@PanzerKiel @Blacklight @SQ8

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

@PanzerKiel sir aap itna mat sataya kerein. Emojis use ker ke dilon ke saath kheltay hain.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dreamer. said:


> Is VT-4 going to be known as simply 'VT-4' in PA service or is it going to be get another name?
> 
> AFAIK, I don't think we have ever given a local name to a tank that was simply bought off the shelf without any local production. What do you guys think?
> @PanzerKiel @Blacklight @Tipu7 @iLION12345_1 @Dazzler


It seems it will remain VT-4, If there was to be a name they would have used it during induction, and why not, Type 85 remained Type 85 and T80UD remained T80UD, It could have been VT-4P due to it’s changes but it seems that’s not being used either since the tank wasn’t locally assembled (unlike Type 85-IIAP), though maybe a informal local name will start among the crews and the military 😆

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Cookie Monster said:


> Any idea as to roughly what numbers of armored vehicles Pak is looking to acquire or is that not shareable info at this moment?
> @PanzerKiel @Blacklight @SQ8


No idea, but Sir Panzerkiel said they’re to be deployed based on location first, means Baluchistan and maybe Ex-FATA, so the inital order might not be too big, I don’t see the military replacing all the M113s and other APCs yet, but maybe this acquisition could tie into that in the long run. We will know the results for this and the artillery procurement in a few months hopefully. If PA can make up its mind this time

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Tipu7 said:


> Fellas, VT-4... It's a VT-4 thread.


Thread;Manstein Gujjar: updates and discussions.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
5


----------



## Primus

Can our vt4 fire atgms? If so which atgms can it fire?


----------



## Blacklight

Huffal said:


> Can our vt4 fire atgms?


Why not?



Huffal said:


> If so which atgms can it fire?


Only the 9M119M Refleks is publicly acknowledged, as far as I know. The rest, lets leave it of a public forum








Pakistan's tool of war: Al-Khalid Main Battle Tank – the armoured fist


MBT is designed to penetrate enemy lines using violence of action.



www.dawn.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Huffal said:


> Can our vt4 fire atgms? If so which atgms can it fire?


Russian 9M119M/Ukrainian Kombat ATGMs in service with AK, AZ and T80UD since UD was inducted in the 90s. I assume Type 85UG can fire ATGMs too since it uses the same auto-loader and FCS/GCS as AK-1. Which means all of PAs tanks are ATGM capable except the Type 69s.

VT-4 uses Chinese GPS7 and GP-125 ATGMs but can likely also fire 9M119M. I’m unaware if PA has purchased those or just uses the 9M119M with VT-4 too, which wouldn’t be an issue since the 9M119M is a tandem-charged ATGM, which means it’s better than the GPS7, though I’m unsure how the GP-125 performs or if GP-125 and GPS-7 are the same thing, Chinese designations can be confusing.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## AR KHAN

PanzerKiel said:


> As I mentioned on VT4 thread... New batches, New upgrades...


Reference No. Please!


----------



## Incog_nito

iLION12345_1 said:


> PA is not ordering Oplots, Ukraine probably can’t even deliver if we order that many. Only Rebuild and maybe some upgrades for T80UD fleet.
> 
> That’s not true for all or really any army, only a few are downsizing their tank fleet in the name of modernization because they don’t need them, the only real example that comes to mind is UK because they’re an island with no threat of being invaded, they only need a small number of tanks for foreign deployments such as Afghanistan. Other countries like Germany and France also don’t need large tank armies because they don’t have a large ground threat to them + NATO factor for combined defense, but they’re not downsizing. They’re just modernizing their fleets as they have the money.
> 
> None of this applies to countries like Pakistan, india, China, Russia etc. these countries still need massive tank fleets to support their military doctrines, which means keeping older models in service to keep numbers up as well.
> PAs armor numbers nearly match those of India, and the Tech is already far beyond what they operate.
> 
> Why would PA want western tanks though, they’re not good for our terrain and logistics, too big and heavy, they don’t have auto-loaders so diffrent training and doctrine, they use guns and ammo we don’t have and apart from Germany and US there are really no good “western” tanks on the market right now, and one of those is never gonna sell them. VT-4 is better than basically everything except Modern Leo 2s and Abrams and it actually fits in with our doctrine and supply chain.



You are right at your own point. But my point is that we can still maintain a decent fleet of tanks. Instead of keeping the numbers to 3000+ Tank fleet, PA can and it might be doing it and we don't know i.e: 1500 Strong Fleet of modern Tanks.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Incog_nito said:


> You are right at your own point. But my point is that we can still maintain a decent fleet of tanks. Instead of keeping the numbers to 3000+ Tank fleet, PA can and it might be doing it and we don't know i.e: 1500 Strong Fleet of modern Tanks.


No. Because numbers are more important for PA and it will remain as such due to our enemy, geography, doctrine and funding.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Incog_nito said:


> You are right at your own point. But my point is that we can still maintain a decent fleet of tanks. Instead of keeping the numbers to 3000+ Tank fleet, PA can and it might be doing it and we don't know i.e: 1500 Strong Fleet of modern Tanks.


When it comes to Tanks numbers still matter. At best if you have to replace 3000 Tanks you can have 2500 modern Tanks not fully 3000 but not less then that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Incog_nito said:


> You are right at your own point. But my point is that we can still maintain a decent fleet of tanks. Instead of keeping the numbers to 3000+ Tank fleet, PA can and it might be doing it and we don't know i.e: 1500 Strong Fleet of modern Tanks.


These figure of tanks would amount only to form four mechanised divs. Thus all the operations,both offensive and defensive, will fall on these formations. They will have to conduct these operations simultaneously. And if even one of these suffers attrition than our position would be nothing less of precarious. For this reason numerous indp armd bdes have been raised plus inf divs also have them so they can operate on the defensive without weakening our offensive capability. Given our border length and terrain superior quality ( in mech warfare) will have hard time competing with decent quality but more numerous forces. Thus as long as IA maintains a sizeable fleet of tanks so will PA and vice versa. 
Another thing as that even at the present number of tanks we a re qualitatively superior.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> These figure of tanks would amount only to form four mechanised divs. Thus all the operations,both offensive and defensive, will fall on these formations. They will have to conduct these operations simultaneously. And if even one of these suffers attrition than our position would be nothing less of precarious. For this reason numerous indp armd bdes have been raised plus inf divs also have them so they can operate on the defensive without weakening our offensive capability. Given our border length and terrain superior quality ( in mech warfare) will have hard time competing with decent quality but more numerous forces. Thus as long as IA maintains a sizeable fleet of tanks so will PA and vice versa.
> Another thing as that even at the present number of tanks we a re qualitatively superior.


In fact the technological and quality gap between Pakistani tanks and Indian tanks is so massive that it’s honestly funny when people just assume that Indian armored forces must be better because they’re “bigger and better funded”…the devil is in the details for them. The best of what they have is barely comparable to our UDs, let alone AK, AK-1 and VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> In fact the technological and quality gap between Pakistani tanks and Indian tanks is so massive that it’s honestly funny when people just assume that Indian armored forces must be better because they’re “bigger and better funded”…the devil is in the details for them. The best of what they have is barely comparable to our UDs, let alone AK, AK-1 and VT-4.


Exactly,we have both quality and quantity. And inspite of all the criticism its credit must be given to the upper echelons.
I suppose the historic difference that the invading forces from the west were usually light( overall) yet faster and better equipped than the more bulky and slow moving defenders of Ganges continues

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Blacklight

There is another aspect of Tank Warfare that PA has been quietly working on. Lets see who can identify it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Blacklight said:


> There is another aspect of Tank Warfare that PA has been quietly working on. Lets see who can identify it.


Are you referring to test which was conducted during Kiyani time. Where some sort of laser was used to create a malfunction in a Tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Blacklight said:


> There is another aspect of Tank Warfare that PA has been quietly working on. Lets see who can identify it.



These maybe 😬😬

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Zarvan said:


> Are you referring to test which was conducted during Kiyani time. Where some sort of laser was used to create a malfunction in a Tank.


That sort of APS is used in Chinese Type 99A, though it’s ability to damage any tank optics or systems is questionable, it maybe be able to damage weapons such as ATGMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## khanmubashir

Experts are raising doubts about feasibility of expensive tanks after tanks poor performance in Syria Lebanon nikora karbagh etc 

Perhaps army aviation and artillery be strengthened instead especially with drones 

Read UK isn't interested in replacing challenger


----------



## siegecrossbow

iLION12345_1 said:


> That sort of APS is used in Chinese Type 99A, though it’s ability to damage any tank optics or systems is questionable, it maybe be able to damage weapons such as ATGMs.



It could physically burn through a plywood board at 1KM. It is very capable of damaging tank optics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

siegecrossbow said:


> It could physically burn through a plywood board at 1KM. It is very capable of damaging tank optics.



I doubt because of the amount of energy that would be needed to pull this off, I don’t doubt it’s possible, but unless it’s somehow drawing power literally from the tanks engine (unlikely) or has a massive capacitor somewhere in the tank, It just doesn’t seem realistic. A normal APU could not provide enough power for this, nor could a normal battery or capacitor (as the power would be required very rapidly and for a prolonged period).
I found the system very interesting so I tried to figure out the science behind it and it doesnt make sense scientifically, granted I’m no expert and there’s literally no information about it, but that would have to be an extremely efficient laser with a very powerful and compact source, so cutting edge tech, how this was available years back on the Type 99…thats also something I can’t answer.

The APS in the original type 99 had grenades along with the laser system to protect itself, 99A only has the laser, so I assume there was some improvement. Obviously if it’s in mass use it must work in some way, it’s just hard to figure out how it can burn tank optics at range.

A Plywood board is much different than reinforced glass and tank optics, much more flammable, thinner, larger, not moving, not firing back at you, one can aim the laser at it for as long as needed.




khanmubashir said:


> Experts are raising doubts about feasibility of expensive tanks after tanks poor performance in Syria Lebanon nikora karbagh etc
> 
> Perhaps army aviation and artillery be strengthened instead especially with drones
> 
> Read UK isn't interested in replacing challenger


Have answered this before, drones aren’t relevant in a balanced conventional war and tanks are as relevant as they will ever be…









Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions


I thought PA already has 300 VT-4s in its fleet. Besides VT-4s is PA looking to order 300 T-84 Oplot tanks from Ukraine; along with the degradation of the T-80 UDs? As new Armies don't rely on big numbers of tanks, rather on smaller numbers of Modern Main Battle Tanks. Are there any options...



defence.pk




Refer to Post #2791

Tanks have performed poorly in areas where one side has complete air superiority (Azerbaijan and Turkey in Syria using drones) or where the tactics being used are piss poor (Lebanon and Iraq). That is not indicative of a proper balanced conventional war.
PS: UK literally just unveiled the Challenger 3 to upgrade its older challengers 2…

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Blacklight said:


> There is another aspect of Tank Warfare that PA has been quietly working on. Lets see who can identify it.


such as infantry fighting vehicles or self-propelled artillery ?


----------



## Buddhistforlife

Pakistan army basically wasted money for nothing. Who needs tanks in 2021?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Buddhistforlife said:


> Pakistan army basically wasted money for nothing. Who needs tanks in 2021?


Yes, they wasted it all, the worlds best armies like Nepali and Indian armies have moved past tanks and switched to next generation warfare which includes sitting in their homes and complaining about Pakistani army acquisitions on a defense forum, so far it has worked wonders, the poor Pakistani army has retreated and surrendered to the might of the combined Nepali and Indian defense forces with their next-generation warfare doctrine.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
10


----------



## Raja Porus

Blacklight said:


> There is another aspect of Tank Warfare that PA has been quietly working on. Lets see who can identify it.


You mean whole doctrine or just tanks themselves?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## kursed

Blacklight said:


> There is another aspect of Tank Warfare that PA has been quietly working on. Lets see who can identify it.


Next-gen ATGMs?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Dazzler

AR KHAN said:


> Reference No. Please!





Blacklight said:


> There is another aspect of Tank Warfare that PA has been quietly working on. Lets see who can identify it.



For several years.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Dazzler said:


> For several years.


What is that aspect ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Zarvan said:


> What is that aspect ?


Some things are better Left unsaid.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Ghost 125

Buddhistforlife said:


> Pakistan army basically wasted money for nothing. Who needs tanks in 2021?


those who know a thing or two about warfare...

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Blacklight

Dazzler said:


> For several years.


Moot point. Has anything serious related to the military happened overnight?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Salza

Stop posting hints/riddles...just post the real stuff @Blacklight @Dazzler

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2 | Angry Angry:
1


----------



## Blacklight

Desert Fox 1 said:


> You mean whole doctrine or just tanks themselves?


Doctrine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Blacklight said:


> Doctrine.


Raising more IABGs/IMBGs?

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
7 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Blacklight

kursed said:


> Next-gen ATGMs?


Periodic upgrades are part of the process.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Raising more IABGs/IMBGs?







__





Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army


This means that 18 inf div might still have these or this might be an old pic That's the new army uniform pattern.... Moreover, the tank serial number shows that it has been very recently overhauled.



defence.pk









__





Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army


Its an AK, 26 mech div has AKs and I think 25 mech div also have AKs This particular camo and black side skirts are only found on type 85s , numerous available showing the same config on T-85 , AK never has had black side skirts



defence.pk













Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions


Yes. AZs will move to the western front. I think they should raise a new armd div because AZ are too good for the western front. They can also raise new armd independent armd brigades



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Raising more IABGs/IMBGs?


What is this IABG in military terms?


----------



## Raja Porus

Scorpiooo said:


> What is this IABG in military terms?


Independent armoured brigade group. It is a formation independent of divisional command and reports directly to the Corps commander. It is usually larger than a single armd bde of a div and may also have its own supporting troops and even mech inf and artillery.
Serves our doctrine well.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Independent armoured brigade group. It is a formation independent of divisional command and reports directly to the Corps commander. It is usually larger than a single armd bde of a div and may also have its own supporting troops and even mech inf and artillery.
> Serves our doctrine well.


Any special role armoured used in them or general utility purpose


----------



## Raja Porus

They are used independently hence create flexibility and add complications for the enemy.
Armour component is same.


Scorpiooo said:


> Any special role armoured used in them or general utility purpose

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## monitor

Pakistan's forward strike corps Mangala corps have inducted State of the art VT-4 Tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Bilal.

iLION12345_1 said:


> It seems it will remain VT-4, If there was to be a name they would have used it during induction, and why not, Type 85 remained Type 85 and T80UD remained T80UD, It could have been VT-4P due to it’s changes but it seems that’s not being used either since the tank wasn’t locally assembled (unlike Type 85-IIAP), though maybe a informal local name will start among the crews and the military 😆


We now seem to be going for local manufacturing or towards a new tank based on VT4.









The HIT: More than just tanks


https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-hit-more-than-just-tanks/?fbclid=IwAR2zgidzzaA2Fzi7XkjPSY3H9_rpzmcWGora0AU8iH6C9sE-TB3Sq55-5PM The HIT: More than just tanks Journey of a Thousand Miles begins with one single step! Following the advice of philosopher Lao Tzu, Pakistan and China initiated...



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Bilal. said:


> We now seem to be going for local manufacturing or towards a. New tank based on VT4.



The VT-4 design is just an evolution of the Al-Khalid/VT-1 design, which itself was an evolution of the Type 90II design, which was an evolution of the Type 85 design. You can see how they just build upon each other. The Al-Khalid-2, which is currently under development, will take a similar route, it will build upon the AK-1 design just like the VT-4 did.
Unlike the 90s Pakistan now has the capability to design a tank on their own based on this platform. So they might make one more specifically suited to their requirements and needs, something that can’t be perfectly accomplished with an off the shelf product like a VT-4. It will however use technologies from the VT-4, as well as from Ukraine and Europe, though most of the systems Pakistan has the capability to make on its own.

Powerpacks are obviously not going to be local, ToT at most, Chinese or newer Ukrainian ones (I made a detailed comparison in the Al-Khalid thread of both). Both would give a massive mobility boost. The Chinese one makes better power but Ukrainian ones mean less redesigning and maybe better reliability. VT-4P has extremely impressive mobility, it’s engine in the AK-2 would be great, so would the Ukrainian 6TD-3. 

The biggest upgrade to the Al-Khalid-2 would be a CITV, it’s an absolute must for it, otherwise I refuse to call it a good upgrade. Even if it’s a second generation thermal.

Another thing that can be improved drastically is the armor and ERA, protection is not the VT4s strongest point, it’s good, but not good like the Oplot M or the T90MS, especially on the sides. Both AK and VT4 have no added side protection. On that note an Active protection system (GL-5 or Ukrainian Zaslon) are also going to be a must for both VT-4 and AK-2 in the future.
I believe Pakistan can make AK-2 much better Protected than VT-4 by using Ukrainian armor tech and ERA (Ukrainian Duplet ERA is some of the best in the world.) It would need a redesigned turret though.

BMS Software and C4I systems used in the AK can be improved, This is the strongest point of the VT-4. AK-2 absolutely needs a proper Laser warning receiver and detection suite like in the VT4, and maybe also camera suite like the VT-4. Auto-bore sight system is another good addition from the VT-4.

Ammo storage can also be improved, bustle or external storage with blast doors as adopted in the T90MS would be a big boost to survivability, but that isn’t absolutely necessary as the current storage is decently armored.

An RWS is also a possible addition, but wouldn’t be absolutely necessary considering the MG is already remote operated.

The FCS/GCS, Auto-loader, thermals, firepower, MRS and many other systems on the AK-1 are already very good and don’t need upgrades.
Maybe they can go for local thermal sights this time. Pakistan has the capability to make those, it remains to be seen Wether they can match the ones from SAGEM, which are made locally too. But AK has third gen thermals already, which is as good as they get, so they’re not a necessary upgrade.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
7


----------



## Bilal.

iLION12345_1 said:


> The VT-4 design is just an evolution of the Al-Khalid/VT-1 design, which itself was an evolution of the Type 90II design, which was an evolution of the Type 85 design. You can see how they just build upon each other. The Al-Khalid-2, which is currently under development, will take a similar route, it will build upon the AK-1 design just like the VT-4 did.
> Unlike the 90s Pakistan now has the capability to design a tank on their own based on this platform. So they might make one more specifically suited to their requirements and needs, something that can’t be perfectly accomplished with an off the shelf product like a VT-4. It will however use technologies from the VT-4, as well as from Ukraine and Europe, though most of the systems Pakistan has the capability to make on its own.
> 
> Powerpacks are obviously not going to be local, ToT at most, Chinese or newer Ukrainian ones (I made a detailed comparison in the Al-Khalid thread of both). Both would give a massive mobility boost. The Chinese one makes better power but Ukrainian ones mean less redesigning and maybe better reliability. VT-4P has extremely impressive mobility.
> 
> The biggest upgrade to the Al-Khalid-2 would be a CITV, it’s an absolute must for it, otherwise I refuse to call it a good upgrade. Even if it’s a second generation thermal.
> 
> Another thing that can be improved drastically is the armor and ERA, protection is not the VT4s strongest point, it’s good, but not good like the Oplot M or the T90MS, especially on the sides. Both AK and VT4 have no added side protection. On that note an Active protection system (GL-5 or Ukrainian Zaslon) are also going to be a must for both VT-4 and AK-2 in the future.
> I believe Pakistan can make AK-2 much better Protected than VT-4 by using Ukrainian armor tech and ERA (Ukrainian Duplet ERA is some of the best in the world.) It would need a redesigned turret though.
> 
> BMS Software and C4I systems used in the AK can be improved, This is the strongest point of the VT-4. AK-2 absolutely needs a proper Laser warning receiver and detection suite like in the VT4, and maybe also camera suite like the VT-4. Auto-bore sight system is another good addition from the VT-4.
> 
> Ammo storage can also be improved, bustle or external storage with blast doors as adopted in the T90MS would be a big boost to survivability, but that isn’t absolutely necessary as the current storage is decently armored.
> 
> An RWS is also a possible addition, but wouldn’t be absolutely necessary considering the MG is already remote operated.
> 
> The FCS/GCS, Auto-loader, thermals, firepower, MRS and many other systems on the AK-1 are already very good and don’t need upgrades.
> Maybe they can go for local thermal sights this time. Pakistan has the capability to make those, it remains to be seen Wether they can match the ones from SAGEM, which are made locally too. But AK has third gen thermals already, which is as good as they get, so they’re not a necessary upgrade.



Does VT4 have CITV. Also I was under the impression that Al Khalid had this right from the first model…. Same for laser warning receiver. 

Also how does Duplet compare to
FY series.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Primus

iLION12345_1 said:


> The VT-4 design is just an evolution of the Al-Khalid/VT-1 design, which itself was an evolution of the Type 90II design, which was an evolution of the Type 85 design. You can see how they just build upon each other. The Al-Khalid-2, which is currently under development, will take a similar route, it will build upon the AK-1 design just like the VT-4 did.
> Unlike the 90s Pakistan now has the capability to design a tank on their own based on this platform. So they might make one more specifically suited to their requirements and needs, something that can’t be perfectly accomplished with an off the shelf product like a VT-4. It will however use technologies from the VT-4, as well as from Ukraine and Europe, though most of the systems Pakistan has the capability to make on its own.
> 
> Powerpacks are obviously not going to be local, ToT at most, Chinese or newer Ukrainian ones (I made a detailed comparison in the Al-Khalid thread of both). Both would give a massive mobility boost. The Chinese one makes better power but Ukrainian ones mean less redesigning and maybe better reliability. VT-4P has extremely impressive mobility, it’s engine in the AK-2 would be great, so would the Ukrainian 6TD-3.
> 
> The biggest upgrade to the Al-Khalid-2 would be a CITV, it’s an absolute must for it, otherwise I refuse to call it a good upgrade. Even if it’s a second generation thermal.
> 
> Another thing that can be improved drastically is the armor and ERA, protection is not the VT4s strongest point, it’s good, but not good like the Oplot M or the T90MS, especially on the sides. Both AK and VT4 have no added side protection. On that note an Active protection system (GL-5 or Ukrainian Zaslon) are also going to be a must for both VT-4 and AK-2 in the future.
> I believe Pakistan can make AK-2 much better Protected than VT-4 by using Ukrainian armor tech and ERA (Ukrainian Duplet ERA is some of the best in the world.) It would need a redesigned turret though.
> 
> BMS Software and C4I systems used in the AK can be improved, This is the strongest point of the VT-4. AK-2 absolutely needs a proper Laser warning receiver and detection suite like in the VT4, and maybe also camera suite like the VT-4. Auto-bore sight system is another good addition from the VT-4.
> 
> Ammo storage can also be improved, bustle or external storage with blast doors as adopted in the T90MS would be a big boost to survivability, but that isn’t absolutely necessary as the current storage is decently armored.
> 
> An RWS is also a possible addition, but wouldn’t be absolutely necessary considering the MG is already remote operated.
> 
> The FCS/GCS, Auto-loader, thermals, firepower, MRS and many other systems on the AK-1 are already very good and don’t need upgrades.
> Maybe they can go for local thermal sights this time. Pakistan has the capability to make those, it remains to be seen Wether they can match the ones from SAGEM, which are made locally too. But AK has third gen thermals already, which is as good as they get, so they’re not a necessary upgrade.


I thought the AK/AK1 had CITV.

That's how it has the hunter killer capability. Is it that false info then?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Bilal. said:


> Does VT4 have CITV. Also I was under the impression that Al Khalid had this right from the first model…. Same for laser warning receiver.
> 
> Also how does Duplet compare to
> FY series.


VT-4 has CITV.

AK has a panoramic sight for commander with Night vision but not thermal sight. It’s basically the next best thing to CITV. Commander does have access to Gunners thermal sight through his display though.
People look at the Panoramic sight and assume it has CITV because most tanks without CITV don’t have a panoramic sight for commander.
I believe early prototypes of AK were tested with CITV, since old articles mentioned but it, but it didn’t get them, maybe due to cost reasons. It should be the first upgrade on their list due to the massive advantage it gives to a tank, they can simply integrate it into the current panoramic sight.

Al-Khalid is supposed to have Laser warning receivers yes, the one made by ALTCOP. But I’ve never actually seen an Al-Khalid equipped with it. The only time I’ve seen LWRs on AK is when it had Shtora equipped or when it’s been in service with other countries like BD (VT-1A). It could be that they are removed during peacetime to preserve them as they might not have a way to cover the system otherwise, like the VT-4 does, but it’s strange that there’s not a single picture of Al-Khalid with it, at least not to my knowledge.

Duplet is much better than FY-4. FY-4 gives similar protection to later models of Kontakt-5 ERA, but is better in other metrics than K-5. However it’s not as good as Ukrainian Duplet or Russian Relikt and Malachit.
Duplet and Malachit are basically the best ERA anywhere in service currently, they’re a generation ahead of FY4. AK series uses AORAK, which seems to fit somewhere between Kontakt-5 and FY-4


Huffal said:


> I thought the AK/AK1 had CITV.
> 
> That's how it has the hunter killer capability. Is it that false info then?


They do not, it is not a condition for Hunter-Killer capability. The Commanders Panoramic sight is. Hunter-killer is basically the commander searching and marking targets independently while the gunner engages them. This is only possible if the commanders sight is independent, I.e does not move with the tanks turret, something that is present in AK. So AK is fully hunter-killer capable. 

CITV is important because it’s a massive boost to the commanders capabilities, he is the one finding targets, and a thermal sight makes it much much easier for him to spot targets than normal night vision. Without a thermal sight, the gunner can see the targets better than the commander, which at night time would mean the tanks Hunter-killer capabilities are somewhat limited.
Also In AK the commander can take over the turret or use the gunners thermals from his own screen or both, So he has access to thermals, they’re just not his own. His own sight is fully independent but lacks thermal.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bilal.

iLION12345_1 said:


> VT-4 has CITV.
> 
> AK has a panoramic sight for commander with Night vision but not thermal sight. It’s basically the next best thing to CITV. Commander does have access to Gunners thermal sight through his display though.
> People look at the Panoramic sight and assume it has CITV because most tanks without CITV don’t have a panoramic sight for commander.
> I believe early prototypes of AK were tested with CITV, since old articles mentioned but it, but it didn’t get them, maybe due to cost reasons. It should be the first upgrade on their list due to the massive advantage it gives to a tank, they can simply integrate it into the current panoramic sight.
> 
> Al-Khalid is supposed to have Laser warning receivers yes, the one made by ALTCOP. But I’ve never actually seen an Al-Khalid equipped with it. The only time I’ve seen LWRs on AK is when it had Shtora equipped or when it’s been in service with other countries like BD (VT-1A). It could be that they are removed during peacetime to preserve them as they might not have a way to cover the system otherwise, like the VT-4 does, but it’s strange that there’s not a single picture of Al-Khalid with it, at least not to my knowledge.
> 
> Duplet is much better than FY-4. FY-4 gives similar protection to later models of Kontakt-5 ERA, but is better in other metrics than K-5. However it’s not as good as Ukrainian Duplet or Russian Relikt and Malachit.
> Duplet and Malachit are basically the best ERA anywhere in service currently, they’re a generation ahead of FY4. AK series uses AORAK, which seems to fit somewhere between Kontakt-5 and FY-4
> 
> They do not, it is not a condition for Hunter-Killer capability. The Commanders Panoramic sight is. Hunter-killer is basically the commander searching and marking targets independently while the gunner engages them. This is only possible if the commanders sight is independent, I.e does not move with the tanks turret, something that is present in AK. So AK is fully hunter-killer capable.
> 
> CITV is important because it’s a massive boost to the commanders capabilities, he is the one finding targets, and a thermal sight makes it much much easier for him to spot targets than normal night vision. Without a thermal sight, the gunner can see the targets better than the commander, which at night time would mean the tanks Hunter-killer capabilities are somewhat limited.
> Also In AK the commander can take over the turret or use the gunners thermals from his own screen or both, So he has access to thermals, they’re just not his own. His own sight is fully independent but lacks thermal.


There is at least one pic:









Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool


Better to use ERA like Ukrainian Duplex. Pakistan has reportedly built ERA based on NOZH reactive armour. Nozh is effective against tandem warhead missiles and kinect rounds. Nozh is Ukrainian of origin, hence could get more advanced duplex. AK already uses indigenous Aorak MK.2 which is...



defence.pk





Courtesy @HRK

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Primus

iLION12345_1 said:


> VT-4 has CITV.
> 
> AK has a panoramic sight for commander with Night vision but not thermal sight. It’s basically the next best thing to CITV. Commander does have access to Gunners thermal sight through his display though.
> People look at the Panoramic sight and assume it has CITV because most tanks without CITV don’t have a panoramic sight for commander.
> I believe early prototypes of AK were tested with CITV, since old articles mentioned but it, but it didn’t get them, maybe due to cost reasons. It should be the first upgrade on their list due to the massive advantage it gives to a tank, they can simply integrate it into the current panoramic sight.
> 
> Al-Khalid is supposed to have Laser warning receivers yes, the one made by ALTCOP. But I’ve never actually seen an Al-Khalid equipped with it. The only time I’ve seen LWRs on AK is when it had Shtora equipped or when it’s been in service with other countries like BD (VT-1A). It could be that they are removed during peacetime to preserve them as they might not have a way to cover the system otherwise, like the VT-4 does, but it’s strange that there’s not a single picture of Al-Khalid with it, at least not to my knowledge.
> 
> Duplet is much better than FY-4. FY-4 gives similar protection to later models of Kontakt-5 ERA, but is better in other metrics than K-5. However it’s not as good as Ukrainian Duplet or Russian Relikt and Malachit.
> Duplet and Malachit are basically the best ERA anywhere in service currently, they’re a generation ahead of FY4. AK series uses AORAK, which seems to fit somewhere between Kontakt-5 and FY-4
> 
> They do not, it is not a condition for Hunter-Killer capability. The Commanders Panoramic sight is. Hunter-killer is basically the commander searching and marking targets independently while the gunner engages them. This is only possible if the commanders sight is independent, I.e does not move with the tanks turret, something that is present in AK. So AK is fully hunter-killer capable.
> 
> CITV is important because it’s a massive boost to the commanders capabilities, he is the one finding targets, and a thermal sight makes it much much easier for him to spot targets than normal night vision. Without a thermal sight, the gunner can see the targets better than the commander, which at night time would mean the tanks Hunter-killer capabilities are somewhat limited.
> Also In AK the commander can take over the turret or use the gunners thermals from his own screen or both, So he has access to thermals, they’re just not his own. His own sight is fully independent but lacks thermal.


Ah ok thanks dude O7

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Bilal. said:


> There is at least one pic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool
> 
> 
> Better to use ERA like Ukrainian Duplex. Pakistan has reportedly built ERA based on NOZH reactive armour. Nozh is effective against tandem warhead missiles and kinect rounds. Nozh is Ukrainian of origin, hence could get more advanced duplex. AK already uses indigenous Aorak MK.2 which is...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courtesy @HRK


I was the one who asked for those pictures in the first place, but those are not LWRs, if they are then they’re very strange ones. Firstly they’re blocked from the front when the commanders hatch is open. They’re not on all sides of the tank, rather at the rear corner, the least likely place the tank will get lased from, they’re also not big enough to be LWR sensors. And the convoy light hanging off it is a big no, that would really mess up with the receivers capabilities. Look at the LWRs on AK when it has Shtora equipped, or the ones on VT-4, that’s how big they are, and they need to be on all sides and unobstructed.






That round object could be an LWR, this is a Bangladeshi VT-1A. It’s positioning is still a little strange but it looks a lot more like a possible laser sensor. There are no pictures of AK with such a sensor.
Those two diamond shaped sensors, front and center. Those are LWRs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

I’m still confused to what that sensor at the back really is though. Its present on both Al-Khalid and Al-Zarrar and I’ve seen it in different lengths, sometimes it’s really tall and sometimes really short. Sometimes it seems to have multiple smaller sensors on it, sometimes one large one. I’ve not been able to figure it out. Maybe @Dazzler can help.

but here, check out the difference. It’s appeared as both tall and short on Al-Khalid, Al-Khalid-1, Al-Zarrar and the T80UD. When it’s tall then it’s possible it could be an LWR as it’s not blocked, but I don’t see the sensors on it.



















In this particular picture, there do seem to be tiny sensors on the mast, but they don’t seem to be LWR sensors.








And lastly, to stay on topic, one of the VT-4s advanced LWRs along with one of its cameras for 360 degree viewing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bilal.

iLION12345_1 said:


> I’m still confused to what that sensor at the back really is though. Its present on both Al-Khalid and Al-Zarrar and I’ve seen it in different lengths, sometimes it’s really tall and sometimes really short. Sometimes it seems to have multiple smaller sensors on it, sometimes one large one. I’ve not been able to figure it out. Maybe @Dazzler can help.
> 
> but here, check out the difference. It’s appeared as both tall and short on Al-Khalid, Al-Khalid-1, Al-Zarrar and the T80UD. When it’s tall then it’s possible it could be an LWR as it’s not blocked, but I don’t see the sensors on it.
> View attachment 759950
> View attachment 759951
> View attachment 759952
> View attachment 759953
> View attachment 759954
> View attachment 759955
> 
> In this particular picture, there do seem to be tiny sensors on the mast, but they don’t seem to be LWR sensors.
> View attachment 759956
> 
> View attachment 759957
> 
> And lastly, to stay on topic, one of the VT-4s advanced LWRs along with one of its cameras for 360 degree viewing.


Also what is this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Bilal. said:


> Also what is this?
> 
> View attachment 759958


Meteorological sensor, to feed weather information into the FCS of the tank for accurate shooting.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

iLION12345_1 said:


> VT-4 has CITV.
> 
> AK has a panoramic sight for commander with Night vision but not thermal sight. It’s basically the next best thing to CITV. Commander does have access to Gunners thermal sight through his display though.
> People look at the Panoramic sight and assume it has CITV because most tanks without CITV don’t have a panoramic sight for commander.
> I believe early prototypes of AK were tested with CITV, since old articles mentioned but it, but it didn’t get them, maybe due to cost reasons. It should be the first upgrade on their list due to the massive advantage it gives to a tank, they can simply integrate it into the current panoramic sight.
> 
> Al-Khalid is supposed to have Laser warning receivers yes, the one made by ALTCOP. But I’ve never actually seen an Al-Khalid equipped with it. The only time I’ve seen LWRs on AK is when it had Shtora equipped or when it’s been in service with other countries like BD (VT-1A). It could be that they are removed during peacetime to preserve them as they might not have a way to cover the system otherwise, like the VT-4 does, but it’s strange that there’s not a single picture of Al-Khalid with it, at least not to my knowledge.
> 
> Duplet is much better than FY-4. FY-4 gives similar protection to later models of Kontakt-5 ERA, but is better in other metrics than K-5. However it’s not as good as Ukrainian Duplet or Russian Relikt and Malachit.
> Duplet and Malachit are basically the best ERA anywhere in service currently, they’re a generation ahead of FY4. AK series uses AORAK, which seems to fit somewhere between Kontakt-5 and FY-4
> 
> They do not, it is not a condition for Hunter-Killer capability. The Commanders Panoramic sight is. Hunter-killer is basically the commander searching and marking targets independently while the gunner engages them. This is only possible if the commanders sight is independent, I.e does not move with the tanks turret, something that is present in AK. So AK is fully hunter-killer capable.
> 
> CITV is important because it’s a massive boost to the commanders capabilities, he is the one finding targets, and a thermal sight makes it much much easier for him to spot targets than normal night vision. Without a thermal sight, the gunner can see the targets better than the commander, which at night time would mean the tanks Hunter-killer capabilities are somewhat limited.
> Also In AK the commander can take over the turret or use the gunners thermals from his own screen or both, So he has access to thermals, they’re just not his own. His own sight is fully independent but lacks thermal.


Ak has a thermal sight even alzarrar has a thermal sight.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> Ak has a thermal sight even alzarrar has a thermal sight.


I am aware, but they are both for gunner. There are currently no tanks serving in the PA (apart from Type 69/59) without at least a second generation thermal sight (same can’t be said for our neighbor who until recently didn’t even have them on all of its T90S…).
In All these tanks, the Gunners thermals can be accessed by the commander as well through his display, but he cannot use them independently for target spotting.
In Al-Khalid the advantage is that the commander at least has his own independent panoramic sight with night vision, and a good one at that, But it doesn’t have thermals like on the VT-4.

We were discussing commanders independent thermals, which only Vt-4 has so far. But AK-2 will likely get.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Bilal. said:


> We now seem to be going for local manufacturing or towards a new tank based on VT4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The HIT: More than just tanks
> 
> 
> https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-hit-more-than-just-tanks/?fbclid=IwAR2zgidzzaA2Fzi7XkjPSY3H9_rpzmcWGora0AU8iH6C9sE-TB3Sq55-5PM The HIT: More than just tanks Journey of a Thousand Miles begins with one single step! Following the advice of philosopher Lao Tzu, Pakistan and China initiated...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk


No ToT given for VT4, AK2 will independent tank of VT4


----------



## Bilal.

Scorpiooo said:


> No ToT given for VT4, AK2 will independent tank of VT4


Tell that to chairman HIT.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> No ToT given for VT4, AK2 will independent tank of VT4


They will buy the tech they need directly from China. Like the engine and internal C4I stuff. Other than that there isn’t much to be added that Pakistan shouldn’t be able to make on its own. CITV, RWR, better ERA, RWS, even an auto-bore sight system could be locally made, though I suspect that last one will come from China if they do get it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

Recently had a conversation with some knowledgeable Chinese members on another platform about the FY-4 ERA present on our VT-4s.
Some photos have suggested that the performance of FY-4 is similar to later models of Kontakt 5 ERA used on T80UD and T90S.





Particularly this image on the right. This performance would make it decent but not anything new.

However according to them the performance claimed in this photo is for an older style of FY4 that had a thickness of 85MM, whereas the one used on Type 99A and VT-4P is thicker, 100MM and more in some areas.

Secondly, They said that the FY4 is tested Against modern ammunition, namely BTA-4 APFSDS, which more penetration, which makes the testing characteristics much stricter than that of K-5.

Lastly the performance quoted for it is “*No less than *30% reduction of penetration against APFSDS and *no less than *70% against HEAT. *As well as Protection against tandem warheads*”
Where as the K-5 claimed protection of *upto *30% against APFSDS and *upto* 70% against HEAT. The difference in usage of words can be substantial here. 
K-5 also does not provide any proper protection against tandem warheads, and it was tested against older ammo with less penetration.
All of This already means that the FY-4 provides substantially better protection than the Kontakt-5 ERA equipped on T90S and T80UD. Even more so if the numbers provided in the picture are for the thinner 85MM version.

Bottom line is, not much is getting through this armor. Now I hope this ERA (or if possible, even better Ukrainian ERA) is used on the Al-Khalid-2. Both of these tanks could also do with ERA or added protection on the sides, that, or give them both an APS, then these already well protected tanks will be basically Immune to most things our adversary can throw at them.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Penetrator of BTA-4 APFSDS.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> Recently had a conversation with some knowledgeable Chinese members on another platform about the FY-4 ERA present on our VT-4s.
> Some photos have suggested that the performance of FY-4 is similar to later models of Kontakt 5 ERA used on T80UD and T90S.
> View attachment 763281
> 
> Particularly this image on the right. This performance would make it decent but not anything new.
> 
> However according to them the performance claimed in this photo is for an older style of FY4 that had a thickness of 85MM, whereas the one used on Type 99A and VT-4P is thicker, 100MM and more in some areas.
> 
> Secondly, They said that the FY4 is tested Against modern ammunition, namely BTA-4 APFSDS, which more penetration, which makes the testing characteristics much stricter than that of K-5.
> 
> Lastly the performance quoted for it is “*No less than *30% reduction of penetration against APFSDS and *no less than *70% against HEAT. *As well as Protection against tandem warheads*”
> Where as the K-5 claimed protection of *upto *30% against APFSDS and *upto* 70% against HEAT. The difference in usage of words can be substantial here.
> K-5 also does not provide any proper protection against tandem warheads, and it was tested against older ammo with less penetration.
> All of This already means that the FY-4 provides substantially better protection than the Kontakt-5 ERA equipped on T90S and T80UD. Even more so if the numbers provided in the picture are for the thinner 85MM version.
> 
> Bottom line is, not much is getting through this armor. Now I hope this ERA (or if possible, even better Ukrainian ERA) is used on the Al-Khalid-2. Both of these tanks could also do with ERA or added protection on the sides, that, or give them both an APS, then these already well protected tanks will be basically Immune to most things our adversary can throw at them.



Duplet was being studied for improving local era. It will be on AK-1 for test purpose. 
Zaslon APS was also tested.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
4


----------



## DeusExAstra

Hello! For some time, I learn the question of the characteristics of the main battle tank VT4.

In particular, I now study the issue of transmission.

At the moment, I saw some statements that the transmission of VT4 MBT provides 2 or 3 reverse speeds (the exact values differ from notes to a note) and speed of reverse approximately 20-40 kilometers per hour. However, I did not meet any documentary evidence of this.

Some time ago, Monochromeelody suggested to me that the general scheme for CH1000 and CH1000B is 5 forward gears and 2 rear gears.


In turn, indirectly It's being confirmed by the old report of the CCTV, where it is possible to clearly see the AT shifter's R1 and R1





So, the first and the main question is the exact (or approximate) value of reverse.

I saw video from Testing in Pakistan (as far as I could understand) (



), however, on the moment when the VT4 starts moving back, the frame switches, so, is it possible to know at least the approximate value of the maximum speed of the reverse speed? 


And the second question is about that video with testing: the video was not accelerated? I mean, it's pretty fast turning both of hull and the turret.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> Hello! For some time, I learn the question of the characteristics of the main battle tank VT4.
> 
> In particular, I now study the issue of transmission.
> 
> At the moment, I saw some statements that the transmission of VT4 MBT provides 2 or 3 reverse speeds (the exact values differ from notes to a note) and speed of reverse approximately 20-40 kilometers per hour. However, I did not meet any documentary evidence of this.
> 
> Some time ago, Monochromeelody suggested to me that the general scheme for CH1000 and CH1000B is 5 forward gears and 2 rear gears.
> 
> 
> In turn, indirectly It's being confirmed by the old report of the CCTV, where it is possible to clearly see the AT shifter's R1 and R1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the first and the main question is the exact (or approximate) value of reverse.
> 
> I saw video from Testing in Pakistan (as far as I could understand) (
> 
> 
> 
> ), however, on the moment when the VT4 starts moving back, the frame switches, so, is it possible to know at least the approximate value of the maximum speed of the reverse speed?
> 
> 
> And the second question is about that video with testing: the video was not accelerated? I mean, it's pretty fast turning both of hull and the turret.


Hello, First of all, yes, the part where the tank and it’s turret are turning in the video is definitely accelerated, you can see that by how the dirt moves. The part where it is driving is not accelerated. 
However, VT-4 is still very mobile regardless, particularly in the case of Pakistan, due to upgraded 1500HP engine instead of 1200HP in the other models.

According to my knowledge the Reverse gears are indeed 2, as can be seen here; 




As for reverse speed, that I am unaware of, but I will try and find it for you, give me some time. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## DeusExAstra

iLION12345_1 said:


> Hello, First of all, yes, the part where the tank and it’s turret are turning in the video is definitely accelerated, you can see that by how the dirt moves. The part where it is driving is not accelerated.
> However, VT-4 is still very mobile regardless, particularly in the case of Pakistan, due to upgraded 1500HP engine instead of 1200HP in the other models.
> 
> According to my knowledge the Reverse gears are indeed 2, as can be seen here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for reverse speed, that I am unaware of, but I will try and find it for you, give me some time. Thank you.


Thank you a lot, if you manage to clarify, you will help me very much!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Another interesting fact. FY-4 can decrease the penetration of BTA-4 by 250MM. That’s down to 350MM from 600MM. Now imagine what it will do the much older and weaker BM42 rounds used by the adversary tanks…460 minus >250…you do the math. And that may not even be the newer version of FY4 as this picture is apparently pretty old 






DeusExAstra said:


> Thank you a lot, if you manage to clarify, you will help me very much!


I’m sorry, I checked around in numerous places but found little information about this sadly. 
From the few sources I generally ask for such facts, they say that they would assume the reverse speed to be between 20-30 Km/h, given the multiple reverse gears and emphasis on mobility in later Chinese tanks (VT-4 and Type 99A).

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## DeusExAstra

iLION12345_1 said:


> Another interesting fact. FY-4 can decrease the penetration of BTA-4 by 250MM. That’s down to 350MM from 600MM. Now imagine what it will do the much older and weaker BM42 rounds used by the adversary tanks…460 minus >250…you do the math. And that may not even be the newer version of FY4 as this picture is apparently pretty old
> View attachment 769000
> 
> 
> I’m sorry, I checked around in numerous places but found little information about this sadly.
> From the few sources I generally ask for such facts, they say that they would assume the reverse speed to be between 20-30 Km/h, given the multiple reverse gears and emphasis on mobility in later Chinese tanks (VT-4 and Type 99A).


Thank you! During my search I found some statements like 20-30kp/h.

The user from Sturgeonhouse and Weibo suggested to me that the technical description of the mechanical part of the CH1000, presented in this article is credible

http://club.xilu.com/junshi7766/msgview-975644-108930.html

The range itself jumped over some similar gear ratio, to make the gear selector compact.

So it's 5V2R.

Well, may be in the future we will get more information or even demonstration of 99A/VT4 reverse

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> Thank you! During my search I found some statements like 20-30kp/h.
> 
> The user from Sturgeonhouse and Weibo suggested to me that the technical description of the mechanical part of the CH1000, presented in this article is credible
> 
> http://club.xilu.com/junshi7766/msgview-975644-108930.html
> 
> The range itself jumped over some similar gear ratio, to make the gear selector compact.
> 
> So it's 5V2R.
> 
> Well, may be in the future we will get more information or even demonstration of 99A/VT4 reverse


If I hear something or get to drive a VT-4 I’ll be sure to tell you too. 
@PanzerKiel do you have any idea of the VT4s reverse speed, or are you not allowed to tell us?

I know that AK is rather quick in reverse due to its 4 reverse gears, 35+ KPH.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## DeusExAstra

Well, after some time of search it looks like I found a video with VT-4 reverse

At 11:55

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> If I hear something or get to drive a VT-4 I’ll be sure to tell you too.
> @PanzerKiel do you have any idea of the VT4s reverse speed, or are you not allowed to tell us?
> 
> I know that AK is rather quick in reverse due to its 4 reverse gears, 35+ KPH.


25km max.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DeusExAstra

Dazzler said:


> 25km max.


As far as I understand, Al Khalid has four reverse gears? Can the speed of its movement be reversed to be comparable to the BM Oplot? And to be about 31.3 kp/h?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> As far as I understand, Al Khalid has four reverse gears? Can the speed of its movement be reversed to be comparable to the BM Oplot? And to be about 31.3 kp/h?
> 
> View attachment 773203


Yes, Al-Khalid has the same power pack and transmission as the BM-Oplot, but Al-Khalid can reverse slightly faster than BM oplot as the oplot is heavier. I’ve personally seen it reverse at about 33KPH speed. So I will assume it’s max speed in reverse is somewhere around 33 KPH. Minor differences are expected given terrain and gradient as well as vehicle weight and load.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

iLION12345_1 said:


> So I will assume it’s max speed in reverse is somewhere around 33 KPH.


long time back I read somewhere that max reverse speed is 35 km/h

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

HRK said:


> long time back I read somewhere that max reverse speed is 35 km/h


Yep, must have been in the Al-Khalid information pool on this forum, I’ve read it too. It actually had the speeds for each individual gear but I’m not sure what their source for it is, it’s entirely possible it can be 35 too but I find it a little high because of two things;
1.The speed is usually limited due to the gear ratios and not the weight, weight can have some effect but not that much, if it’s maxing out around 31 for BM Oplot then 32-33 may be more realistic for AK. 
2. in this transmission, there is one dedicated reverse gear, and then the first three forward gears can be _*converted*_ to reverse gears when high speed reverse is needed, going by the top speeds of these forward gears, about 32KPH seems to be more realistic, but again, that was measured on a much heavier BM Oplot. 

Regardless, any sort of reverse speed above 20-25 KPH is decent, 32+ is extremely fast for reverse, only some of the best western tanks can match it, and up until the T14 (and some T90MS equipped with new transmissions) no Russian origins tank can match it as far as I know, in-fact this is one of the well known weaknesses of some of those tanks. Their extremely low reverse speeds (only 1 gear, or if two, then shorter ratios). Hence if they need to retreat to cover they will often have to turn the tank around and then run to cover instead of just reversing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DeusExAstra

iLION12345_1 said:


> and some T90MS equipped with new transmissions


In general, the issue of installing a new transmission on the T-90M is quite.....complicated, I suppose. According to my sources, all "new transmission" is completely about robotic gears shiftig (and that's questionable), so the speed of reverse of the T-90M remains the same



Spoiler: About reverse of T-90M




ПередачаЗ.Х (that means "reverse")IIIIIIIVVVIVIIВключаемые ФУФ3, Ф5...................................і БКП14.35...................................
V max (kp/h)


4.22...................................

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bananarepublic

Someone on this thread had mentioned that the Pakistan army wanted the locally made 125mm gun(ZPT-98?) on VT-4. 
If so, are the guns being manufactured in Pakistan then sent to China for installation or are they installed in Pakistan.


----------



## iLION12345_1

bananarepublic said:


> Someone on this thread had mentioned that the Pakistan army wanted the locally made 125mm gun(ZPT-98?) on VT-4.
> If so, are the guns being manufactured in Pakistan then sent to China for installation or are they installed in Pakistan.


ZPT-98 is the chinese 125MM the gun found on all chinese tanks except ZTZ-99A. it originally also equipped the VT-4. But Pakistan did not like the gun as it cannot be removed from the front due to being permanently joined to the Breech block. Instead Pakistan wanted to use its own guns on it, the ones also used in the Al-Khalid. They are a combination of the Ukrainian/Russian KBA-3/2A46-M and Chinese ZPT-98 designs, combining both their features.
During testing these barrels were present on our VT-4s. It is unclear Wether Pakistan is making these barrels (and perhaps even other parts for VT-4, As partial TOT was offered and will be used to put VT-4 tech on AK) or Wether these different barrels are being made and equipped on the tank in China. Regardless, the barrels are of the Pakistani design to allow them to be front removable.


DeusExAstra said:


> In general, the issue of installing a new transmission on the T-90M is quite.....complicated, I suppose. According to my sources, all "new transmission" is completely about robotic gears shiftig (and that's questionable), so the speed of reverse of the T-90M remains the same
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: About reverse of T-90M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ПередачаЗ.Х (that means "reverse")IIIIIIIVVVIVIIВключаемые ФУФ3, Ф5...................................і БКП14.35...................................
> V max (kp/h)4.22...................................


Yes I have been loosely following this news, there was a lot of ambiguity on its gearbox, i believe some are also saying it’s not automatic at all but semi-automatic, assisted by a “robotized” system. But did Russia make a new automatic transmission that is supposed to have higher speeds? but afaik it’s not present on production models so far.
excuse me if I may be wrong about any of this though, I have not followed Russian tank development recently. (I love how the T90M looks thought, very cool)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DeusExAstra

iLION12345_1 said:


> Yes I have been loosely following this news, there was a lot of ambiguity on its gearbox, i believe some are also saying it’s not automatic at all but semi-automatic, assisted by a “robotized” system. But did Russia make a new automatic transmission that is supposed to have higher speeds?


Unfortunately, I am not so aware of the domestic tanks))))) As far as I know, new transmissions could be made and installed up with new engines like A-series (like at one of Object 187 prototypes). So, I suppose, new revers is completely about T-14 and others, not about T-72's or T-90's modifications series even with B-92's engines

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

DeusExAstra said:


> As far as I understand, Al Khalid has four reverse gears? Can the speed of its movement be reversed to be comparable to the BM Oplot? And to be about 31.3 kp/h?
> 
> View attachment 773203



Both mbts use the same engine transmission. 7F4R

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abid123

Is it China's best tank? How does it compare to the Type 99A?


----------



## zhxy

Abid123 said:


> Is it China's best tank? How does it compare to the Type 99A?




1. Ergonomics: VT-4 is better than Type-99A.
2. Electronic system: VT-4 is more modern than Type-99A. I think if China updated Type99A, the two tanks would be similar, but the current system of the Type-99A are enough, they don't need to upgrade.
3. APS and automatic guns: VT-4 is equipped (if customers need and pay extra). Type-99A not equipped (Chinese tank doctrine)
4. Front armor: Type-99A has thicker front armor than VT-4
5. Armor-piercing bullets: Type-99A is designed for tank-to-tank combat so it is equipped with powerful armor-piercing bullets.
6. Speed and maneuverability: Type-99A has a stronger engine, but its weight is also large VT-4, so the speed and maneuverability of the two vehicles are not much different.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Abid123 said:


> Is it China's best tank? How does it compare to the Type 99A?





zhxy said:


> 1. Ergonomics: VT-4 is better than Type-99A.
> 2. Electronic system: VT-4 is more modern than Type-99A. I think if China updated Type99A, the two tanks would be similar, but the current system of the Type-99A are enough, they don't need to upgrade.
> 3. APS and automatic guns: VT-4 is equipped (if customers need and pay extra). Type-99A not equipped (Chinese tank doctrine)
> 4. Front armor: Type-99A has thicker front armor than VT-4
> 5. Armor-piercing bullets: Type-99A is designed for tank-to-tank combat so it is equipped with powerful armor-piercing bullets.
> 6. Speed and maneuverability: Type-99A has a stronger engine, but its weight is also large VT-4, so the speed and maneuverability of the two vehicles are not much different.


I agree with 1 and 2. Type 99A is due for an upgrade and it will be getting the electrical and C4I upgrades that VT-4P has. The regular VT-4 is comparable to 99A, but VT-4P is upgraded in this regard.

As for point 3, Type 99 and 99A all have APS, but 99A doesn’t have a hard kill APS like VT-4s Optional GL-5 APS (The normal 99 did). VT-4s Hard kill APS however would be superior to what the Type 99 has, and it’s true that Chinese tanks don’t use Remote weapon systems as per doctrine (makes little sense to be fair…)

I agree with point 4, 99A has thicker armor all around than VT-4, it’s a heavier and bigger tank, however VT-4P with its FY4 ERA and roof coverage does have better protection than standard VT-4P. Another major advantage in this regard is the design of the Type 99 and 99A, it’s basic design is much better than VT-4P in regards to lower front plate and frontal arc.

For Point 5, Yes, type 99A specifically gets new Chinese APFSDS which has better performance than BTA-4, this is also because it has a bigger gun that can Accommodate that round. VT-4P should easily be able to fire better ammunition too but given Pakistans adversary’s armor, it isn’t needed. BTA-4 is more than enough.

For point 6, 99A has a stronger engine than Basic VT-4, Pakistani VT-4P has the same 1500HP engine as Type 99A, hence is more maneuverable than 99A owing to its lighter weight (keep in mind 99A itself is very quick).

For an overall Comparison, I’d say Type 99A is much better than a basic VT-4 but just falls slightly short of a VT4P. but that’s only because the 99A itself is getting old, I’m sure the next iteration of it will add all the things it’s missing and owing to its size (increased armor) and larger gun it will again easily surpass the VT-4P.

That being said, they are both very good tanks for different purposes and doctrines, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, in their specific roles one is not better than the other.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## DeusExAstra

Abid123 said:


> Is it China's best tank? How does it compare to the Type 99A?


In my opionion, there're at least two advantages for ZTZ99A:
1) Better armor layout both in front of hull and of turret
2) Better APFSDS round (Phase III - DTC-10-125). It provides 680mm/2km with muzzle velocity of 1800 m/s andwith an estimated drop of speed per kilometer of about 3.1-3.5% (which means 1670-1690 m/s at 2 km). As far as I understand, it's about LOS thickness, so we may talk about approximately 250mm at 68,5 degrees, which means 340mm/60 degrees at 2km. I do not know how much these specs are credible, since, first of all, I don't know the specs of target, and, the second is, it could be used in standard autoloader (690mm full length of shell), meanwile even 3BM60 requires new widened autoloader


----------



## Dreamer.

iLION12345_1 said:


> Another major advantage in this regard is the design of the Type 99 and 99A, it’s basic design is much better than VT-4P in regards to lower front plate and frontal arc.


Why doesn't PA go for a tank with this type of design then? All our AlKhalids and now VT-4 have similar design. Why not go for a better design, especially when it shouldn't be too difficult also?


P.S. Is VT-4P an official designation or just a PDF one?


----------



## Beast

Dreamer. said:


> Why doesn't PA go for a tank with this type of design then? All our AlKhalids and now VT-4 have similar design. Why not go for a better design, especially when it shouldn't be too difficult also?
> 
> 
> P.S. Is VT-4P an official designation or just a PDF one?


Becos Type99A are not allow to be exported.


----------



## Foinikas

It's a beautiful tank. And I think it was much needed in the Pakistan Army,to bolster the Armored forces. Until Al Khalid II comes out in full production,you could buy one more model tank type either from the Chinese or maybe...well I guess Americans aren't selling anything to you when it comes to that,but what about masses of CV-90s?


----------



## Phantom.

Foinikas said:


> It's a beautiful tank. And I think it was much needed in the Pakistan Army,to bolster the Armored forces. Until Al Khalid II comes out in full production,you could buy one more model tank type either from the Chinese or maybe...well I guess Americans aren't selling anything to you when it comes to that,but what about masses of CV-90s?


There is no need for a new tank type why get different types it puts a logistical strain current tanks in PA all share components to some extent except Vt-4 . The Tank fleet in the future will probably be made up of VT-4 and AK.If PA wanted a IFV similar to Cv-90 then it would require large amounts of money to get them in large numbers.In small numbers they dont fit into the doctrine of PA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dreamer. said:


> Why doesn't PA go for a tank with this type of design then? All our AlKhalids and now VT-4 have similar design. Why not go for a better design, especially when it shouldn't be too difficult also?
> 
> 
> P.S. Is VT-4P an official designation or just a PDF one?


Type 99 series isn’t offered for export, that being said, the Type 99 isn’t as good of a design as others out there either, for example Russian frontal arc design is superior to 99 series, especially the turret design, Type 99 itself adopts the lower front plate design of the T72 and T90 to improve on the older one as in Al-Khalid, VT-4 and 96 series.

PA could totally go for a better design too, but the thing is, design is one aspect, all the other things about VT4P add up to make it the better option, not to mention the extreme ease of logistics and delivery it gives us. 
Lastly, PA needs to consider the adversary when buying anything, Indian armored core still uses T90S from early 2000s with BM42 (1980s ammo) as their best tank, and they have no plans to modernize or buy a new tank for the time Being, so PA doesn’t need the best in the world, they just need something that’s a big enough advantage, and VT-4P is certainly that over the T90S (even the Al-Khalid-1 and even the basic Al-Khalid surpasses T90S in many aspects Except basic protection levels).

VT-4P is not an official designation AFAIK. I just use it to highlight how different it is from the normal one, PA would just call it VT-4 because it’s the only version they have.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Keysersoze

iLION12345_1 said:


> Type 99 series isn’t offered for export, that being said, the Type 99 isn’t as good of a design as others out there either, for example Russian frontal arc design is superior to 99 series, especially the turret design, Type 99 itself adopts the lower front plate design of the T72 and T90 to improve on the older one as in Al-Khalid, VT-4 and 96 series.
> 
> PA could totally go for a better design too, but the thing is, design is one aspect, all the other things about VT4P add up to make it the better option, not to mention the extreme ease of logistics and delivery it gives us.
> Lastly, PA needs to consider the adversary when buying anything, Indian armored core still uses T90S from early 2000s with BM42 (1980s ammo) as their best tank, and they have no plans to modernize or buy a new tank for the time Being, so PA doesn’t need the best in the world, they just need something that’s a big enough advantage, and VT-4P is certainly that over the T90S (even the Al-Khalid-1 and even the basic Al-Khalid surpasses T90S in many aspects Except basic protection levels).
> 
> VT-4P is not an official designation AFAIK. I just use it to highlight how different it is from the normal one, PA would just call it VT-4 because it’s the only version they have.


There are a number of issues that I have with the design of the tanks that PA have. Whilst you make some good points I feel that Survivability is key in any future conflict with the neighbours. The issues with the frontal arc protection and the autoloader protection for the T-80's for example are big issues when you consider that offensive action will be a necessity along certain fronts. The BM42 isn't the greatest round but the enemy has a lot of them and there might be a lot coming from different directions.
In this day and age a Commanders HK system coupled with good visibility for as many of the crew as possible is equally as important.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PakFactor

Keysersoze said:


> There are a number of issues that I have with the design of the tanks that PA have. Whilst you make some good points I feel that Survivability is key in any future conflict with the neighbours. The issues with the frontal arc protection and the autoloader protection for the T-80's for example are big issues when you consider that offensive action will be a necessity along certain fronts. The BM42 isn't the greatest round but the enemy has a lot of them and there might be a lot coming from different directions.
> In this day and age a Commanders HK system coupled with good visibility for as many of the crew as possible is equally as important.



I will be blunt PA armor force doesn’t have a good high-low ratio in armor and survivability. I personally don’t see it surviving beyond a few engagements.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Keysersoze said:


> There are a number of issues that I have with the design of the tanks that PA have. Whilst you make some good points I feel that Survivability is key in any future conflict with the neighbours. The issues with the frontal arc protection and the autoloader protection for the T-80's for example are big issues when you consider that offensive action will be a necessity along certain fronts. The BM42 isn't the greatest round but the enemy has a lot of them and there might be a lot coming from different directions.
> In this day and age a Commanders HK system coupled with good visibility for as many of the crew as possible is equally as important.





PakFactor said:


> I will be blunt PA armor force doesn’t have a good high-low ratio in armor and survivability. I personally don’t see it surviving beyond a few engagements.



I don’t disagree with you nor did I say PAs armored core doesn’t have issues, if you’ve noticed I only talk about the technological aspects of the tanks available on both sides, not the tactical or use-case ones, I leave that to those who are better qualified. At the current stage without Proper Air or SAM cover (old helicopters and no SRSAM systems), Any armored assault will be facing a very hard time, regardless of what tank we are using. Similarly india has the number advantage, they have nearly 3100 tanks and we have 2800, however of this 2800 nearly 500 are absolutely obsolete so I would not count them (type 59 and 69, though they should be entirely replaced with VT4s in a few years). But keep in mind they have two other borders to contend with too.
The PA is in the process of addressing all three of these issues as we can see. The sooner they do it, the better.

However for the specific issues you mentioned, Those issues are present over on the enemy side more than ours.

1. Apart from the T90S (1/3rd of Indias fleet), no tank can even hope to stop a standard APFSDS round fired from _any_ Pakistani tank (as they all use the same rounds apart from VT-4, which uses even better ones). Regardless of the frontal arc or not, T72 and Arjun are hopelessly under-protected (which is also the case with our Al-Zarrars. Though if it is Equipped with ERA and keeping in mind the fact that the Indian army only uses BM42 on 2/3rds of its tanks, the rest use even weaker BM-17, maybe even the AZ can stop some rounds, that being said, the biggest threat to tanks aren’t tanks, it’s ATGMs and other smaller infantry weapons).

2. T90 and T72 have the very same auto-loader protection issue as T80UD, however we have 320 UDs, their entire fleet is T90 and T72, more russian auto-loaders than us, but then both fleets almost exclusively use tanks with auto-loaders, so I don’t see that one going either way. The only frontal arc advantage here rests with the T90S, as the T72s base armor is too weak.

3. A majority of tank combat takes place head on, from the front, basically no tank can stop any AP rounds in its sides or rear, not even the best ones. Would require too much armor and weight (note how the side is flat and the front is sloped, you’d need double the thickness on the sides to achieve the same armor).
That being said, With both BM-42 and BM-17, Indian armor could not even scratch Pakistani armor apart from AZ and _maybe_ Type-85UG if they don’t use ERA on it.
Meanwhile Pakistani armor (any of it, even a type 59) could punch through a T72 or an Arjun from the front, the T90S would be a harder nut to crack (We do have newer ammo like BTA-4 to help with that) but on that topic and To cover your next point:

4. PAs tanks are _*much*_ better equipped in the visibility (sights and spotting) department than Indian ones.
Firstly All PA tanks have Thermal sights (excluding the type 59 and 69, both of which absolutely need to be replaced, something PA is actively doing), OTOH, Half the Indian T72 fleet doesn’t have them.
No Indian tanks have CITV or Commanders independent sights (AK, AK-1, VT-4P have them), this means the gunner will be doing double duty, spotting and engaging targets, and none of their tanks have Hunter-killer modes.
On top of that all Indian tanks still use second generation thermals with considerably less range than The 3rd generation thermals employed in the better half of PAs fleet (UG, UD and AZ still use second Gen thermals, but with considerably better ammo and comparable FCS systems to the Indian 90S tanks).
This along with the fact that PA is moving on to next gen 32-bit FCS systems and has IBMS systems available in its tanks (something india only added recently and only to T90) means that in a purely tank on tank scenario, 8/10 times, PA tanks will be getting the first shot off. And that’s usually the winning point in a tank engagement.

But again, all this is purely technological/stat related. Just because PA has better tanks doesn’t mean our issues are over, as you, I and others have pointed out.
Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, one arm cannot do well unless every other arm is doing so as well, until PA addresses the issues with its other arms, the armored core won’t function to its fullest either.



PA has a long-term and very complicated Core modernization plan in place, in which they will modernize basically every core of the army. We can already see progress on this plan, it covers more than just new equipment but also training and infrastructure;

They started with aviation (T-129 and AH-1Z), but that hit a snag, so they moved on to the armored core (VT-4P, AK-1 and 2), similarly they are already testing weaponry for the other cores to induct them when the time comes (Towed and SP arty for artillery core, SR and LR SAMS for AD core, new APCs for mechanized infantry, Z-10ME and heavy gunships for aviation, everything has been tested or even picked, the list goes on). Similarly we saw them build new infrastructure for AD core and armored core.

but given our economical state, we cannot do it at an ideal pace, we do it one at a time, once the armored core is done, then another will start, and so on. PA is as well aware of its issues as anyone else, their modernization pace was both quickened and hampered by the 15 years of war on terror. While training and basic equipment standards increased two-fold, the advanced equipment that wasn’t needed in the war remained neglected, either due to necessity or a simple shortage of funds, and we are noticing that right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
2 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## alimobin memon

iLION12345_1 said:


> I agree with 1 and 2. Type 99A is due for an upgrade and it will be getting the electrical and C4I upgrades that VT-4P has. The regular VT-4 is comparable to 99A, but VT-4P is upgraded in this regard.
> 
> As for point 3, Type 99 and 99A all have APS, but 99A doesn’t have a hard kill APS like VT-4s Optional GL-5 APS (The normal 99 did). VT-4s Hard kill APS however would be superior to what the Type 99 has, and it’s true that Chinese tanks don’t use Remote weapon systems as per doctrine (makes little sense to be fair…)
> 
> I agree with point 4, 99A has thicker armor all around than VT-4, it’s a heavier and bigger tank, however VT-4P with its FY4 ERA and roof coverage does have better protection than standard VT-4P. Another major advantage in this regard is the design of the Type 99 and 99A, it’s basic design is much better than VT-4P in regards to lower front plate and frontal arc.
> 
> For Point 5, Yes, type 99A specifically gets new Chinese APFSDS which has better performance than BTA-4, this is also because it has a bigger gun that can Accommodate that round. VT-4P should easily be able to fire better ammunition too but given *Pakistans adversary’s armor*, it isn’t needed. BTA-4 is more than enough.
> 
> For point 6, 99A has a stronger engine than Basic VT-4, Pakistani VT-4P has the same 1500HP engine as Type 99A, hence is more maneuverable than 99A owing to its lighter weight (keep in mind 99A itself is very quick).
> 
> For an overall Comparison, I’d say Type 99A is much better than a basic VT-4 but just falls slightly short of a VT4P. but that’s only because the 99A itself is getting old, I’m sure the next iteration of it will add all the things it’s missing and owing to its size (increased armor) and larger gun it will again easily surpass the VT-4P.
> 
> That being said, they are both very good tanks for different purposes and doctrines, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, in their specific roles one is not better than the other.



In real war no one knows if enemy something in surprise, Pakistan should have better anti tank ammunition atleast 650 to 680 mm at 2km is must.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

alimobin memon said:


> In real war no one knows if enemy something in surprise, Pakistan should have better anti tank ammunition atleast 650 to 680 mm at 2km is must.


BTA-4 is already operational On VT-4 and can be fired from AK-1

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Scorpiooo

When AK2 will out actually, then we can be sure about PA actual intentions for future tank fleet


----------



## Shabi1

Saw VT4s 2-3 weeks back being transported on trucks. They really are very beautiful tanks, look really sleek.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> When AK2 will out actually, then we can be sure about PA actual intentions for future tank fleet


After AK-1 deliveries are finished.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zhxy

iLION12345_1 said:


> Type 99 series isn’t offered for export, that being said, the Type 99 isn’t as good of a design as others out there either, for example Russian frontal arc design is superior to 99 series, especially the turret design, Type 99 itself adopts the lower front plate design of the T72 and T90 to improve on the older one as in Al-Khalid, VT-4 and 96 series.



Type-99 and Type-99A are very effective against enemy tanks in flat terrain. The design of Type-99 and Type-99A has some weaknesses, China knows that well, but that is not a problem for China. Their doctrine for 99 and 99A (use this tank only in northern terrain, do not bring it into urban warfare...) and related technologies (anti-uav weapons, short-range air defense ...) helps Type-99 and Type-99A avoid threats from anti-tank mines, ATGMs, helicopters and uavs. The only problem that Type-99 and 99A need to worry about is enemy tanks.

Regarding China's refusal to export the Type-99A, my view is that China does not want to disclose information regarding front armor and armor-piercing ammunition. That would take away the advantage of the Type-99 and 99a2 in anti-tank battles.

Of course 99a2's front armor is very thick but its disadvantage is that it makes 99a2 heavier and the front armor is not black technology, it can withstand direct attacks from T-72, T-90, 2A7, Leclerc... but it is very difficult to survive if the enemy tank is equipped with the latest 130mm Rheinmetall.


----------



## iLION12345_1

zhxy said:


> Type-99 and Type-99A are very effective against enemy tanks in flat terrain. The design of Type-99 and Type-99A has some weaknesses, China knows that well, but that is not a problem for China. Their doctrine for 99 and 99A (use this tank only in northern terrain, do not bring it into urban warfare...) and related technologies (anti-uav weapons, short-range air defense ...) helps Type-99 and Type-99A avoid threats from anti-tank mines, ATGMs, helicopters and uavs. The only problem that Type-99 and 99A need to worry about is enemy tanks.
> 
> Regarding China's refusal to export the Type-99A, my view is that China does not want to disclose information regarding front armor and armor-piercing ammunition. That would take away the advantage of the Type-99 and 99a2 in anti-tank battles.
> 
> Of course 99a2's front armor is very thick but its disadvantage is that it makes 99a2 heavier and the front armor is not black technology, it can withstand direct attacks from T-72, T-90, 2A7, Leclerc... but it is very difficult to survive if the enemy tank is equipped with the latest 130mm Rheinmetall.


Firstly, There is no such thing as Type 99A2. Only Type 99 and Type 99A.

Secondly, neither have anything special about them that would make them suited for flat terrain, they are surely good tanks for flat or any other terrain, but I don’t see any specific decisions made that have anything to do with flat terrain.

It Is true that none of the Chinese, and by extension Pakistani and Indian tanks, are suited for urban warfare. That’s because all three countries do not expect them to be used in urban areas, that is not unique to China. Western tanks were originally designed with the same principles in mind, Urban-warfare kits came later.

Infantry and air-support is a bigger threat to tanks than tanks, tanks support infantry, infantry supports tanks, air cover supports both, both support air cover. Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, the shortcomings of any piece of equipment are made up by doctrine, as I’m sure China is aware.

Your reasons for China not wanting to export Type 99 make sense, though to be clear from what is known, it’s armor and Ammo, While good, are nothing revolutionary or special, they simply make separate vehicles for export and that’s about all the reason they need to not sell it.

99As front armor good, but still not the best compared to Modern Russians tanks, and its frontal arc, both turret and hull, is still poor (which means it’s basic design is poor). The only thing they fixed in it over older Chinese tanks and VT4, was to make the lower front plate smaller. It also has a serious lack of armor on the side. The same is true for the VT-4.

Type 99 has an active protection system, but its Active protection system is also at a disadvantage compared to the trophy and Other hard kill systems employed by western and Russian tanks (even the Chinese GL-5 hard kill active protection system present in the VT-4 is likely superior to what the Type 99 uses). But we have to keep in mind 99A itself is old now, it will likely see an upgrade soon that will add missing technology to it, they may even add the Better APS.

While it can likely survive most APFSDS rounds frontally when it’s ERA is intact, Modern T90 models as well as other modern Western tanks can also survive its ammo. Though the same may not be true for T72 and older T90S that india uses.

China has yet to showcase a larger gun or more advanced ammo comparable to what Germany, US and Russia are fielding in their latest tanks. (T-14 Armata, Leo with 130MM gun and abrams with its new DU ammo). Some sources claim The Chinese 125-III APFSDS (only used in Type 99A) is comparable to modern western ammo, but given its size and other sources giving lower penetration figures for it, this remains doubtful.

All that being said, the only tanks China will be facing are Indian T90S and T72M, which are really not even comparable to Type 99A, China realizes this and just puts the money elsewhere. Their tank fleet is more than capable to take on anything india has at the moment. Plus, knowing China, I’m sure when the time comes and the need is present, they will upgrade their tanks massively. Right now they are focusing more on their navy and Air Force as they need that more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CombatSurgeon

iLION12345_1 said:


> I don’t disagree with you nor did I say PAs armored core doesn’t have issues, if you’ve noticed I only talk about the technological aspects of the tanks available on both sides, not the tactical or use-case ones, I leave that to those who are better qualified. At the current stage without Proper Air or SAM cover (old helicopters and no SRSAM systems), Any armored assault will be facing a very hard time, regardless of what tank we are using. Similarly india has the number advantage, they have nearly 3100 tanks and we have 2800, however of this 2800 nearly 500 are absolutely obsolete so I would not count them (type 59 and 69, though they should be entirely replaced with VT4s in a few years). But keep in mind they have two other borders to contend with too.
> The PA is in the process of addressing all three of these issues as we can see. The sooner they do it, the better.
> 
> However for the specific issues you mentioned, Those issues are present over on the enemy side more than ours.
> 
> 1. Apart from the T90S (1/3rd of Indias fleet), no tank can even hope to stop a standard APFSDS round fired from _any_ Pakistani tank (as they all use the same rounds apart from VT-4, which uses even better ones). Regardless of the frontal arc or not, T72 and Arjun are hopelessly under-protected (which is also the case with our Al-Zarrars. Though if it is Equipped with ERA and keeping in mind the fact that the Indian army only uses BM42 on 2/3rds of its tanks, the rest use even weaker BM-17, maybe even the AZ can stop some rounds, that being said, the biggest threat to tanks aren’t tanks, it’s ATGMs and other smaller infantry weapons).
> 
> 2. T90 and T72 have the very same auto-loader protection issue as T80UD, however we have 320 UDs, their entire fleet is T90 and T72, more russian auto-loaders than us, but then both fleets almost exclusively use tanks with auto-loaders, so I don’t see that one going either way. The only frontal arc advantage here rests with the T90S, as the T72s base armor is too weak.
> 
> 3. A majority of tank combat takes place head on, from the front, basically no tank can stop any AP rounds in its sides or rear, not even the best ones. Would require too much armor and weight (note how the side is flat and the front is sloped, you’d need double the thickness on the sides to achieve the same armor).
> That being said, With both BM-42 and BM-17, Indian armor could not even scratch Pakistani armor apart from AZ and _maybe_ Type-85UG if they don’t use ERA on it.
> Meanwhile Pakistani armor (any of it, even a type 59) could punch through a T72 or an Arjun from the front, the T90S would be a harder nut to crack (We do have newer ammo like BTA-4 to help with that) but on that topic and To cover your next point:
> 
> 4. PAs tanks are _*much*_ better equipped in the visibility (sights and spotting) department than Indian ones.
> Firstly All PA tanks have Thermal sights (excluding the type 59 and 69, both of which absolutely need to be replaced, something PA is actively doing), OTOH, Half the Indian T72 fleet doesn’t have them.
> No Indian tanks have CITV or Commanders independent sights (AK, AK-1, VT-4P have them), this means the gunner will be doing double duty, spotting and engaging targets, and none of their tanks have Hunter-killer modes.
> On top of that all Indian tanks still use second generation thermals with considerably less range than The 3rd generation thermals employed in the better half of PAs fleet (UG, UD and AZ still use second Gen thermals, but with considerably better ammo and comparable FCS systems to the Indian 90S tanks).
> This along with the fact that PA is moving on to next gen 32-bit FCS systems and has IBMS systems available in its tanks (something india only added recently and only to T90) means that in a purely tank on tank scenario, 8/10 times, PA tanks will be getting the first shot off. And that’s usually the winning point in a tank engagement.
> 
> But again, all this is purely technological/stat related. Just because PA has better tanks doesn’t mean our issues are over, as you, I and others have pointed out.
> Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, one arm cannot do well unless every other arm is doing so as well, until PA addresses the issues with its other arms, the armored core won’t function to its fullest either.
> 
> 
> 
> PA has a long-term and very complicated Core modernization plan in place, in which they will modernize basically every core of the army. We can already see progress on this plan, it covers more than just new equipment but also training and infrastructure;
> 
> They started with aviation (T-129 and AH-1Z), but that hit a snag, so they moved on to the armored core (VT-4P, AK-1 and 2), similarly they are already testing weaponry for the other cores to induct them when the time comes (Towed and SP arty for artillery core, SR and LR SAMS for AD core, new APCs for mechanized infantry, Z-10ME and heavy gunships for aviation, everything has been tested or even picked, the list goes on). Similarly we saw them build new infrastructure for AD core and armored core.
> 
> but given our economical state, we cannot do it at an ideal pace, we do it one at a time, once the armored core is done, then another will start, and so on. PA is as well aware of its issues as anyone else, their modernization pace was both quickened and hampered by the 15 years of war on terror. While training and basic equipment standards increased two-fold, the advanced equipment that wasn’t needed in the war remained neglected, either due to necessity or a simple shortage of funds, and we are noticing that right now.


 Sorry, no offence but I feel depressed when people commenting on defense matters use core instead of corps!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## SQ8

iLION12345_1 said:


> I don’t disagree with you nor did I say PAs armored core doesn’t have issues, if you’ve noticed I only talk about the technological aspects of the tanks available on both sides, not the tactical or use-case ones, I leave that to those who are better qualified. At the current stage without Proper Air or SAM cover (old helicopters and no SRSAM systems), Any armored assault will be facing a very hard time, regardless of what tank we are using. Similarly india has the number advantage, they have nearly 3100 tanks and we have 2800, however of this 2800 nearly 500 are absolutely obsolete so I would not count them (type 59 and 69, though they should be entirely replaced with VT4s in a few years). But keep in mind they have two other borders to contend with too.
> The PA is in the process of addressing all three of these issues as we can see. The sooner they do it, the better.
> 
> However for the specific issues you mentioned, Those issues are present over on the enemy side more than ours.
> 
> 1. Apart from the T90S (1/3rd of Indias fleet), no tank can even hope to stop a standard APFSDS round fired from _any_ Pakistani tank (as they all use the same rounds apart from VT-4, which uses even better ones). Regardless of the frontal arc or not, T72 and Arjun are hopelessly under-protected (which is also the case with our Al-Zarrars. Though if it is Equipped with ERA and keeping in mind the fact that the Indian army only uses BM42 on 2/3rds of its tanks, the rest use even weaker BM-17, maybe even the AZ can stop some rounds, that being said, the biggest threat to tanks aren’t tanks, it’s ATGMs and other smaller infantry weapons).
> 
> 2. T90 and T72 have the very same auto-loader protection issue as T80UD, however we have 320 UDs, their entire fleet is T90 and T72, more russian auto-loaders than us, but then both fleets almost exclusively use tanks with auto-loaders, so I don’t see that one going either way. The only frontal arc advantage here rests with the T90S, as the T72s base armor is too weak.
> 
> 3. A majority of tank combat takes place head on, from the front, basically no tank can stop any AP rounds in its sides or rear, not even the best ones. Would require too much armor and weight (note how the side is flat and the front is sloped, you’d need double the thickness on the sides to achieve the same armor).
> That being said, With both BM-42 and BM-17, Indian armor could not even scratch Pakistani armor apart from AZ and _maybe_ Type-85UG if they don’t use ERA on it.
> Meanwhile Pakistani armor (any of it, even a type 59) could punch through a T72 or an Arjun from the front, the T90S would be a harder nut to crack (We do have newer ammo like BTA-4 to help with that) but on that topic and To cover your next point:
> 
> 4. PAs tanks are _*much*_ better equipped in the visibility (sights and spotting) department than Indian ones.
> Firstly All PA tanks have Thermal sights (excluding the type 59 and 69, both of which absolutely need to be replaced, something PA is actively doing), OTOH, Half the Indian T72 fleet doesn’t have them.
> No Indian tanks have CITV or Commanders independent sights (AK, AK-1, VT-4P have them), this means the gunner will be doing double duty, spotting and engaging targets, and none of their tanks have Hunter-killer modes.
> On top of that all Indian tanks still use second generation thermals with considerably less range than The 3rd generation thermals employed in the better half of PAs fleet (UG, UD and AZ still use second Gen thermals, but with considerably better ammo and comparable FCS systems to the Indian 90S tanks).
> This along with the fact that PA is moving on to next gen 32-bit FCS systems and has IBMS systems available in its tanks (something india only added recently and only to T90) means that in a purely tank on tank scenario, 8/10 times, PA tanks will be getting the first shot off. And that’s usually the winning point in a tank engagement.
> 
> But again, all this is purely technological/stat related. Just because PA has better tanks doesn’t mean our issues are over, as you, I and others have pointed out.
> Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, one arm cannot do well unless every other arm is doing so as well, until PA addresses the issues with its other arms, the armored core won’t function to its fullest either.
> 
> 
> 
> PA has a long-term and very complicated Core modernization plan in place, in which they will modernize basically every core of the army. We can already see progress on this plan, it covers more than just new equipment but also training and infrastructure;
> 
> They started with aviation (T-129 and AH-1Z), but that hit a snag, so they moved on to the armored core (VT-4P, AK-1 and 2), similarly they are already testing weaponry for the other cores to induct them when the time comes (Towed and SP arty for artillery core, SR and LR SAMS for AD core, new APCs for mechanized infantry, Z-10ME and heavy gunships for aviation, everything has been tested or even picked, the list goes on). Similarly we saw them build new infrastructure for AD core and armored core.
> 
> but given our economical state, we cannot do it at an ideal pace, we do it one at a time, once the armored core is done, then another will start, and so on. PA is as well aware of its issues as anyone else, their modernization pace was both quickened and hampered by the 15 years of war on terror. While training and basic equipment standards increased two-fold, the advanced equipment that wasn’t needed in the war remained neglected, either due to necessity or a simple shortage of funds, and we are noticing that right now.


The real aspect is interoperability. I cannot emphasize this more and the more the prc-9661 is deployed to vehicles and integrated with IBMS the more this will happen.

Time spent syncing different manufacturer systems on datalinks even if using the same protocol is not something considered by most. Situational awareness is probably more important than armor and penetration in this respect because the Indian defense and flanking line of ATGMs is going to make life hell (and vice versa) for any armor advance.

The tank troop commander that sees and knows where his enemy is first will win 9/10 times versus the one with a bigger gun or thicker armor.

If they have a UAV overhead monitoring tanks and marking enemy ambush positions they will avoid them and have better tactics available.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## iLION12345_1

CombatSurgeon said:


> Sorry, no offence but I feel depressed when people commenting on defense matters use core instead of corps!


Yep yep, bad habit of mine, i misspell it despite knowing the correct one, thank you 🥲

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## vishwambhar

iLION12345_1 said:


> I don’t disagree with you nor did I say PAs armored core doesn’t have issues, if you’ve noticed I only talk about the technological aspects of the tanks available on both sides, not the tactical or use-case ones, I leave that to those who are better qualified. At the current stage without Proper Air or SAM cover (old helicopters and no SRSAM systems), Any armored assault will be facing a very hard time, regardless of what tank we are using. Similarly india has the number advantage, they have nearly 3100 tanks and we have 2800, however of this 2800 nearly 500 are absolutely obsolete so I would not count them (type 59 and 69, though they should be entirely replaced with VT4s in a few years). But keep in mind they have two other borders to contend with too.
> The PA is in the process of addressing all three of these issues as we can see. The sooner they do it, the better.
> 
> However for the specific issues you mentioned, Those issues are present over on the enemy side more than ours.
> 
> 1. Apart from the T90S (1/3rd of Indias fleet), no tank can even hope to stop a standard APFSDS round fired from _any_ Pakistani tank (as they all use the same rounds apart from VT-4, which uses even better ones). Regardless of the frontal arc or not, T72 and Arjun are hopelessly under-protected (which is also the case with our Al-Zarrars. Though if it is Equipped with ERA and keeping in mind the fact that the Indian army only uses BM42 on 2/3rds of its tanks, the rest use even weaker BM-17, maybe even the AZ can stop some rounds, that being said, the biggest threat to tanks aren’t tanks, it’s ATGMs and other smaller infantry weapons).
> 
> 2. T90 and T72 have the very same auto-loader protection issue as T80UD, however we have 320 UDs, their entire fleet is T90 and T72, more russian auto-loaders than us, but then both fleets almost exclusively use tanks with auto-loaders, so I don’t see that one going either way. The only frontal arc advantage here rests with the T90S, as the T72s base armor is too weak.
> 
> 3. A majority of tank combat takes place head on, from the front, basically no tank can stop any AP rounds in its sides or rear, not even the best ones. Would require too much armor and weight (note how the side is flat and the front is sloped, you’d need double the thickness on the sides to achieve the same armor).
> That being said, With both BM-42 and BM-17, Indian armor could not even scratch Pakistani armor apart from AZ and _maybe_ Type-85UG if they don’t use ERA on it.
> Meanwhile Pakistani armor (any of it, even a type 59) could punch through a T72 or an Arjun from the front, the T90S would be a harder nut to crack (We do have newer ammo like BTA-4 to help with that) but on that topic and To cover your next point:
> 
> 4. PAs tanks are _*much*_ better equipped in the visibility (sights and spotting) department than Indian ones.
> Firstly All PA tanks have Thermal sights (excluding the type 59 and 69, both of which absolutely need to be replaced, something PA is actively doing), OTOH, Half the Indian T72 fleet doesn’t have them.
> No Indian tanks have CITV or Commanders independent sights (AK, AK-1, VT-4P have them), this means the gunner will be doing double duty, spotting and engaging targets, and none of their tanks have Hunter-killer modes.
> On top of that all Indian tanks still use second generation thermals with considerably less range than The 3rd generation thermals employed in the better half of PAs fleet (UG, UD and AZ still use second Gen thermals, but with considerably better ammo and comparable FCS systems to the Indian 90S tanks).
> This along with the fact that PA is moving on to next gen 32-bit FCS systems and has IBMS systems available in its tanks (something india only added recently and only to T90) means that in a purely tank on tank scenario, 8/10 times, PA tanks will be getting the first shot off. And that’s usually the winning point in a tank engagement.
> 
> But again, all this is purely technological/stat related. Just because PA has better tanks doesn’t mean our issues are over, as you, I and others have pointed out.
> Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, one arm cannot do well unless every other arm is doing so as well, until PA addresses the issues with its other arms, the armored core won’t function to its fullest either.
> 
> 
> 
> PA has a long-term and very complicated Core modernization plan in place, in which they will modernize basically every core of the army. We can already see progress on this plan, it covers more than just new equipment but also training and infrastructure;
> 
> They started with aviation (T-129 and AH-1Z), but that hit a snag, so they moved on to the armored core (VT-4P, AK-1 and 2), similarly they are already testing weaponry for the other cores to induct them when the time comes (Towed and SP arty for artillery core, SR and LR SAMS for AD core, new APCs for mechanized infantry, Z-10ME and heavy gunships for aviation, everything has been tested or even picked, the list goes on). Similarly we saw them build new infrastructure for AD core and armored core.
> 
> but given our economical state, we cannot do it at an ideal pace, we do it one at a time, once the armored core is done, then another will start, and so on. PA is as well aware of its issues as anyone else, their modernization pace was both quickened and hampered by the 15 years of war on terror. While training and basic equipment standards increased two-fold, the advanced equipment that wasn’t needed in the war remained neglected, either due to necessity or a simple shortage of funds, and we are noticing that right now.



Hi brother.... Is it possible to answer superior tank force with the help of artillery who can allow our tanks to complete the task by keeping opposition tank force busy with heavy firing..... Artillery like M777 can it stop technically superior tank force??

I'm not talking about India vs Pakistan but overall scenerio if you have slightly inferior tanks compared to enemy.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

vishwambhar said:


> Hi brother.... Is it possible to answer superior tank force with the help of artillery who can allow our tanks to complete the task by keeping opposition tank force busy with heavy firing..... Artillery like M777 can it stop technically superior tank force??
> 
> I'm not talking about India vs Pakistan but overall scenerio if you have slightly inferior tanks compared to enemy.....


This was done in 65 by General Tikka khan which according to Indian military authors made them think there was some new weapon on the Pakistani side when all he was doing was managing artillery barrages effectively on advancing Indian tanks. If I am not mistaken the K-9 Vajra has the ability to fire guided munitions and use offset timing(forget the artillery term for it) that lets them hit a target at the same time.
Its a pretty effective system to scatter, damage and confuse an armoured offensive.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

vishwambhar said:


> Hi brother.... Is it possible to answer superior tank force with the help of artillery who can allow our tanks to complete the task by keeping opposition tank force busy with heavy firing..... Artillery like M777 can it stop technically superior tank force??
> 
> I'm not talking about India vs Pakistan but overall scenerio if you have slightly inferior tanks compared to enemy.....


It is totally possible, Besides that, there are other ways to stop a tank offensive without better tanks (or any tanks for that matter) as well. Natural barriers, Infantry with AT weapons, Air support, artillery (think rocket artillery too) etc can all be deadly for a tank offensive if they have better planning (or if the attacking force has a flaw in theirs, Wether due to equipment or tactics). SQ8 gave one good example. PA and IAs differing doctrines on artillery will surely play a part in how their tank fleets function too. IA has a stronger emphasis on Towed artillery, while PA has a stronger emphasis on SP artillery.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

vishwambhar said:


> Hi brother.... Is it possible to answer superior tank force with the help of artillery who can allow our tanks to complete the task by keeping opposition tank force busy with heavy firing..... Artillery like M777 can it stop technically superior tank force??
> 
> I'm not talking about India vs Pakistan but overall scenerio if you have slightly inferior tanks compared to enemy.....


IV corps arty bde of PA in 65, whoose actions were commended by friend and foe alike. Through out the theatre it kept the Indians under check.
For instance the brave stand of the 8 Garhwals at Butur Dograndi a against the attack by elements of pakistani 24th bde(which included a troop of25th Cav and two companies of 3FF). This attack was halted by the defenders but then the 3FF pulled out and allowed the IV corps arty bde to open up with its 84 guns and put an end to the stand. And now answering your question; Lt Gen BM Kual writes that an armoured regt was supposed to support the Garhwals but *it was stopped en route due to artillery fire.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

According to the British defense analysts Turkey has shown tanks are now redundant....

The British forces first used the tanks in WW1....


----------



## Blacklight

SQ8 said:


> This was done in 65 by General Tikka khan which according to Indian military authors made them think there was some new weapon on the Pakistani side when all he was doing was managing artillery barrages effectively on advancing Indian tanks. If I am not mistaken the K-9 Vajra has the *ability to fire guided munitions and use offset timing(forget the artillery term for it) that lets them hit a target at the same time*.
> Its a pretty effective system to scatter, damage and confuse an armoured offensive.



Offset timing = Fuze delay?

Moving ground targets can be neutralized with Laser guided shells


----------



## Primus

Hakikat ve Hikmet said:


> According to the British defense analysts Turkey has shown tanks are now redundant....
> 
> The British forces first used the tanks in WW1....


They are counters to everything. 

Drone forces havent become to much of a threat to make tanks redundant. Remember, they are still yet to be used against a country who has a proper air force. Once it obliterates that country then i will say we have entered a new agw


----------



## Bilal.

Blacklight said:


> Offset timing = Fuze delay?


MRSI. Different trajectories for same time and point of arrival of rounds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vishwambhar

@SQ8 , @iLION12345_1 and @Desert Fox 1 Bros...
Thanks for the replies.....it's a great addition to my knowledge.....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

Blacklight said:


> Offset timing = Fuze delay?
> 
> Moving ground targets can be neutralized with Laser guided shells


That’s something that @PanzerKiel was alluding to in terms of CAS effectiveness. Given more extended ranges - ballistic projectiles are infinitely more effective in providing support with little the enemy can do to prevent them(Iron dome is currently the only true anti-artillery system out there). Guided projectiles from a highly mobile artillery system is more cost effective than any CAS in my limited view.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Raja Porus

SQ8 said:


> That’s something that @PanzerKiel was alluding to in terms of CAS effectiveness. Given more extended ranges - ballistic projectiles are infinitely more effective in providing support with little the enemy can do to prevent them(Iron dome is currently the only true anti-artillery system out there). Guided projectiles from a highly mobile artillery system is more cost effective than any CAS in my limited view.


Plus arty is always available on hand to the defending infantry, providing 24/7 fire support and ready to deliver within minutes (or even less than that if the guns have already been zeroed) of the enemy being sighted; unlike CAS which can't stay in the air for that long, is maintenance heavy, takes time to reach the objectives and is limited to the bases due to flight time. Moreover each of our infantry bde atleast has one field regt to support it always (since a div has 3 fld regts). Now if we are able to bring all of our arty to one calibre (which we are probably trying to do) which is capable of firing guiding munitions, it will be a great boost.
Unfortunately, defensive is again getting the upper hand and the chances of offensive being blunted are getting more probable due to modern C4I, satellites, Intel, longer ranges and accuracy of weapons

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

1st reg up and ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
6


----------



## Muhammad Saftain Anjum

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Unfortunately, defensive is again getting the upper hand and the chances of offensive being blunted are getting more probable


Pakistan army will fight a defensive war i guess.
So it should be fortunate for us that nowadays defensive side has upper hand.No?


----------



## PakFactor

Muhammad Saftain Anjum said:


> Pakistan army will fight a defensive war i guess.
> So it should be fortunate for us that nowadays defensive side has upper hand.No?



Defensive side doesn't have an upper hand as the attrition alone would deplete your forces, blunting any chance of an offensive. Your best offense is your best defense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

Muhammad Saftain Anjum said:


> Pakistan army will fight a defensive war i guess.
> So it should be fortunate for us that nowadays defensive side has upper hand.No?





PakFactor said:


> Defensive side doesn't have an upper hand as the attrition alone would deplete your forces, blunting any chance of an offensive. Your best offense is your best defense.


Quoting one of my posts;


Desert Fox 1 said:


> Sir, I respectfully disagree. Our doctrine is of Offensive-defensive. There are many factors which lead to such a doctrine, first is our numerical inferiority to fight a battle of attrition, secondly international pressure will force both sides to end hostilities within at most two weeks and thirdly both countries have had more than 50 years to study and work on their defence thus very few avenues of approach are left (Which both sides will try to exploit).
> Also it would be unfair to say that we are not ready to cross the border,infact we might be tge first ones to do so because of the nearness of our strike formations to the border as well as shorter mobilization time of PA as compared to IA. All of our regional commands have strike assets which are as follows
> -Northern command has 34 light infantry Division and will also be supported by 1×inf div from 11 corps, Peshawar.
> -Central command has the 1 strike corps(Army reserve north), Mangla with 6th armoured div, 17 and 37 infantry div( and may as well 19 inf div)
> - Southern command has II corps(Army reserve South) with 1st armd div and 14 inf div. While V corps Karachi also has 25 mech div.
> Another point to note here is that Pakistan army raised a whole new formation i.e 30th corps, Gujranwala so as to relieve 1 corps of any defensive ops. This 31 corps will be responsible for overall defence of Gujranwala salient so that 1 corps will be purely and solely responsible for offensive into the Indian Territory.
> Similarly 26 mechanised div has been raised in Bahawalpur with 31 corps so that II corps won't have to commit its 1st armd div in central/southern punjab for def ops and instead any armoured thrust will be met by 25 mech div, 40(presumably mech inf) div and 35 inf div. It may also be supported by 1×inf div from 11 corps.
> So we have dedicated assets responsible for offense inside India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Saftain Anjum

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Quoting one of my posts;


Oh sorry, I missed that post so wrong conclusion

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Muhammad Saftain Anjum said:


> Pakistan army will fight a defensive war i guess.
> So it should be fortunate for us that nowadays defensive side has upper hand.No?



our strategy has always been "offensive-defense".


Dazzler said:


> 1st reg up and ready.


1st reg was up and ready when it was announced and presented in front of the media. it was bobbys reg. hence the glee on his face, as can be seen in the footage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Great Janjua

iLION12345_1 said:


> It is possible, Besides that, there are other ways to stop a tank offensive without better tanks (or any tanks for that matter) as well. Natural barriers, Infantry with AT weapons, Air support, artillery (think rocket artillery too) etc can all be deadly for a tank offensive if they have better planning (or if the attacking force has a flaw in theirs, whether due to equipment or tactics). SQ8 gave one good example. PA and IAs differing doctrines on artillery will surely play a part in how their tank fleets function too. IA has a stronger emphasis on Towed artillery, while PA has a stronger emphasis on SP artillery.


IA is now betting heavily on loitering munition plus attack helicopters they have studied Karabakh conflict very closely, have taken the adequate bits and applied them to their current doctrine. They are harmonizing fast. besides do not neglect their LAT and HAT battalions which are getting beyond the line of sight ATGMs in great quantity. The *will* to rectify is pivotal.

Lethality of weapons has increased in our eastern neighbour's arsenal. Even though our doctrine is of a defensive manner we still are using outdated ATGMs, this should not be the case for a country whose stance is of utmost self-defence.


A broader view is needed in armed forces we should not be shy of learning lessons from other conflicts.

Yes, we have improved upon few areas.
• Tanks
• UAV'S
• Attack helicopters

Sadly, large gaps still subsist in our defensive chain are they related to money or outright ignorance that is another matter. Our main goal should be the Improvement of Interoperability between army air corp and battlefield armour. This requires, asset to asset network-centric protocol. Air space and ground domain need to be in sync for an efficient fighting machine. This also mandates the right equipment for the job.

India is certainly on the right track. They know for winning a war in such, momenta, requires ace thinking, it all boils down to network-centric weapon lethality that is why (NLOS) ATGMs, loitering munition, attack helicopters, and UAV'S are being given tremendous amount of attention.

Our headache has just increased.


Hakikat ve Hikmet said:


> According to the British defence analysts, Turkey has shown tanks are now redundant...
> 
> The British forces first used the tanks in WW1...


I wouldn't say redundant but rather they are being outmatched by advancement in other technological assets.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Raja Porus

Reichmarshal said:


> . it was bobbys reg.


AFAIK the tanks were given to another regt. Please correct me if wrong.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Waiting

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Quoting one of my posts;


They used this term in the movie “ The Fifth Offensive” as well

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

Desert Fox 1 said:


> AFAIK the tanks were given to another regt. Please correct me if wrong.


The no. Of tanks recieved uptill now r enough to raise at least more than a couple of regts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

COAS today visited Gujranwala and viewed the performance of VT4 tanks. Waiting for ISPR release.( It means VT4s main destination will still be 6th armd div/ Sialkot)

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

Reichmarshal said:


> The no. Of tanks recieved uptill now r enough to raise at least more than a couple of regts.


The unit has moved.


----------



## PakFactor

Desert Fox 1 said:


> COAS today visited Gujranwala and viewed the performance of VT4 tanks. Waiting for ISPR release.( It means VT4s main destination will still be 6th amrd div)



My hometown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proud 2 Be a Pakistani

*VT4 Induction in Strike Formation Today*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakFactor

Desert Fox 1 said:


> The unit has moved.





Proud 2 Be a Pakistani said:


> *VT4 Induction in Strike Formation Today*



Looking at the video I thought we'd be going with the box style camo design as below not this old school style. Wasn't their a study done showing the below is more effective:


----------



## iLION12345_1

PakFactor said:


> Looking at the video I thought we'd be going with the box style camo design as below not this old school style. Wasn't their a study done showing the below is more effective:
> 
> View attachment 784288


The camo changes depending on the region, VT-4s are currently serving in 2/3 different camos (and maybe we will see a 4th once they’re deployed in other terrains).

Digital and Non-digital camo isn’t as big of a difference as people think Either. Whatever is best suited for the terrain is used.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Raja Porus

Proud 2 Be a Pakistani said:


> *VT4 Induction in Strike Formation Today*


It is not a new induction as from the regimental standard it can be guessed that the regt is 47Cav which was the one which appeared on 23rd March parade

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakFactor

Desert Fox 1 said:


> It is not a new induction as from the regimental standard it can be guessed that the regt is 47Cav which was the one which appeared on 23rd March parade
> View attachment 784306



@iLION12345_1 

The above picture shows a similar color configuration as to what we have in the video but with digital camo.
The other thing their was another thread that showed the paint concealing heat signature. Does that paint from HIT apply to digital and non-digital camo?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> It is not a new induction as from the regimental standard it can be guessed that the regt is 47Cav which was the one which appeared on 23rd March parade
> View attachment 784306


Look closer. Particularly at the turret side and the smoke discharges. The tanks are different 
The one at the parade was from the first batches, the later ones have an improved turret among other things.


PakFactor said:


> @iLION12345_1
> 
> The above picture shows a similar color configuration as to what we have in the video but with digital camo.
> The other thing their was another thread that showed the paint concealing heat signature. Does that paint from HIT apply to digital and non-digital camo?


The paint applies to everything. Camo has no effect on it. Apart from the one in the parade (which looks glossy) all of them look Matte. Regardless of the camo. That’s one of the indicators that all of them using the Anti-Thermal Paint. (as a similar trend is seen with Al-Khalids’ using that paint).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ghazi52

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447953525351329803

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ghazi52



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rvats

Great Janjua said:


> They are harmonizing fast. besides do not neglect their LAT and HAT battalions which are getting beyond the line of sight ATGMs in great quantity.



Unlike the Pakistan Army, the Indian Army does not have dedicated HAT or LAT battalions. Earlier, there used to be some dedicated ATGM battalions, but all of them are now mechanized infantry. ATGMs are held by the infantry battalions. With Milan-2T (tandem warhead), and Konkur-M being the stable ATGMs. Spike-ER has entered service in_ relatively_ limited numbers. Over next 2-years, expect to see induction of homegrown 3rd Gen Fire-&-Forget, man-portable ATGM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

rvats said:


> Unlike the Pakistan Army, the Indian Army does not have dedicated HAT or LAT battalions. Earlier, there used to be some dedicated ATGM battalions, but all of them are now mechanized infantry. ATGMs are held by the infantry battalions. With Milan-2T (tandem warhead), and Konkur-M being the stable ATGMs. Spike-ER has entered service in_ relatively_ limited numbers. Over next 2-years, expect to see induction of homegrown 3rd Gen Fire-&-Forget, man-portable ATGM.


Their Guards battalions are fully equivalent to our HAT units while their R&S units are equivalent to our LAT units.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## rvats

PanzerKiel said:


> Their Guards battalions are fully equivalent to our HAT units while their R&S units are equivalent to our LAT units.



(1) Mechanized Infantry in the Indian Army comes from two regiments - The Mechanized Infantry Regiment (MIR), and the Brigade of the Guards Regiment. These are all equipped with BMP-2 IFVs.

(2) R&S Battalions, or Recce & Support Battalions are specialized battalions for the role as their name says. These are again of two types - R&S (Wheeled), and R&S (Tracked). Both MIR and The Brigade of The Guards Regiment have few R&S battalions each.

- Apart from all RAPIDs. few infantry divisions also have R&S battalions.
- Tracked R&S are equipped with BMP-2, while Wheeled R&S are equipped with Jeeps, and earlier, BRDM-2 as well.
- But there's more to them than simply AT role. They comes equipped with varied surveillance equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

rvats said:


> (1) Mechanized Infantry in the Indian Army comes from two regiments - The Mechanized Infantry Regiment (MIR), and the Brigade of the Guards Regiment. These are all equipped with BMP-2 IFVs.
> 
> (2) R&S Battalions, or Recce & Support Battalions are specialized battalions for the role as their name says. These are again of two types - R&S (Wheeled), and R&S (Tracked). Both MIR and The Brigade of The Guards Regiment have few R&S battalions each.
> 
> - Apart from all RAPIDs. few infantry divisions also have R&S battalions.
> - Tracked R&S are equipped with BMP-2, while Wheeled R&S are equipped with Jeeps, and earlier, BRDM-2 as well.
> - But there's more to them than simply AT role. They comes equipped with varied surveillance equipment.


Units belonging to brigade of guards are numbered like 19 guards battalion etc.... They are more than half a dozen such units providing heavy anti tank support to armored divisions, RAPIDS and selected infantry divisions in good tank terrain. 

R&S units mostly form part of defensive RAPIDS and selected infantry divisions in good tank terrain for providing anti tank and recce support over large frontage. 

All of the IFVs can be equipped with ATGMs.... We can imagine their firepower, with 52 BMPS to each guards unit.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## sparten

PanzerKiel said:


> Their Guards battalions are fully equivalent to our HAT units while their R&S units are equivalent to our LAT units.


I thought our LAT had been disbanded and we now only have the erstwhile MAT and HAT, basically ATGM units.

Reactions: Sad Sad:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

sparten said:


> I thought our LAT had been disbanded and we now only have the erstwhile MAT and HAT, basically ATGM units.


LAT and HAT both are now based on M113 platforms equipped with BSWS and mostly TOW 2As.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Great Janjua

PanzerKiel said:


> LAT and HAT both are now based on M113 platforms equipped with BSWS and mostly TOW 2As.


Wouldn't it be better to upgrade HAT m113 to IFVs with 27 or 30mm turret systems encompassing ATGMs? BMP terminator type turret system.

LAT should be based upon land rover or Hilux platforms.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## rvats

PanzerKiel said:


> Units belonging to brigade of guards are numbered like 19 guards battalion etc.... They are more than half a dozen such units providing heavy anti tank support to armored divisions, RAPIDS and selected infantry divisions in good tank terrain.
> 
> R&S units mostly form part of defensive RAPIDS and selected infantry divisions in good tank terrain for providing anti tank and recce support over large frontage.
> 
> All of the IFVs can be equipped with ATGMs.... We can imagine their firepower, with 52 BMPS to each guards unit.



Let me try this again - 

1. We've 25+ Infantry Regiments. Of these, only two i.e. The Brigade of the Guards, and The Mechanized Infantry Regiment, are mechanized, and equipped with BMP-2s.

2. This is unlike your army where battalions across different infantry regiments are mechanized.

3. There is no difference between equipment profile of MIR and Brigade of Guards (BOG).

4. The mechanized infantry component of all armored divisions, (I) Armored Brigades, (I) Mechanized Brigades, and RAPIDs, comes from both MIR, and BOG.

5. Few battalions from MIR and BOG are equipped for R&S role.

6. And while all BMP-2 can fire Konkur-M missiles, which gives them AT capability, we don't classify these battalions as ATGM battalions. 

7. IA actually had certain battalions within BOG marked as ATGM battalions which provided ATGM detachment as per requirement. Some of these detachments fought in Kargil War as well.

8. But, we no longer have dedicated ATGM battalions. All of them are mechanized now.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Myth_buster_1

PakFactor said:


> Looking at the video I thought we'd be going with the box style camo design as below not this old school style. Wasn't their a study done showing the below is more effective:
> 
> View attachment 784288



Unfortunately we still have patwaris in airforce army and navy who have the crapiest paint schemes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

rvats said:


> Let me try this again -
> 
> 1. We've 25+ Infantry Regiments. Of these, only two i.e. The Brigade of the Guards, and The Mechanized Infantry Regiment, are mechanized, and equipped with BMP-2s.
> 
> 2. This is unlike your army where battalions across different infantry regiments are mechanized.
> 
> 3. There is no difference between equipment profile of MIR and Brigade of Guards (BOG).
> 
> 4. The mechanized infantry component of all armored divisions, (I) Armored Brigades, (I) Mechanized Brigades, and RAPIDs, comes from both MIR, and BOG.
> 
> 5. Few battalions from MIR and BOG are equipped for R&S role.
> 
> 6. And while all BMP-2 can fire Konkur-M missiles, which gives them AT capability, we don't classify these battalions as ATGM battalions.
> 
> 7. IA actually had certain battalions within BOG marked as ATGM battalions which provided ATGM detachment as per requirement. Some of these detachments fought in Kargil War as well.
> 
> 8. But, we no longer have dedicated ATGM battalions. All of them are mechanized now.


We might be saying the same things.

1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3.Agreed. However, due to their different roles (MIR and ATGM) their tasks and employment pattern is different. Thats my point.
4.Agreed.
5. Battalions in R&S role have 24 BMPs and 28 wheeled BRDMs. Thats the main different with other MIRs / BOGs units which have normally 52 BMPs.
6.Agreed.
7.Main difference between ATGM and BOG units is the level of mechanization. ATGM units fought in Kargil because they are not mechanized.
8.Dedication ATGM units (MILAN) are there, plus mechanized ATGM units are there in the form of BOG units which are dedicated to specific Corps.

Such examples (ATGM) of BOG units are 5, 15, 17 and 19, to name a few. I can tell you their today's location as well....you can visit them to see their equipment and role.
Interestingly, in R&S units, normally they are from MIR, like 17, 19 and 23 MIRs (naming a few)...but even here, there is a BOG unit (12 Guards) which is also R&S. Its there in Jaisalmer, try visiting it if possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Myth_buster_1 said:


> Unfortunately we still have patwaris in airforce army and navy who have the crapiest paint schemes.


…That’s not how camo schemes work. Just because it looks cool or is digital camo doesn’t mean it’s superior. I suggest leaving the camo designs to the people who know what they’re doing. The tanks are painted like that for a reason. There’s also a reason there’s 4 different camos for the VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2


----------



## rvats

PanzerKiel said:


> <SNIP>
> 8.Dedication ATGM units (MILAN) are there, plus mechanized ATGM units are there in the form of BOG units which are dedicated to specific Corps.
> 
> Such examples (ATGM) of BOG units are 5, 15, 17 and 19, to name a few. I can tell you their today's location as well....you can visit them to see their equipment and role.
> 
> Interestingly, in R&S units, normally they are from MIR, like 17, 19 and 23 MIRs (naming a few)...but even here, there is a BOG unit (12 Guards) which is also R&S. Its there in Jaisalmer, try visiting it if possible



8. Let me repeat again, we don't have dedicated ATGM units. Each infantry unit in plains uses a mix of Milan-2/2T and Konkur-M and packs a pretty powerful ATGM punch.

- 17 Bn, BOG is a R&S (Tracked) Unit.
- 19 Bn, BOG is a R&S (Wheeled) Unit.
- 19 Bn, MIR is also R&S (Tracked)
- 23 Bn, MIR is R&S (Tracked)

* And it is no surprise that Jaisalmer has a R&S Battalion; the armored bde of a RAPID is based there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Semi-automatic loading process in VT-4 (similar system present in Al-Khalid, T90, T80, T72 and likely also ZTZ-96 and 99). Used as a backup in case auto-loader has a fault. Shown in detail here by a Thai tanker.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Super Falcon

VT 4. Tank would be used mostly in sialkot lahore sectors

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## ghazi52



Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## TsAr

Super Falcon said:


> VT 4. Tank would be used mostly in sialkot lahore sectors


how did you come to this conclusion.

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

In future india is buying armata can these vt 4 counter armata
For me vt 4.has weaker protection system

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## waz

Super Falcon said:


> In future india is buying armata can these vt 4 counter armata
> For me vt 4.has weaker protection system



Can we keep that talk off this thread please? The Indians don't have it, nor have they requested for it. Even if they do then Pakistan will have its next project probably with the Turks.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Thorough Pro

People think Camo schemes are to look cool in pics, camo schemes are based on the area of operation and the kind of cover/natural habitat or geographic outlay to achieve low observability.




iLION12345_1 said:


> …That’s not how camo schemes work. Just because it looks cool or is digital camo doesn’t mean it’s superior. I suggest leaving the camo designs to the people who know what they’re doing. The tanks are painted like that for a reason. There’s also a reason there’s 4 different camos for the VT-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

waz said:


> Can we keep that talk off this thread please? The Indians don't have it, nor have they requested for it. Even if they do then Pakistan will have its next project probably with the Turks.


Indians will have it there are negotiations going on 

Turk tank is good but reliability in asian conditions is questionable


----------



## maverick1977

india should field Arjun to counter VT4 ..😜


----------



## waz

Super Falcon said:


> Indians will have it there are negotiations going on
> 
> Turk tank is good but reliability in asian conditions is questionable



Well bro let them talk they don’t have it or signed for it, heck the Russian forces don’t have it in even limited numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

TsAr said:


> how did you come to this conclusion.


He means INITIALLY. The formation (6th amrd div) which is being equipped with these, will operate in this region and the tanks(AZs) which they are replacing have been mostly deployed in this region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

waz said:


> Well bro let them talk they don’t have it or signed for it, heck the Russian forces don’t have it in even limited numbers.


Bro tank is already in full fledge production

Russia will provide india infastructure for armaya production as T 90 tank infastructure provided to india


----------



## Raja Porus

Oplot in Pakistan (old).

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
1 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## TsAr

Super Falcon said:


> Bro tank is already in full fledge production
> 
> Russia will provide india infastructure for armaya production as T 90 tank infastructure provided to india


I don't know where you are getting your stats from......At the moment state tests are still pending, 100 units are slated to be delivered to Taman division by 2022 and you are providing infrastructure to India....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Super Falcon said:


> Bro tank is already in full fledge production
> 
> Russia will provide india infastructure for armaya production as T 90 tank infastructure provided to india


T-14 has had numerous production delays and issues, the last deadline was again delayed recently. It’s not the only thing Russia is having production issues with either, as for the tank going to India? Not before 2030, even the Indians won’t buy something that is that unfinished.

Also, just to let you know, india doesn’t produce T90S tanks entirely, it produces some of their parts and assembles them. They don’t have full ToT, they still rely on Russia for some very major parts of the tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dreamer.

iLION12345_1 said:


> Also, just to let you know, india doesn’t produce T90S tanks entirely, it produces some of their parts and assembles them. They don’t have full ToT, they still rely on Russia for some very major parts of the tank.


You mean like pakistan produces Alkhalid (and JF-17) ? One shouldn't belittle the enemy. They are ahead of us in everything military production related. We are making efforts too but we really need to work a lot harder.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Dreamer. said:


> You mean like pakistan produces Alkhalid (and JF-17) ? One shouldn't belittle the enemy. They are ahead of us in everything military production related. We are making efforts too but we really need to work a lot harder.




Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahajajaajahahahajajaajhahahahaha

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## SQ8

iLION12345_1 said:


> T-14 has had numerous production delays and issues, the last deadline was again delayed recently. It’s not the only thing Russia is having production issues with either, as for the tank going to India? Not before 2030, even the Indians won’t buy something that is that unfinished.
> 
> Also, just to let you know, india doesn’t produce T90S tanks entirely, it produces some of their parts and assembles them. They don’t have full ToT, they still rely on Russia for some very major parts of the tank.


India has had its hands burnt with the Su-54E already and is preferring to focus on local projects. They have evaluated the Leo2 as well but their infrastructure will require a lot of update to bring it into manufacturing it locally. There is also some hesitation on their part to completely abandon the Arjun - it is not far fetched to see a Leo esque Arjun Mk.3 come out.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PakFactor

SQ8 said:


> India has had its hands burnt with the Su-54E already and is preferring to focus on local projects. They have evaluated the Leo2 as well but their infrastructure will require a lot of update to bring it into manufacturing it locally. There is also some hesitation on their part to completely abandon the Arjun - it is not far fetched to see a Leo esque Arjun Mk.3 come out.



LEO's from Germany?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

PakFactor said:


> LEO's from Germany?


Yup - Arjun already is a cousin so might just be better to go back to the original genome

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dreamer. said:


> You mean like pakistan produces Alkhalid (and JF-17) ? One shouldn't belittle the enemy. They are ahead of us in everything military production related. We are making efforts too but we really need to work a lot harder.


When did I say we make 100% of the JF17 or Al Khalid by ourselves though? It’s not nice to put words into peoples mouths.

I know the Indian defense industry is ahead of ours, but funnily enough that actually isn’t true for a lot of their ground-related defense industries, Pakistan has managed to innovate a lot with the Al-Khalid series; local FCS, GCS, auto-loader, ammo, guns, armor (the list goes on). India cannot make these things for either the Arjun or the T90S, so maybe you need to stop belittling the Pakistani industry all the time too?

Despite their mistakes, Credit where it is due to HIT, the Al-Khalid is a genuinely impressive program which would have seen us probably developing a tank comparable, if not better, to the VT4 (in the form of the Al Khalid 2) if the war on terror hadn’t taken away funding. Add on top of that all the projects they had planned in the form of MRAPs, APCs, trucks etc that all got shelved due to either bad purchase decisions or a lack of funding, it’s not the designers at HIT that are the issue, it’s the circumstances.


SQ8 said:


> India has had its hands burnt with the Su-54E already and is preferring to focus on local projects. They have evaluated the Leo2 as well but their infrastructure will require a lot of update to bring it into manufacturing it locally. There is also some hesitation on their part to completely abandon the Arjun - it is not far fetched to see a Leo esque Arjun Mk.3 come out.


India is really confused about tanks right now, they have no local upgrades available for their T90S, they canceled an order for T90MS to buy more T90S (that’s like PA ordering Stock Al Khalids in 2021), they can’t decide which design to go for next, and their local FMBT designs seem like vaporware compared to how hard they’re working on their Tejas and AMCA designs.

I personally feel that IAF and IN are a lot more open to buying local than IA, which is why Indian ground industry lags behind the other two.

Reactions: Like Like:
13 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

iLION12345_1 said:


> When did I say we make 100% of the JF17 or Al Khalid by ourselves though? It’s not nice to put words into peoples mouths.


And I never said that you said anything like that about Alkhalid/JF-17. So i wasn't putting words in your mouth rather I was pointing out that like india, we also don't make any major military hardware on our own. Rather they are actually ahead of us, and we actually lag behind, and that's why we need to redouble our efforts. That was the point of my post.


> I know the Indian defense industry is ahead of ours, but funnily enough that actually isn’t true for a lot of their ground-related defense industries, Pakistan has managed to innovate a lot with the Al-Khalid series; local FCS, GCS, auto-loader, ammo, guns, armor (the list goes on). India cannot make these things for either the Arjun or the T90S,


Actually it IS true for ground related defense industries also. For example they license produce Korean Self Propelled artillery, it may not be indigenous but it's ahead of anything we have achieved in SPH area. Tanks are not the only ground related item. Sure we may be doing better in tanks due to their failure re the arjun but they are doing better in other areas.


> so maybe you need to stop *belittling* the Pakistani industry *all the time* too?


I don't think saying we need to do better constitutes belittling at all, but where does the "all the time" come from?? When have I belittled pakistani industry like this? Don't you know it's not nice to put words into peoples mouths? 


> Despite their mistakes, Credit where it is due to HIT, the Al-Khalid is a genuinely impressive program which would have seen us probably developing a tank comparable, if not better, to the VT4 (in the form of the Al Khalid 2) if the war on terror hadn’t taken away funding. Add on top of that all the projects they had planned in the form of MRAPs, APCs, trucks etc that all got shelved due to either bad purchase decisions or a lack of funding, it’s not the designers at HIT that are the issue, it’s the circumstances.


And I didn't say anything specific about HIT. My point was about us a country. And mostly to blame is our governments. Whoever is to blame doesn't change the fact we are far behind from where we should be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

iLION12345_1 said:


> T-14 has had numerous production delays and issues, the last deadline was again delayed recently. It’s not the only thing Russia is having production issues with either, as for the tank going to India? Not before 2030, even the Indians won’t buy something that is that unfinished.
> 
> Also, just to let you know, india doesn’t produce T90S tanks entirely, it produces some of their parts and assembles them. They don’t have full ToT, they still rely on Russia for some very major parts of the tank.


Agreed it dosent mean that prodution is slow wont get faster in future sir


TsAr said:


> I don't know where you are getting your stats from......At the moment state tests are still pending, 100 units are slated to be delivered to Taman division by 2022 and you are providing infrastructure to India....


Did i said today im providing definately it takes time of next ten years

Before writing understand what i said to you 

No sene india will get it tomorow every one knows

Act is india are in talks to get it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> That’s why we buy the VT-4 and make the Al-Khalid-1. Though to be fair, the VT-5 is only average at best itself when it comes to light tanks.





iLION12345_1 said:


> In fact China doesn’t make any tank that’s comparable to the best of what’s available in the west or Russia, the ZTZ-99A is also average at best. It improves upon firepower and protection a little bit over the VT-4, but falls behind in technology, so it ends up at the same place. but don’t take it from me, I’m far too biased.


Since we are going to talk about VT-4, let me bring some schooling for some members since I dont know what is wrong with PA for doing such bad PR which their citizens even has zero clue of what weapon they are buying. While some will acting as some pro giving casual passing remarks which definitely show the shallow knowledge they have .

Let me adress the first issue. Some claim VT-5 is average when comes to its light tank category. May I know which 33-36tons tank has a 1000hp full auto transmission gearbox diesel engine tank? Just a single factor alone will tell you VT-5 is not your average tank. Many countries until now still struggle to come out an automatic transmission gearbox for their diesel tank engine that included South Korea, Russia and Ukraine. 

Not to mention the stabilizer of VT-5 is so good I dare Western tank dont even dare to challenge Chinese feat. These tank go thru very rough plank terrain while the high center of gravity slim shell didnt even fall during the whole process. 





If somebody think VT-4 cant even match the best of what Russia build I guess some are insulting the wisdom of PA authority who make some decision. Why not build more Al Khalid tank since VT-4 is not gonna take out the Indian Russia T-90S?

VT-4 powerpack are very advance, in fact the handling experience is so good that anyone who knows how to drive an automatic car can starting driving this VT-4 in minutes. Is the same level as Leopard 2 or K2 panther. This is something which Al Khalid and T-90S still struggle semi - auto transmission. 







The powerpack and trans mission gear box of VT-4 are integrated. Meaning they can be replaced quickly and revive easily while on battlefield if engine is knock out. Another thing which T-90S and Al Khalid struggle to match. Just the disassemble of both engine will take even up to half a day to complete. 






VT-4 just like any western tank, they are network and can communicate with UCAV, or command control to have situation awareness. VT-4 gun control is also able to handle low flying helicopter threat with ATGM able to take out slow moving helicopter if approach. 

As for VT-4 and Type99A, main different is not just on armour, protection. The laser dazzler system counter measure which is exclusive on Type99A only has never approved for export.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GumNaam

Beast said:


> Since we are going to talk about VT-4, let me bring some schooling for some members since I dont know what is wrong with PA for doing such bad PR which their citizens even has zero clue of what weapon they are buying. While some will acting as some pro giving casual passing remarks which definitely show the shallow knowledge they have .
> 
> Let me adress the first issue. Some claim VT-5 is average when comes to its light tank category. May I know which 33-36tons tank has a 1000hp full auto transmission gearbox diesel engine tank? Just a single factor alone will tell you VT-5 is not your average tank. Many countries until now still struggle to come out an automatic transmission gearbox for their diesel tank engine that included South Korea, Russia and Ukraine.
> 
> Not to mention the stabilizer of VT-5 is so good I dare Western tank dont even dare to challenge Chinese feat. These tank go thru very rough plank terrain while the high center of gravity slim shell didnt even fall during the whole process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If somebody think VT-4 cant even match the best of what Russia build I guess some are insulting the wisdom of PA authority who make some decision. Why not build more Al Khalid tank since VT-4 is not gonna take out the Indian Russia T-90S?
> 
> VT-4 powerpack are very advance, in fact the handling experience is so good that anyone who knows how to drive an automatic car can starting driving this VT-4 in minutes. Is the same level as Leopard 2 or K2 panther. This is something which Al Khalid and T-90S still struggle semi - auto transmission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powerpack and trans mission gear box of VT-4 are integrated. Meaning they can be replaced quickly and revive easily while on battlefield if engine is knock out. Another thing which T-90S and Al Khalid struggle to match. Just the disassemble of both engine will take even up to half a day to complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VT-4 just like any western tank, they are network and can communicate with UCAV, or command control to have situation awareness. VT-4 gun control is also able to handle low flying helicopter threat with ATGM able to take out slow moving helicopter if approach.
> 
> As for VT-4 and Type99A, main different is not just on armour, protection. The laser dazzler system counter measure which is exclusive on Type99A only has never approved for export.











Can This Chinese Tank Beat Russia’s T-14 Armata?


Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.



thediplomat.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

GumNaam said:


> Can This Chinese Tank Beat Russia’s T-14 Armata?
> 
> 
> Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
> 
> 
> 
> thediplomat.com


As I say , Russia until now still struggle with automatic transmission gearbox. To some unknowledgeable people they think such things is insignificant and no sophistication is needed.

Even South Korea struggle with this big hurdle for their indigenous version.









South Korea’s K2 tank to run on German transmission


South Korea’s K2 main battle tank is to be equipped with a German transmission system, a part of the tank’s power pack that includes a locally developed engine.




www.defensenews.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Beast said:


> Not to mention the stabilizer of VT-5 is so good I dare Western tank dont even dare to challenge Chinese feat. These tank go thru very rough plank terrain while the high center of gravity slim shell didnt even fall during the whole process.


Watch this:






One should be humble in his claims. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

LeGenD said:


> Watch this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One should be humble in his claims. Thanks.


LOL.. I do know this video and its far away from what VT-5 can do. And I am very humble. The Leo 2 is using a beer with a broad base which gives it high center of gravity.

Do you know why the Chinese presenter pick a tall shell instead of beer bottle? If you know a bit of physic, I dont think I need to tell u the answer. Be humble and acknowledge the twin stabilizer of VT-4 and VT-5 gun are much superior.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## luciferdd

LeGenD said:


> Watch this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One should be humble in his claims. Thanks.


You can try to push down an upright shell and push down a cup of beer,and find out which is harder.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

luciferdd said:


> You can try to push down a shell and push down a cup of beer,and find out which is harder.


Precisely, there is no comparison. Try show this Leo video is another poor attempt to discredit feat of VT-4/ VT-5.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Beast said:


> LOL.. I do know this video and its far away from what VT-5 can do. And I am very humble. The Leo 2 is using a beer with a broad base which gives it high center of gravity.
> 
> Do you know why the Chinese presenter pick a tall shell instead of beer bottle? If you know a bit of physic, I dont think I need to tell u the answer. Be humble and acknowledge the twin stabilizer of VT-4 and VT-5 gun are much superior.


The video I shared is 1980s Western technology. You can imagine the situation now. Just be humble in your claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

LeGenD said:


> The video I shared is 1980s Western technology. You can imagine the situation now. Just be humble in your claims.


Talk is cheap, ask Abram or Leo A7 to show it now. I dare them. Be humble and admit PA make a great decision based on facts and not perception.


----------



## LeGenD

Beast said:


> Talk is cheap, ask Abram or Leo A7 to show it now. I dare them. Be humble and admit PA make a great decision based on facts and not perception.


Why will they disclose everything for your satisfaction or public consumption? You made a tall claim which you cannot independently substantiate. The onus of proof is on you.


----------



## Beast

LeGenD said:


> Why will they disclose everything for your satisfaction or public consumption? You made a tall claim which you cannot independently substantiate. The onus of proof is on you.


What do I need to prove? Its you who claim western is not the 80s and they can matched Chinese feat in 2022. Didnt you watch the video of VT-5? The burden of proof is on u and not me.

Many forumer here pass conclusion based on perception and not facts.


----------



## LeGenD

Beast said:


> What do I need to prove? Its you who claim western is not the 80s and they can matched Chinese feat in 2022. Didnt you watch the video of VT-5? The burden of proof is on u and not me.
> 
> Many forumer here pass conclusion based on perception and not facts.


I am not the one making tall claims here; you are. Nothing in the Chinese content shared by you is out of this world. Let us see how VT-5 performs in battlefields when the time comes.


----------



## Beast

LeGenD said:


> I am not the one making tall claims here; you are. Nothing in the Chinese content shared by you is out of this world. Let us see how VT-5 performs in battlefields when the time comes.


Tall claim? At least I have up to date video to present unlike someone who gives nothing but outdated perception.

In their mind, China technology can never beat west. But this is not facts , just a mind hurdle that need to overcome.

China technology already surpass west in some area. There is still improve for Chinese but west and others needs to accept the reality of rising China.


----------



## LeGenD

Beast said:


> Tall claim? At least I have up to date video to present unlike someone who gives nothing but outdated perception.
> 
> In their mind, China technology can never beat west. But this is not facts , just a mind hurdle that need to overcome.


I have much experience with Chinese tech and I have always found it to be lacking in quality in comparison to Japanese tech or even American tech. Maybe you should buy products from different countries and then let me know. You have this unfortunate habit of making tall claims.

Pakistani armed forces have much smaller budget than Chinese and options to choose from in international markets. They tend to buy what they can have. This doesn't imply that the equipment WE have is top notch or does not have problems. WE must have something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

LeGenD said:


> I have much experience with Chinese tech and I have always found it to be lacking in quality in comparison to Japanese tech or even American tech. Maybe you should buy products from different countries and then let me know. You have this unfortunate habit of making tall claims.
> 
> Pakistani armed forces have much smaller budget than Chinese and options to choose from in international markets. They tend to buy what they can have. This doesn't imply that the equipment WE have is top notch or does not have problems. WE must have something.


Lol..another perception comment. Do u mean kitchen hardware or cheap plastic? Here we are talking about high tech military products. This will be my last comment. I know u all has nothing up to date to facts to show. Just casual remarks and outdated data to support your made in China perception.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## luciferdd

LeGenD said:


> I have much experience with Chinese tech and I have always found it to be lacking in quality in comparison to Japanese tech or even American tech. Maybe you should buy products from different countries and then let me know. You have this unfortunate habit of making tall claims.
> 
> Pakistani armed forces have much smaller budget than Chinese and options to choose from in international markets. They tend to buy what they can have. This doesn't imply that the equipment WE have is top notch or does not have problems. WE must have something.


As i know,japanese had been do a simular test on their TYPE-10,but it was failed. 
So,one thing is when you don't really know something,dom't judge about it.





__





10式坦克炮口倒酒，一开动杯子就倒了_哔哩哔哩_bilibili


http://video.weibo.com/player/1034:75848191972c1fdadd057bad912e625c/v.swf 搬运。一直以来，国产坦克开启火炮双向稳定器的画面并不常见，以至于很多人对这一基本功能常抱有异议，认为类似西方坦克端酒杯这种表演十分高大上，其实也就这么回事23333。。。, 视频播放量 204067、弹幕量 941、点赞数 448、投硬币枚数 70、收藏人数 984、转发人数 426, 视频作者 市下野狐, 作者简介...




www.bilibili.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

luciferdd said:


> As i know,japanese had been do a simular test on their TYPE-10,but it was failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10式坦克炮口倒酒，一开动杯子就倒了_哔哩哔哩_bilibili
> 
> 
> http://video.weibo.com/player/1034:75848191972c1fdadd057bad912e625c/v.swf 搬运。一直以来，国产坦克开启火炮双向稳定器的画面并不常见，以至于很多人对这一基本功能常抱有异议，认为类似西方坦克端酒杯这种表演十分高大上，其实也就这么回事23333。。。, 视频播放量 204067、弹幕量 941、点赞数 448、投硬币枚数 70、收藏人数 984、转发人数 426, 视频作者 市下野狐, 作者简介...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bilibili.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 814089


Made in Japan quality @LeGenD


----------



## LeGenD

Beast said:


> Tall claim? At least I have up to date video to present unlike someone who gives nothing but outdated perception.
> 
> In their mind, China technology can never beat west. But this is not facts , just a mind hurdle that need to overcome.
> 
> China technology already surpass west in some area. There is still improve for Chinese but west and others needs to accept the reality of rising China.





Beast said:


> Lol..another perception comment. Do u mean kitchen hardware or cheap plastic? Here we are talking about high tech military products. This will be my last comment. I know u all has nothing up to date to facts to show. Just casual remarks and outdated data to support your made in China perception.


Very expensive consumer electronics which do contain military-grade components? Ever heard the term off-the-shelf? Technologies are much more standardized in current times than you realize. Yeah, I know how good Chinese defense tech is in general; nothing unmatched or perfect. Your boasts are childish on the other hand.


----------



## LeGenD

For those who do not know, Russians also achieved good gun stabilization back in the 1980s with T-80 variants.






This technology only got better since.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Warking

VT4 and Al Khalid 1 vs T90s?


----------



## Raja Porus

Do Alkhalids use Jaam-e-sheerein for gun stabilizing test? 😁

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
9


----------



## LeGenD

Now let us have a look at the level of gun stabilization demonstrated by different MBTs when engaging designated targets with live munitions.






The comparison is self-explanatory. Even T-14 Armata is a joke in comparison to M1A2 class.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

LeGenD said:


> Now let us have a look at the level of gun stabilization demonstrated by different MBTs when engaging designated targets with live munitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparison is self-explanatory. Even T-14 Armata is a joke in comparison to M1A2 class.


You were going good until this last one. This is such laughably poor way to compare stabilization on tanks that I almost had to make sure you didn’t post it in satire. 

I know you’re comparing stabilization at the moment, but if I start bringing up the solely the issues with the M1A2C here, it’ll start looking like a joke compared to a T90MS or a T-14 too, it all depends on what you want to pick and chose to present. 

I know you’re rather strongly biased towards the west, especially towards America, and sometimes that also makes your comparisons bad too, but you usually back up your opinions with actual sources and stay respectful, which often leads to you proving your opinion to be right too, but this beast dude is a literal payed Chinese bot that goes with the usual “China best so can do no wrong and makes the best of everything” argument, it’s a complete and utter waste of time to talk to him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bleek

Dreamer. said:


> You mean like pakistan produces Alkhalid (and JF-17) ? One shouldn't belittle the enemy. They are ahead of us in everything military production related. We are making efforts too but we really need to work a lot harder.


Facts, too many people caught up in delusion here

Exactly like their Indian counterparts but just less subtle.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Beast said:


> Since we are going to talk about VT-4, let me bring some schooling for some members since I dont know what is wrong with PA for doing such bad PR which their citizens even has zero clue of what weapon they are buying. While some will acting as some pro giving casual passing remarks which definitely show the shallow knowledge they have .
> 
> Let me adress the first issue. Some claim VT-5 is average when comes to its light tank category. May I know which 33-36tons tank has a 1000hp full auto transmission gearbox diesel engine tank? Just a single factor alone will tell you VT-5 is not your average tank. Many countries until now still struggle to come out an automatic transmission gearbox for their diesel tank engine that included South Korea, Russia and Ukraine.
> 
> Not to mention the stabilizer of VT-5 is so good I dare Western tank dont even dare to challenge Chinese feat. These tank go thru very rough plank terrain while the high center of gravity slim shell didnt even fall during the whole process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If somebody think VT-4 cant even match the best of what Russia build I guess some are insulting the wisdom of PA authority who make some decision. Why not build more Al Khalid tank since VT-4 is not gonna take out the Indian Russia T-90S?
> 
> VT-4 powerpack are very advance, in fact the handling experience is so good that anyone who knows how to drive an automatic car can starting driving this VT-4 in minutes. Is the same level as Leopard 2 or K2 panther. This is something which Al Khalid and T-90S still struggle semi - auto transmission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powerpack and trans mission gear box of VT-4 are integrated. Meaning they can be replaced quickly and revive easily while on battlefield if engine is knock out. Another thing which T-90S and Al Khalid struggle to match. Just the disassemble of both engine will take even up to half a day to complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VT-4 just like any western tank, they are network and can communicate with UCAV, or command control to have situation awareness. VT-4 gun control is also able to handle low flying helicopter threat with ATGM able to take out slow moving helicopter if approach.
> 
> As for VT-4 and Type99A, main different is not just on armour, protection. The laser dazzler system counter measure which is exclusive on Type99A only has never approved for export.


It’s not my fault you know literally next to nothing about the basics of tank design, tank gun design, or tank ammunition design, otherwise I’d tell you just how poor Chinese tanks are in all three regions when compared to any modern western or Russian tank, it’s literally like China made a design in the 50s (which they copied from what T55…) and then forgot to update it until they got a T72…Which they also copied and made the ZTZ-99…

You can put as much technology as you want on a tank, the basic design issues will remain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Warking

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Do Alkhalids use Jaam-e-sheerein for gun stabilizing test? 😁


NGL we should make that video.

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Warking said:


> VT4 and Al Khalid 1 vs T90s?


I’ve made the comparison several times before on this thread and the Al-Khalid thread. Long story short, the (Indian army’s) T90S is half a generation behind the VT-4 and the AK-1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> It’s not my fault you know literally next to nothing about the basics of tank design, tank gun design, or tank ammunition design, otherwise I’d tell you just how poor Chinese tanks are in all three regions when compared to any modern western or Russian tank, it’s literally like China made a design in the 50s (which they copied from what T55…) and then forgot to update it until they got a T72…Which they also copied and made the ZTZ-99…
> 
> You can put as much technology as you want on a tank, the basic design issues will remain.


So another so called expert comment with zero backing and zero substance. Typical tactics by you to derail this thread.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## bananarepublic

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Do Alkhalids use Jaam-e-sheerein for gun stabilizing test? 😁





Warking said:


> NGL we should make that video.


Hahaha
@PanzerKiel jaam-e-sheerien sponsorship for Al-khalid

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> You were going good until this last one. This is such laughably poor way to compare stabilization on tanks that I almost had to make sure you didn’t post it in satire.
> 
> I know you’re comparing stabilization at the moment, but if I start bringing up the solely the issues with the M1A2C here, it’ll start looking like a joke compared to a T90MS or a T-14 too, it all depends on what you want to pick and chose to present.
> 
> I know you’re rather strongly biased towards the west, especially towards America, and sometimes that also makes your comparisons bad too, but you usually back up your opinions with actual sources and stay respectful, which often leads to you proving your opinion to be right too, but this beast dude is a literal payed Chinese bot that goes with the usual “China best so can do no wrong and makes the best of everything” argument, it’s a complete and utter waste of time to talk to him.


Another putting your words into my mouth. Never did I say Chinese is best and can never do wrong but at least I pointed out area where obvious advantage is put forward which so far I see zero substance or fact to discredit the point I put forwards. You are merely using your emotion to back your statement. I am waiting for your fantastic facts or data presented to back your point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## LeGenD

iLION12345_1 said:


> You were going good until this last one. This is such laughably poor way to compare stabilization on tanks that I almost had to make sure you didn’t post it in satire.
> 
> I know you’re comparing stabilization at the moment, but if I start bringing up the solely the issues with the M1A2C here, it’ll start looking like a joke compared to a T90MS or a T-14 too, it all depends on what you want to pick and chose to present.
> 
> I know you’re rather strongly biased towards the west, especially towards America, and sometimes that also makes your comparisons bad too, but you usually back up your opinions with actual sources and stay respectful, which often leads to you proving your opinion to be right too, but this beast dude is a literal payed Chinese bot that goes with the usual “China best so can do no wrong and makes the best of everything” argument, it’s a complete and utter waste of time to talk to him.


Thanks for your feedback but the comparison does show which MBT designs are more stable as a whole.

M1 Abrams is a well-tested and combat-proven PLATFORM, and M1A2C is the most advanced and capable variant to be approved for mass-production yet. Extensive deployments in different environments and conditions around the world since 1990 provided much-needed insight to Americans to develop and improve M1 Abrams on so many levels through the years. This is a lengthy discussion in itself. 

M1A2C is the outcome of multiple M1A2 SEPv3 prototypes which underwent extensive testing in different environments and conditions before it could be finalized and approved for mass production with a new set of onboard technologies.









M1A2C tanks have been tested in the harsh climate of Alaska


Upgraded M1A2C in Alaska In 2017, the US Army ordered a serial upgrade of existing Abrams tanks according to the latest project M1A2 SEP v. 3 or M1A2C. In May last year, the first tanks in the new configuration entered service with the combat unit. At the same time, the process of checking and...




en.topwar.ru





Even Russian sources have acknowledged the obvious by now. 

But YOU are trying to make it sound like as if M1A2C have so many problems that it is a failure; Facepalm moment. 

I am not really interested in discussing those problems that materialized in the development phase. No MBT is picture-perfect; there will be always room for further development and improvements. Every MBT has mechanical (and digital) complexity and corresponding 'maintenance requirements' in any case. 

T-90 is extrapolation of the T-72 platform which is well-tested (I give you this) *but* T-14 Armata is something new and much more digitalized in comparison. More importantly, T-14 is not even remotely close to approaching maturity level of the M1 Abrams as a PLATFORM on any level. How many T-14 variants have been produced and combat-tested by now? T-14 is just another Russian propaganda machine in the present.

Please stop taking games like War Thunder seriously. 

Being facts-oriented makes me strongly biased towards the West? Maybe you need to wake-up and see that to what extent countries such as USA, UK, Germany, South Korea and even Japan have contributed to global advances in modern times? Or ground realities are too difficult to digest? Please spare me these kind of premature judgement calls - you do not sound sincere anymore.


----------



## Beast

LeGenD said:


> Thanks for your feedback but the comparison does show which MBT designs are more stable as a whole.
> 
> M1 Abrams is a well-tested and combat-proven PLATFORM, and M1A2C is the most advanced and capable variant to be approved for mass-production yet. Extensive deployments in different environments and conditions around the world since 1990 provided much-needed insight to Americans to develop and improve M1 Abrams on so many levels through the years. This is a lengthy discussion in itself.
> 
> M1A2C is the outcome of multiple M1A2 SEPv3 prototypes which underwent extensive testing in different environments and conditions before it could be finalized and approved for mass production with a new set of onboard technologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M1A2C tanks have been tested in the harsh climate of Alaska
> 
> 
> Upgraded M1A2C in Alaska In 2017, the US Army ordered a serial upgrade of existing Abrams tanks according to the latest project M1A2 SEP v. 3 or M1A2C. In May last year, the first tanks in the new configuration entered service with the combat unit. At the same time, the process of checking and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.topwar.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Russian sources have acknowledged the obvious by now.
> 
> But YOU are trying to make it sound like as if M1A2C have so many problems that it is a failure; Facepalm moment.
> 
> I am not really interested in discussing those problems that materialized in the development phase. No MBT is picture-perfect; there will be always room for further development and improvements. Every MBT has mechanical (and digital) complexity and corresponding 'maintenance requirements' in any case.
> 
> T-90 is extrapolation of the T-72 platform which is well-tested (I give you this) *but* T-14 Armata is something new and much more digitalized in comparison. More importantly, T-14 is not even remotely close to approaching maturity level of the M1 Abrams as a PLATFORM on any level. How many T-14 variants have been produced and combat-tested by now? T-14 is just another Russian propaganda machine in the present.
> 
> Please stop taking games like War Thunder seriously.
> 
> Being facts-oriented makes me strongly biased towards the West? Maybe you need to wake-up and see that to what extent countries such as USA, UK, Germany, South Korea and even Japan have contributed to global advances in modern times? Or ground realities are too difficult to digest? Please spare me these kind of premature judgement calls - you do not sound sincere anymore.


M1A2 is overweight at 72tons. Not many bridges can support it. And limited to certain terrain. Power to weight ratio not that impressive. The gas engine is criticize as power guzzler.

And bear in mind, as a manual loading tank, it's require additional internal space available for manned loader which translate to additional surface area needed to be armour. That means it's heavy weight doesn't necessarily translate to thick and better armour.

Usually you see auto loader tank are much smaller and lighter weight ( with exception of Leclerc and Type99A ) but that doesn't neccesary means they are under armour compare to manual loading tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

LeGenD said:


> Thanks for your feedback but the comparison does show which MBT designs are more stable as a whole.
> 
> M1 Abrams is a well-tested and combat-proven PLATFORM, and M1A2C is the most advanced and capable variant to be approved for mass-production yet. Extensive deployments in different environments and conditions around the world since 1990 provided much-needed insight to Americans to develop and improve M1 Abrams on so many levels through the years. This is a lengthy discussion in itself.
> 
> M1A2C is the outcome of multiple M1A2 SEPv3 prototypes which underwent extensive testing in different environments and conditions before it could be finalized and approved for mass production with a new set of onboard technologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M1A2C tanks have been tested in the harsh climate of Alaska
> 
> 
> Upgraded M1A2C in Alaska In 2017, the US Army ordered a serial upgrade of existing Abrams tanks according to the latest project M1A2 SEP v. 3 or M1A2C. In May last year, the first tanks in the new configuration entered service with the combat unit. At the same time, the process of checking and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.topwar.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Russian sources have acknowledged the obvious by now.
> 
> But YOU are trying to make it sound like as if M1A2C have so many problems that it is a failure; Facepalm moment.
> 
> I am not really interested in discussing those problems that materialized in the development phase. No MBT is picture-perfect; there will be always room for further development and improvements. Every MBT has mechanical (and digital) complexity and corresponding 'maintenance requirements' in any case.
> 
> T-90 is extrapolation of the T-72 platform which is well-tested (I give you this) *but* T-14 Armata is something new and much more digitalized in comparison. More importantly, T-14 is not even remotely close to approaching maturity level of the M1 Abrams as a PLATFORM on any level. How many T-14 variants have been produced and combat-tested by now? T-14 is just another Russian propaganda machine in the present.
> 
> Please stop taking games like War Thunder seriously.
> 
> Being facts-oriented makes me strongly biased towards the West? Maybe you need to wake-up and see that to what extent countries such as USA, UK, Germany, South Korea and even Japan have contributed to global advances in modern times? Or ground realities are too difficult to digest? Please spare me these kind of premature judgement calls - you do not sound sincere anymore.


I really, really mean no offense (or maybe I do, not sure anymore) but using large buzzwords, laughable sources, personal insults and having a lack of knowledge on the problems of the systems you vehemently defend is not expertise, it’s bias. It’s honestly sad how many people do last minute research to become experts and then tell me I learned form war Thunder. (Never played that game tbh, did play WoT professionally for a while, good times). Please. Grow up already. You both are two sides of the same dirty coin.

You both have another similar problem too, finding a problem where there is absolutely none to be found. You take criticism of a certain aspect or pointing out an issue of a machine as a near personal insult where I’ve labeled the entire country utterly useless and you rush to defend and tell me how you opinion is totally perfect, and then you also say “oh but I understand that all countries and machines have this problem! See im totally fair!”. I swear to god they’ll laugh at you if you ever joined a real group of armored vehicle experts (and I’m certainly not one).

I don’t even know where you dragged in the “technological advancements of the west have revolutionized the world” BS from, what did I do? Call them backwards countries? How is that related to the conversation at hand? I merely told you that the Abrams has issues too, just like the T90MS, the T14, and so on, whichever you think is better is opinion and not fact, you are allowed to express your opinion and I conceded that you often do so with good sources, but then you go too far by literally trying to apply said opinion on others through insults.

So what happens when I start bringing up the side and upper front plate armor issues of the Abrams (i know it’s got trophy now, but what about the last two decades?) Or what if I told you the thing is still running a second Gen thermal (albeit a good one, but still a second Gen) in 2021? And what of the time when it had significant engine issues due to poor filters and bad fuel consumption (again, solved now, they improved it), what if I told you to take a minute and talk to a real Abrams tanker to find out the on-ground realities of how poor the quality of their systems are due to improper maintenance before you bring up the T-14s production issues? (See I went to the trouble of doing that because that’s how research is done, not through a 40 second YouTube video with red lines drawn over tank barrels). What if I told you that alls not as it seems on paper? See the issue with you people is that you start feeling called out whenever someone throws in some criticism. You don’t seem to realize that other nations progress too, when you’re typing your emotionally fueled responses, only the nations you’re biased towards seem to have the ability to progress and not the others.

When we talk technology, the Americans and the Chinese jump to the “oh but the Russians have production issues so the technology doesn’t matter!!” Even though they were clearly having a discussion about technology a second ago. So why do the production issues matter at that moment if it’s a technological discussion?
When you mention numbers the opposite happens (China doesn’t have the upper hand in both at the moment, and now I’ll be labeled anti-Chinese, because I’m clearly saying China is a poor, undeveloped shithole that doesn’t make some of the best technology in the world, and not that Chinese tanks aren’t on par with western ones yet.)


I’m done though, you two are equal wastes of time.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## iLION12345_1

Beast said:


> M1A2 is overweight at 72tons. Not many bridges can support it. And limited to certain terrain. Power to weight ratio not that impressive. The gas engine is criticize as power guzzler.
> 
> And bear in mind, as a manual loading tank, it's require additional internal space available for manned loader which translate to additional surface area needed to be armour. That means it's heavy weight doesn't necessarily translate to thick and better armour.
> 
> Usually you see auto loader tank are much smaller and lighter weight ( with exception of Leclerc and Type99A ) but that doesn't neccesary means they are under armour compare to manual loading tank.





Beast said:


> Another putting your words into my mouth. Never did I say Chinese is best and can never do wrong but at least I pointed out area where obvious advantage is put forward which so far I see zero substance or fact to discredit the point I put forwards. You are merely using your emotion to back your statement. I am waiting for your fantastic facts or data presented to back your point.


Come back when you know the first thing about frontal-arc designs, long rod penetrators, cooled thermals, The importance of side armor and smaller lower front plates. Maybe then you’ll realize the issues I keep trying to highlight with the entire list of Chinese tanks (and since you’re both so sensitive, I’ll make it absolutely clear this time; this does not mean I’m insulting the entire country, it’s technological prowess, the machine it has created or your tiny egos, I’m saying it has problems that you two fail to accept because of bias, just like it has strengths that you two already highlighted, It’s called a fair discussion. Keep it to that).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

Beast said:


> M1A2 is overweight at 72tons. Not many bridges can support it. And limited to certain terrain. Power to weight ratio not that impressive. The gas engine is criticize as power guzzler.
> 
> And bear in mind, as a manual loading tank, it's require additional internal space available for manned loader which translate to additional surface area needed to be armour. That means it's heavy weight doesn't necessarily translate to thick and better armour.
> 
> Usually you see auto loader tank are much smaller and lighter weight ( with exception of Leclerc and Type99A ) but that doesn't neccesary means they are under armour compare to manual loading tank.


M1A2 variants have performed well in a large number of environments around the world including in Afghanistan.

I agree with your view about not many man-made bridges being strong enough to support M1A2 class moving through them due to its gross weight. This is where Logistics comes into play to make sure that M1A2 can be brought to locations where it is needed.

The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine can be dubbed 'gas guzzler' but it also multi-fuel capable. It will operate on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. Some countries can afford this type of technology in numbers; others cannot.

General Dynamics is willing to offer more efficient engine to interested customers but potential replacements are not in demand. Therefore.

Well stated, but I have to disagree with you on the armor part. M1 Abrams is designed with SAFETY in mind on many counts including separation of the compartment for munitions from the crew. The M1A2 class is also extensively armored as a whole - this is one of the factors which contributed to its extreme gross weight.






These figures are authentic (declassified information). *Baseline* protection level(s) of the M1 Abrams variants are documented. Please keep in mind that protection level(s) of any MBT will vary subject to the type of munition in use against them in combat situations. These figures indicate protection level(s) of different MBT against Tandem (or another) vs. HEAT charges from a respectable distance.

The latest M1A2C is even more heavily armored than ever before but much about it is classified in the present.

M1A2 class can also be equipped with ERA and the sort for added protection:





Link: https://warhead.su/2018/03/09/t90-vs-abrams-u-kogo-kruche-bronya-i-chyotche-monitory

American-operated M1A2 units feature Depleted Uranium Armor treatments as well; this feature was not approved for EXPORTS to various customers. Australia might be the only customer which was obliged in this capacity but I am not sure.

Chinese Type-99 class is granted impressive levels of armor as well. Not exactly on the level of M1A2 class due to limited space but good enough for battles in neighboring environments.


----------



## iLION12345_1

LeGenD said:


> M1A2 variants have performed well in a large number of environments around the world including in Afghanistan.
> 
> I agree with your view about not many man-made bridges being strong enough to support M1A2 class moving through them due to its gross weight. This is where Logistics comes into play to make sure that M1A2 can be brought to locations where it is needed.
> 
> The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine can be dubbed 'gas guzzler' but it also multi-fuel capable. It will operate on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. Some countries can afford this type of technology in numbers; others cannot.
> 
> General Dynamics is willing to offer more efficient engine to interested customers but potential replacements are not in demand. Therefore.
> 
> Well stated, but I have to disagree with you on the armor part. M1 Abrams is designed with SAFETY in mind on many counts including separation of the compartment housing the crew from ammo-storage. The M1A2 class is also extensively armored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These figures are authentic (declassified information). *Baseline* protection level(s) of the M1 Abrams variants are documented. Please keep in mind that protection level(s) of any MBT will vary subject to the type of munition in use against them in combat situations. These figures indicate protection level(s) of different MBT against Tandem vs. HEAT charges from a respectable distance (if I recall correctly).
> 
> The latest M1A2C is even more heavily armored than ever before but much about it is classified in the present. M1A2C can also be equipped with ERA and the sort for added protection.
> 
> M1A2 class can also be equipped with ERA and the sort for added protection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link: https://warhead.su/2018/03/09/t90-vs-abrams-u-kogo-kruche-bronya-i-chyotche-monitory
> 
> American-operated M1A2 units feature Depleted Uranium Armor treatments as well; this feature was not approved for EXPORTS to various customers. Australia might be the only customer which was obliged in this capacity but I am not sure.
> 
> Chinese Type-99 class is granted impressive levels of protection as well. Not exactly on the level of M1A2 class due to limited space but good enough for battles in neighboring environments.


The upper front plate armor of the Abrams has been a topic of discussion among tank circles for ages because it’s never been upgraded since the tanks inception despite some sources stating otherwise, it’s considered quite a large weak-spot.

The Abrams’ engine being multi fuel is not unique, most tanks engines have that capability, many with similar power outputs despite having better fuel consumption. However the engine definitely has impressive power figures.

OTOH:

Chinese tanks have a major design flaw, their armor cannot even begin to compare to that of the Abrams or a modern Russian tank; they have poor (very poor) frontal arcs. While Russian and western tanks have thick armor on 45 degrees (or greater) on either side of the front of the tank, Chinese tanks have 15 degrees (sometimes even less), this combined with the fact that China has payed almost zero emphasis to side armor means that Chinese tanks are literally like putting a bulletproof plate in front of an elephant, maybe a small part is well defended, what about everything else? It’s very poor design, especially in the VT-1 series and VT-4. The other issue with them are the massive lower front plates, even on a tank in a hull-down position, they make big targets, they only fixed this with the ZTZ-99 (that too by copy pasting a T72 in AUTOCAD). They keep throwing more armor on to the front 30 degrees of the tank, while the rest of the 70% receives nothing. Meanwhile in western and Russian tanks, the front _*90 degrees*_ are covered with the same armor.

China doesn’t make any long-rod penetrators for its tanks (because none of them have modern auto-loaders to fire them apart from the ZTZ-99A………did I mention how easily those auto-loaders are damaged which caused a catastrophic explosion because there has been zero emphasis payed to crew safety by isolating ammo?). The best Chinese ammo is comparable to 90s Western and 2000s Russian ammo.

Need I go on?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## arjunk

LeGenD said:


> Now let us have a look at the level of gun stabilization demonstrated by different MBTs when engaging designated targets with live munitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparison is self-explanatory. Even T-14 Armata is a joke in comparison to M1A2 class.


The Chinese tanks are moving, while the others are standing still. Not really a fair comparison.


----------



## iLION12345_1

arjunk said:


> The Chinese tanks are moving, while the others are standing still. Not really a fair comparison.


Arguably the best Chinese stabilization system (in a tank) is present in the Pakistan specific VT-4s (not sure if it’s used anywhere else, maybe ZTZ-99A). The tank initially had a different system, but PA did not like it as it didn’t perform as well as the one in the T84 Oplot. China replaced the entire system for Pakistan. How it compares to western ones I cannot say, but Russian/eastern tanks in general tend to move a lot more after firing, more (perceived) recoil effects, actual effect of it on accuracy is unknown, so the comparison is useless anyways. Just because it looks more stable doesn’t mean it actually is. A 72 Ton tank will obviously experience less recoil from a 120MM calibre gun than a 50 ton tank will from a 125MM gun, that’s where the stabilization systems come into play, how well do they counter said recoil on the actual barrel, sights and aiming systems? The body can shake all it wants. Unfortunately too many people think just because the hull is moving the stabilization is bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LeGenD

arjunk said:


> The Chinese tanks are moving, while the others are standing still. Not really a fair comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abid123

M1 Abrams does not fit Pakistani requirements. Was tested in Pakistan during the Zia Ul Haq era was rejected because it was too heavy for Pakistani terrain. Correct me If I am wrong..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

Abid123 said:


> M1 Abrams does not fit Pakistani requirements. Was tested in Pakistan during the Zia Ul Haq era was rejected because it was too heavy for Pakistani terrain. Correct me If I am wrong..


If Pakistan had the money to run it, it’d fit the terrain just fine. Americans used them in Iraqi and Iranian deserts to much success. It’s more that the tank may not fit our doctrine. It’s arguably one of the best tanks in service anywhere, just for some countries, not all.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakFactor

Abid123 said:


> M1 Abrams does not fit Pakistani requirements. Was tested in Pakistan during the Zia Ul Haq era was rejected because it was too heavy for Pakistani terrain. Correct me If I am wrong..



It's a flawed strategy in my opinion, you need a mix of heavy and low weight. What we have honestly, is low to medium weight. Heavy tanks offer more protection and survivability in the field. Saying it doesn't fit out terrain while the American's were running ape shit in the Iraqi desert blasting the Iraqi's.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

PakFactor said:


> It's a flawed strategy in my opinion, you need a mix of heavy and low weight. What we have honestly, is low to medium weight. Heavy tanks offer more protection and survivability in the field. Saying it doesn't fit out terrain while the American's were running ape shit in the Iraqi desert blasting the Iraqi's.


i believe Zia and the entire Pakistani military leadership just straight up dying at once probably played a part in the tank not being purchased, I don’t think it failed any Pakistani trials, or if it did, was not being crewed by a trained US crew. If anything the issues would be monetary (or would be related to the US trying to control just which type and how many of them Pakistan got).

Reactions: Sad Sad:
1


----------



## LeGenD

M1 Abrams in Afghanistan:


























Provided results in any sector of Afghanistan - no losses in these battles.


----------



## PakFactor

iLION12345_1 said:


> i believe Zia and the entire Pakistani military leadership just straight up dying at once probably played a part in the tank not being purchased, I don’t think it failed any Pakistani trials, or if it did, was not being crewed by a trained US crew. If anything the issues would be monetary (or would be related to the US trying to control just which type and how many of them Pakistan got).



That is possible the top brass being eliminated killed the "potential" deal with it. However, almost 30+ years later there were multitude of options for Pakistan to choose from. Just look at our useless officers and their procurement strategy you lose half a decade waiting on a Turkish Heli due to engine (knowing full well the US wouldn't approve) instead of going Chinese and working to fix the issues and making it compatible (again the army terrain or weather issues bullshit is the same story).

In all honesty, the issue is we don't have an established and proper military doctrine, we aren't an offensive force but operating like territorial army only since inception of this country. A defensive postured army has never won a conflict at home or away, your die from attrition without inflicted a mortal wound on your enemy.

@waz

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> Come back when you know the first thing about frontal-arc designs, long rod penetrators, cooled thermals, The importance of side armor and smaller lower front plates. Maybe then you’ll realize the issues I keep trying to highlight with the entire list of Chinese tanks (and since you’re both so sensitive, I’ll make it absolutely clear this time; this does not mean I’m insulting the entire country, it’s technological prowess, the machine it has created or your tiny egos, I’m saying it has problems that you two fail to accept because of bias, just like it has strengths that you two already highlighted, It’s called a fair discussion. Keep it to that).


Really? Sounds like another gimmick from you without any concrete explanation. I am still waiting.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

PakFactor said:


> That is possible the top brass being eliminated killed the "potential" deal with it. However, almost 30+ years later there were multitude of options for Pakistan to choose from. Just look at our useless officers and their procurement strategy you lose half a decade waiting on a Turkish Heli due to engine (knowing full well the US wouldn't approve) instead of going Chinese and working to fix the issues and making it compatible (again the army terrain or weather issues bullshit is the same story).
> 
> In all honesty, the issue is we don't have an established and proper military doctrine, we aren't an offensive force but operating like territorial army only since inception of this country. A defensive postured army has never won a conflict at home or away, your die from attrition without inflicted a mortal wound on your enemy.
> 
> @waz


Though I mostly agree with your sentiment, I don’t think the two issues in question are related, even if the death of Zia was a total accident, such a major event would likely have pushed back many decisions, including major military purchases, so the abrams deal might have gone with that. I personally think the US wasn’t allowing Pakistan to buy enough of them or wasn’t allowing Pakistan to get it in the specifications it wanted. With tanks once you make the switch over to Eastern tanks, you’re not going to western without a major money loss, because of all the doctrine and logistics issues. When it comes to tanks, PA has actually made pretty good decisions. Our armored fleet is a step ahead of the IAs for now due to the good decisions of the military, despite the major budget crunch in the war on terror.


----------



## Beast

PakFactor said:


> It's a flawed strategy in my opinion, you need a mix of heavy and low weight. What we have honestly, is low to medium weight. Heavy tanks offer more protection and survivability in the field. Saying it doesn't fit out terrain while the American's were running ape shit in the Iraqi desert blasting the Iraqi's.


Abram tank running on Iraq terrain vs Pakistan south Asia hilly terrain are 2 different things.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LeGenD

Abid123 said:


> M1 Abrams does not fit Pakistani requirements. Was tested in Pakistan during the Zia Ul Haq era was rejected because it was too heavy for Pakistani terrain. Correct me If I am wrong..


It could be retrofitted or modified for Pakistani requirements much like Chinese VT-4; Americans are known to oblige customers as well. But regional political climate became very tense after the loss of multiple high-profile men including then COAS Zia-ul-Haq and the American ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Lewis Raphel in a shocking C-130 related incident. The ongoing trails were immediately halted and procurement plans were suspended for indefinite period. American defense consultant Steven J. Zaloga pointed out as much in one of his books.


----------



## PakFactor

Beast said:


> Abram tank running on Iraq terrain vs Pakistan south Asia hilly terrain are 2 different things.
> View attachment 814181



Yes, I know but if you pay attention carefully to the border with Pakistan/India and look into India itself its relatively flat. Kashmir is another story not much tank warfare will take place there. Central Punjab & Sindh should also be the focus to prevent Indian penetration and around Lahore, etc. There is enough utility and justification for heavy tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Legio XI The Ironclads

PakFactor said:


> Yes, I know but if you pay attention carefully to the border with Pakistan/India and look into India itself its relatively flat. Kashmir is another story not much tank warfare will take place there. Central Punjab & Sindh should also be the focus to prevent Indian penetration and around Lahore, etc. There is enough utility and justification for heavy tanks.


 I recall one of the problems Pak Army had with the Abrams was its weight. Many bridges would have to have been upgraded to accommodate it. 
I saw this written in an article from the time from a senior Army officer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> China doesn’t make any long-rod penetrators for its tanks (because none of them have modern auto-loaders to fire them apart from the ZTZ-99A………did I mention how easily those auto-loaders are damaged which caused a catastrophic explosion because there has been zero emphasis payed to crew safety by isolating ammo?). The best Chinese ammo is comparable to 90s Western and 2000s Russian ammo.
> 
> Need I go on?








From 2:48m

Please do not go on anymore. You are making a fool of yourself.

As for your front arcs BS for VT-4, too many nonsense which I do not need to explain.


----------



## PakFactor

Legio XI The Ironclads said:


> I recall one of the problems Pak Army had with the Abrams was its weight. Many bridges would have to have been upgraded to accommodate it.
> I saw this written in an article from the time from a senior Army officer.



An upgrade to infrastructure would have been a good start to accommodate it along with its "economic use" by the rest of the population, with a growing population and more automobiles it's would have been perfect. Remember logistics lines are very crucial in war time and peace time. This is where a lack for foresight hurts Pakistanis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GumNaam

PakFactor said:


> An upgrade to infrastructure would have been a good start to accommodate it along with its "economic use" by the rest of the population, with a growing population and more automobiles it's would have been perfect. Remember logistics lines are very crucial in war time and peace time. This is where a lack for foresight hurts Pakistanis.


the primary reason Pakistan opted out of the m1 abram program was not technical but political. General Zia ul Haq just new all too well how the tank would be prone to sanctions. the trials were only done to quietly take notes on the features on the abrams so we can implement them in our own tanks with the help of our Chinese brothers. Pakistan never had any intention of going for the abrams...the weight and other issues not making the abram "suitable" for Pakistani requirements were mere excuses to get ride of the pestering american salesmen after we were done taking notes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Beast said:


> From 2:48s
> 
> Please do not go on anymore. You are making a fool of yourself.
> 
> As for your front arcs BS for VT-4, too many nonsense which I do not need to explain.


so now that I’ve properly explained the glaring issues (only two of them I might add) to you, you’re telling me that it’s BS. You really are pathetic. It’s not my fault you know nothing about tank design. I can’t explain to you why you’re wrong until you stop accepting the paycheck from the Chinese propaganda brigade. I’m going to stop replying to you because at this point the moderators are going to get unhappy, I hope you’ll do the same for me.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> so now that I’ve properly explained the glaring issues (only two of them I might add) to you, you’re telling me that it’s BS. You really are pathetic. It’s not my fault you know nothing about tank design. I can’t explain to you why you’re wrong until you stop accepting the paycheck from the Chinese propaganda brigade. I’m going to stop replying to you because at this point the moderators are going to get unhappy, I hope you’ll do the same for me.


You are the saying Chinese don't produce long rod ammunition and only Type99A possess. BS debunk by me. Then u talk about nonsense of front arc which u think it's exclusive VT-4 problem. M1A2 front arc is equally a big target. As for armour , I restraint from talking talking much becos it's state secret from all nations so far. Most of the information u heard or seen can only used as reference. Hardly any nation will fully disclose their armour composition and actual thickness.

As for side armour protection of VT-4, don't forget. Chinese design this tank as modular in the first place. You are a typical keyboard warrior who think u know a lot but did poor research and poor homework,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KampfAlwin

Why is the 99A’s gun moving slightly upward after firing a problem? 

It needs to move up again at a fixed angle anyways to accept new rounds from the auto loader, in case you haven’t realised.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Farhan Bohra

SQ8 said:


> India has had its hands burnt with the Su-54E already and is preferring to focus on local projects. They have evaluated the Leo2 as well but their infrastructure will require a lot of update to bring it into manufacturing it locally. There is also some hesitation on their part to completely abandon the Arjun - it is not far fetched to see a Leo esque Arjun Mk.3 come out.


Actually Indian Army not going to abandon heavy tanks,,, BRO invested so much in infrastructure and upgrading it. As for Medium tanks, I don't know where this T-14 argument coming from? MoD has not shown a single interest in the project, rather in FMBT.

Even solutions like,, Indian Army/MoD funding for FMBT,, like see-through armor. Even two vendors already eying for this contract and contract for upgrading T-90.









Govt increases capital budget of BRO by 40%, focus on border areas development


The government in its Union Budget for the financial year (FY) 2022-23 has increased the capital outlay for the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), by a record 40 per cent, to Rs 3,500 crore as compared to Rs 2,500 crore in FY 2021-22.




www.indiatoday.in











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1490586238025596929

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Eagle

Thread topic:

Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions​Treat yourself being informed. Please avoid derailing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## serenity

Good information guys.

However VT-4 probably shouldn't be compared with Abrams. 50T tank and 60T tank.

My personal opinion of tanks ranked over years of reading material and trying to remember the overall whole. For what it's worth just entertaining hopefully but not too serious.

T-14 (although not totally ready just yet)
K-2 (this is surely a bit more of a personal guess than from attained information because there isn't that much)
Improved Challenger 2
Leopard 2A6/7
M1A2
AMX Leclerc
Type 99A (third version)
T-90M
Challenger 2
Merkava 4
Type 99 (second version) and VT-4 overall balance is similar
Type 10 (like lighter tanks the protection is very minimal and firepower isn't much better than those on top of it)
T-84 Oplot M
Arjun 2
Type 90

Rest are relatively equal low tier tanks like various modern T-72 and T-80 and Type 96A. All of those would be considerably lower than the above list.

Low protection and lighter tanks typically would have better mobility and driving range. Anyway firepower is first priority, second is mobility, third is protection but the ones nearer the top are all clearly better protection but not much worse if any worse in mobility due to far more powerful propulsion units. Western tanks have firepower advantage due to better guns and still better ammunition despite huge improvements in Chinese ammunition over the last ten years. Russian ammo of modern versions I'm not familiar with but surely improved as well. Our guns and ammo still don't match latest Euro and American though.

Honestly ever tank on that list is close enough that the important factor is really the crew, the situation, the numbers, the strategy and tactics, and of course supports. Infantry and drones or helicopters and air support or none. Money too of course as usual and operational readiness. Buy and pick what suits your situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

I have shifted some responses to another thread. This thread shall remain on topic.


----------



## Beast

serenity said:


> Good information guys.
> 
> However VT-4 probably shouldn't be compared with Abrams. 50T tank and 60T tank.
> 
> My personal opinion of tanks ranked over years of reading material and trying to remember the overall whole. For what it's worth just entertaining hopefully but not too serious.
> 
> T-14 (although not totally ready just yet)
> K-2 (this is surely a bit more of a personal guess than from attained information because there isn't that much)
> Improved Challenger 2
> Leopard 2A6/7
> M1A2
> AMX Leclerc
> Type 99A (third version)
> T-90M
> Challenger 2
> Merkava 4
> Type 99 (second version) and VT-4 overall balance is similar
> Type 10 (like lighter tanks the protection is very minimal and firepower isn't much better than those on top of it)
> T-84 Oplot M
> Arjun 2
> Type 90
> 
> Rest are relatively equal low tier tanks like various modern T-72 and T-80 and Type 96A. All of those would be considerably lower than the above list.
> 
> Low protection and lighter tanks typically would have better mobility and driving range. Anyway firepower is first priority, second is mobility, third is protection but the ones nearer the top are all clearly better protection but not much worse if any worse in mobility due to far more powerful propulsion units. Western tanks have firepower advantage due to better guns and still better ammunition despite huge improvements in Chinese ammunition over the last ten years. Russian ammo of modern versions I'm not familiar with but surely improved as well. Our guns and ammo still don't match latest Euro and American though.
> 
> Honestly ever tank on that list is close enough that the important factor is really the crew, the situation, the numbers, the strategy and tactics, and of course supports. Infantry and drones or helicopters and air support or none. Money too of course as usual and operational readiness. Buy and pick what suits your situation.


Did you written this from your own perspective? The western tank is heavier, not due to thicker armour but more to do with addtional space needed to accomodate a man loader.

Russian and Chinese are using 125mm smoothbore gun vs 120mm western caliber. the slightly larger rounds do have the advantage of packing additional chemical for high velocity. A big reason why 125mm going for auto loader system becos of the fatigue for loader handling a bigger 125mm rounds.


----------



## Inception-06



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

Beast said:


> Did you written this from your own perspective? The western tank is heavier, not due to thicker armour but more to do with addtional space needed to accomodate a man loader.
> 
> Russian and Chinese are using 125mm smoothbore gun vs 120mm western caliber. the slightly larger rounds do have the advantage of packing additional chemical for high velocity. A big reason why 125mm going for auto loader system becos of the fatigue for loader handling a bigger 125mm rounds.



Yeah just from my perspective and opinion only.

Leclerc and K2 are both around 55T and use automatic loader so yes you're right a lot of that weight is to create the volume for a massive space for a manual loader and the separation compartment.

Chinese heavyweight of Type 99A is around 55T to 60T depending on source of information. This shows it's around same overall protection level as K2 and Leclerc which also use autoloader. However the 99A puts a lot more armor than those two on the frontal 120 degrees and has less side protection.

If I were to sit in a MBT that will be shot with APFSDS between those three tanks and only fired directly straight on, I would pick 99A. It has roughly 200mm more composite and laminar welded armor than those two and still has FY ERA blocks on top of that extra armor.

If side shot, they are all equally dead anyway. No MBT on this planet can take a modern APFSDS or any anti tank round directly from the side but at an angle, every extra degree off, every extra mm of armor counts even if just using pythagoras to calculate a basic depth difference. Of course impact physics is fluids rather than simply drawing 2D planes.

But this still doesn't negate the history where 125mm was used to compensate for poorer ammo quality and accuracy. 125mm provides more energy due to a larger volume chamber but it wears on gun mechanism more since 125mm gun is actually quite a lot more heavy than a 120mm. That history is past though and nowadays the ammo quality has climbed a lot but on firepower, I would still err on the side of caution and consider the most modern Russian and Chinese 125mm gun and ammo to be slightly worse than the most modern German 120mm gun and western ammo. China didn't spend much effort to push ahead in these fields but rather just normal pace progress unlike in navy and airforce or space and strategic weaponry. Meanwhile some western nations have placed quite strong emphasis on tank developments because a few of those countries have been engaged in urban and tank warfare or could potentially be like Israel, South Korea, USA, Germany, and France.

I think 99A is a great development for a lower priority budget and certainly the point for PLA is to have good enough and then in huge numbers. 99A is more than good enough which surprised me that they still put so much emphasis on tanks when Type 15 and 99A came out. I thought PLA would have no funding left over after all the more important developments like advanced artillery, rockets, new vehicles, EW systems, helicopters, and mobile SAMs and all those things. But they still had enough oil left to develop some updated MBTs. To say those newer MBTs are K2 or latest NATO tank upgrades level, personally I feel maybe that's expecting too much.

For now, we can be happy that newer Chinese tanks like Type 99A and VT-4 have much improved sensors and communication equipment, better protection and mobility from better engines and general upgrades and improvements to firepower via software, equipment like muzzle reference systems and newer higher quality ammunition. This is more than good enough. A pack of 20 99A tanks will annihilate 10 K2 or Type 10 or 50 Arjun whatever. It is as much about numbers as it is about overall tank individual capability. There is a balancing point and different for all strategies and supporting equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

serenity said:


> Yeah just from my perspective and opinion only.
> 
> Leclerc and K2 are both around 55T and use automatic loader so yes you're right a lot of that weight is to create the volume for a massive space for a manual loader and the separation compartment.
> 
> Chinese heavyweight of Type 99A is around 55T to 60T depending on source of information. This shows it's around same overall protection level as K2 and Leclerc which also use autoloader. However the 99A puts a lot more armor than those two on the frontal 120 degrees and has less side protection.
> 
> If I were to sit in a MBT that will be shot with APFSDS between those three tanks and only fired directly straight on, I would pick 99A. It has roughly 200mm more composite and laminar welded armor than those two and still has FY ERA blocks on top of that extra armor.
> 
> If side shot, they are all equally dead anyway. No MBT on this planet can take a modern APFSDS or any anti tank round directly from the side but at an angle, every extra degree off, every extra mm of armor counts even if just using pythagoras to calculate a basic depth difference. Of course impact physics is fluids rather than simply drawing 2D planes.
> 
> But this still doesn't negate the history where 125mm was used to compensate for poorer ammo quality and accuracy. 125mm provides more energy due to a larger volume chamber but it wears on gun mechanism more since 125mm gun is actually quite a lot more heavy than a 120mm. That history is past though and nowadays the ammo quality has climbed a lot but on firepower, I would still err on the side of caution and consider the most modern Russian and Chinese 125mm gun and ammo to be slightly worse than the most modern German 120mm gun and western ammo. China didn't spend much effort to push ahead in these fields but rather just normal pace progress unlike in navy and airforce or space and strategic weaponry. Meanwhile some western nations have placed quite strong emphasis on tank developments because a few of those countries have been engaged in urban and tank warfare or could potentially be like Israel, South Korea, USA, Germany, and France.
> 
> I think 99A is a great development for a lower priority budget and certainly the point for PLA is to have good enough and then in huge numbers. 99A is more than good enough which surprised me that they still put so much emphasis on tanks when Type 15 and 99A came out. I thought PLA would have no funding left over after all the more important developments like advanced artillery, rockets, new vehicles, EW systems, helicopters, and mobile SAMs and all those things. But they still had enough oil left to develop some updated MBTs. To say those newer MBTs are K2 or latest NATO tank upgrades level, personally I feel maybe that's expecting too much.
> 
> For now, we can be happy that newer Chinese tanks like Type 99A and VT-4 have much improved sensors and communication equipment, better protection and mobility from better engines and general upgrades and improvements to firepower via software, equipment like muzzle reference systems and newer higher quality ammunition. This is more than good enough. A pack of 20 99A tanks will annihilate 10 K2 or Type 10 or 50 Arjun whatever. It is as much about numbers as it is about overall tank individual capability. There is a balancing point and different for all strategies and supporting equipment.


I disagree with you. It's not like China is short of development fund. China is not like Russia, if a project is important. Funds will always be available for R&D since China are flushed with money. 

We have even seen type 15 light tank developed which most countries are not doing since all they do is convert IFV into an assault tank. But emphasize on light tank comes back after the highly deployability and suitable for almost most terrain. The US marine has their MBF project. 

Flush with money and development, the metallurgy and technology for China has improved alot. I do see 125mm has advantage over 120mm if metallurgy if both are same.


----------



## serenity

Beast said:


> I disagree with you. It's not like China is short of development fund. China is not like Russia, if a project is important. Funds will always be available for R&D since China are flushed with money.
> 
> We have even seen type 15 light tank developed which most countries are not doing since all they do is convert IFV into an assault tank. But emphasize on light tank comes back after the highly deployability and suitable for almost most terrain. The US marine has their MBF project.
> 
> Flush with money and development, the metallurgy and technology for China has improved alot. I do see 125mm has advantage over 120mm if metallurgy if both are same.



Yes China is not short on development funding at all which surprised me that we still developed 99A and Type 15 as entirely new developments. It shows after all those funds eaten up by space, airforce, navy, and improvements to more important areas of army and rocket forces which include hypersonic weapons, new cruise missiles, and many other things, we still had some funding left to do some tanks.

The Type 15 is a different story however since it is arguably more necessary and useful than Type 99A since 99A is not that much more useful than 99. Type 15 can travel to places and offer mobility no other main battle tank with anything at 105mm or above can provide and Sprut is simply not comparable. Nor even Pindad (which is comparable).

125mm may be better now and particularly after new electroslag remelting manufacturing process integrated in the 2000s but before that during PLA's 1980s to 2000s development, 125mm was simply selected to compensate for having poorer overall gun and ammunition quality. Of course this is for the 1980s until early 2000s when modified ZPT-98 using those new technologies were integrated to the old 2A46 gun licensed versions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

serenity said:


> Good information guys.
> 
> However VT-4 probably shouldn't be compared with Abrams. 50T tank and 60T tank.
> 
> My personal opinion of tanks ranked over years of reading material and trying to remember the overall whole. For what it's worth just entertaining hopefully but not too serious.
> 
> T-14 (although not totally ready just yet)
> K-2 (this is surely a bit more of a personal guess than from attained information because there isn't that much)
> Improved Challenger 2
> Leopard 2A6/7
> M1A2
> AMX Leclerc
> Type 99A (third version)
> T-90M
> Challenger 2
> Merkava 4
> Type 99 (second version) and VT-4 overall balance is similar
> Type 10 (like lighter tanks the protection is very minimal and firepower isn't much better than those on top of it)
> T-84 Oplot M
> Arjun 2
> Type 90
> 
> Rest are relatively equal low tier tanks like various modern T-72 and T-80 and Type 96A. All of those would be considerably lower than the above list.
> 
> Low protection and lighter tanks typically would have better mobility and driving range. Anyway firepower is first priority, second is mobility, third is protection but the ones nearer the top are all clearly better protection but not much worse if any worse in mobility due to far more powerful propulsion units. Western tanks have firepower advantage due to better guns and still better ammunition despite huge improvements in Chinese ammunition over the last ten years. Russian ammo of modern versions I'm not familiar with but surely improved as well. Our guns and ammo still don't match latest Euro and American though.
> 
> Honestly ever tank on that list is close enough that the important factor is really the crew, the situation, the numbers, the strategy and tactics, and of course supports. Infantry and drones or helicopters and air support or none. Money too of course as usual and operational readiness. Buy and pick what suits your situation.


AFAIK There are not three versions of the ZTZ-99, only two. ZTZ-99 and 99A. I would place Pakistan specific VT-4s only slightly behind the 99A. The former leads in technological and C4I aspects while the latter leads in firepower and protection. I would place both above the Leclerc because the XLR
variant of it apparently still isn’t in service, which is quite an upgrade for the aged tank.

You’re right to say that the K-2 is mostly just a guess. There isn’t enough on it. I’d place the T90MS provyv 3 above all those tanks except the T-14, the Leo 2A6/A7 and the M1A2CSEPV3. Russian metallurgy, ERA and ammunition are still some of the best.

I’d place challenger 2 at the bottom of the list due to its rifled gun, however the improved challenger 2/Challenger 3 would place pretty high up with the armor improvements and the 130MM smootbore.

My list would look something like (speaking purely from a capability standpoint)
T-14
Leo 2A7+
M1A2C SEP V3
T90MS Provyv 3
Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
K-2
ZTZ-99A
VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
T90S/Al-Khalid
Arjun MK-1A
And all the legacy tanks below these.

I don’t put Japanese tanks in the list because they’re very specific in their roles. If anything any list like this is purely speculative and redundant because tanks unlike fighter jets or ships don’t fight in a single, level playing field. The air and the sea remain pretty much the same, the ground on the other hand changes a lot. Each country designs tanks with their specifications, terrain, logistics and economy in mind, so while one tank may be better for one country, it certainly won’t be for another.

Secondly, if you go into detail on these tanks, you’ll see that literally none of them is balanced apart from the top 3-4 tanks. Each has some major flaws and some redeeming qualities.

Design wise I’d say Chinese and Chinese origin tanks lack the most, while protection remains an issue is basically every Asian tank (especially side protection). Ukraine has very weak ammunition even if they improve their tank. Russia (before the T-14) has had rather poor transmissions in its tanks.
The countries that are mass-introducing Hard kill APS systems are taking a massive leap in regards to tank protection, which would make even a mediocre tank a massive threat to a much better one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IblinI

iLION12345_1 said:


> AFAIK There are not three versions of the ZTZ-99, only two. ZTZ-99 and 99A. I would place Pakistan specific VT-4s only slightly behind the 99A. The former leads in technological and C4I aspects while the latter leads in firepower and protection. I would place both above the Leclerc because the XLR
> variant of it apparently still isn’t in service, which is quite an upgrade for the aged tank.
> 
> You’re right to say that the K-2 is mostly just a guess. There isn’t enough on it. I’d place the T90MS provyv 3 above all those tanks except the T-14, the Leo 2A6/A7 and the M1A2CSEPV3. Russian metallurgy, ERA and ammunition are still some of the best.
> 
> I’d place challenger 2 at the bottom of the list due to its rifled gun, however the improved challenger 2/Challenger 3 would place pretty high up with the armor improvements and the 130MM smootbore.
> 
> My list would look something like (speaking purely from a capability standpoint)
> T-14
> Leo 2A7+
> M1A2C SEP V3
> T90MS Provyv 3
> Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
> K-2
> ZTZ-99A
> VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
> ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
> Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
> T90S/Al-Khalid
> Arjun MK-1A
> And all the legacy tanks below these.
> 
> I don’t put Japanese tanks in the list because they’re very specific in their roles. If anything any list like this is purely speculative and redundant because tanks unlike fighter jets or ships don’t fight in a single, level playing field. The air and the sea remain pretty much the same, the ground on the other hand changes a lot. Each country designs tanks with their specifications, terrain, logistics and economy in mind, so while one tank may be better for one country, it certainly won’t be for another.
> 
> Secondly, if you go into detail on these tanks, you’ll see that literally none of them is balanced apart from the top 3-4 tanks. Each has some major flaws and some redeeming qualities.
> 
> Design wise I’d say Chinese and Chinese origin tanks lack the most, while protection remains an issue is basically every Asian tank (especially side protection). Ukraine has very weak ammunition even if they improve their tank. Russia (before the T-14) has had rather poor transmissions in its tanks.
> The countries that are mass-introducing Hard kill APS systems are taking a massive leap in regards to tank protection, which would make even a mediocre tank a massive threat to a much better one.


mostly agreed with this list, realistically speaking, no need to glorify a tank (Type 99A) which the design was dated back ten years ago, and see no major upgrade, it fit PLA's need and they are not in a hurry to replace it atm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

IblinI said:


> mostly agreed with this list, realistically speaking, no need to glorify a tank (Type 99A) which the design was dated back ten years ago, and see no major upgrade, it fit PLA's need and they are not in a hurry to replace it atm.


The 99A was an excellent tank for its time, The Chinese forces have been focusing their money where needed; on their Air Force and navy. They don’t really need better tanks right now since they’ve got no use for them, their ZTZ-99As are still arguably the best tanks in the region.

It’s not that China can’t make a better tank. It’s that they don’t need it, and the current ones they have come from an Era where China wasn’t fully capable of making its own designs unlike it is now, that’s why the designs are dated.

I’m sure they’ll replace or Upgrade their tank sooner or later, whenever they feel the need for it. 
Considering how much China has advanced in other technologies, the new design will probably be comparable to its western and Russian counterparts as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## serenity

iLION12345_1 said:


> AFAIK There are not three versions of the ZTZ-99, only two. ZTZ-99 and 99A. I would place Pakistan specific VT-4s only slightly behind the 99A. The former leads in technological and C4I aspects while the latter leads in firepower and protection. I would place both above the Leclerc because the XLR
> variant of it apparently still isn’t in service, which is quite an upgrade for the aged tank.
> 
> You’re right to say that the K-2 is mostly just a guess. There isn’t enough on it. I’d place the T90MS provyv 3 above all those tanks except the T-14, the Leo 2A6/A7 and the M1A2CSEPV3. Russian metallurgy, ERA and ammunition are still some of the best.
> 
> I’d place challenger 2 at the bottom of the list due to its rifled gun, however the improved challenger 2/Challenger 3 would place pretty high up with the armor improvements and the 130MM smootbore.
> 
> My list would look something like (speaking purely from a capability standpoint)
> T-14
> Leo 2A7+
> M1A2C SEP V3
> T90MS Provyv 3
> Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
> K-2
> ZTZ-99A
> VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
> ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
> Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
> T90S/Al-Khalid
> Arjun MK-1A
> And all the legacy tanks below these.
> 
> I don’t put Japanese tanks in the list because they’re very specific in their roles. If anything any list like this is purely speculative and redundant because tanks unlike fighter jets or ships don’t fight in a single, level playing field. The air and the sea remain pretty much the same, the ground on the other hand changes a lot. Each country designs tanks with their specifications, terrain, logistics and economy in mind, so while one tank may be better for one country, it certainly won’t be for another.
> 
> Secondly, if you go into detail on these tanks, you’ll see that literally none of them is balanced apart from the top 3-4 tanks. Each has some major flaws and some redeeming qualities.
> 
> Design wise I’d say Chinese and Chinese origin tanks lack the most, while protection remains an issue is basically every Asian tank (especially side protection). Ukraine has very weak ammunition even if they improve their tank. Russia (before the T-14) has had rather poor transmissions in its tanks.
> The countries that are mass-introducing Hard kill APS systems are taking a massive leap in regards to tank protection, which would make even a mediocre tank a massive threat to a much better one.



No there are three Type 99 versions.

The first one was laminar welded turret of Type 98 plus modular wedge section with frame for ERA. 












This came around year 2000 if I remember correct. You can see the sort of convex turret top which is similar to Type 98's.

Then the second version with the exact same designation but a production improvement as the first one didn't have that many maybe only 100 to 200?






Bottom image. This one had a different turret.





















And finally of course after that the 99A which actually totally redesigned the turret but has a similar geometry and overall shape. The 99A is 5 to 10 tonnes heavier than the previous 99 (second version and first version roughly the same weight).








I don't think VT-4 is just below 99A because 99A has 1500hp engine while VT-4 uses 1200hp and the 99A is 55T to 58T while VT-4 is 50T to 52T. Chinese sources claim 99A is actually closer to 60T than claimed 55T. 99A certainly offers slightly better top and side protection compared to VT-4 and equal or slightly better front protection to VT-4.

VT-4 has some nice features like RWS which 99A can take as well but PLA doctrine emphasize numbers and a totally different kind of tank warfare than VT-4 customers would be using. Same applies to APS. Apparently according to reputable Chinese sources, GL-5 is not PLA's APS and PLA while not using APS in typical peacetime setting, for urban warfare PLA tanks can take on an APS system that is not GL-5, something better. In any case 99A keeps the dazzler system from Type 98 and onwards but much improved for 99A.

So mobility between the two is roughly equal with VT-4 I think having possibly slightly better range. Protection is better on 99A (after all it does have many many tonnes more armor) and firepower is also better on 99A as it features the best sensor, communication devices, and fire control along with turret and gun mechanism that China has bothered to develop. It also has a slightly longer gun whereas VT-4 uses the same gun as Type 96A I believe (although I'm not sure on this).

Second version of 99 is roughly equal to VT-4 simply because I accounted cost. VT-4 has RWS advantage and some more modern electronics than second version of Type 99 since that version stopped being produced back in 2010! So yes VT-4 has much more modern equipment but mechanical stuff is about the same level. However, VT-4 costs nearly twice as much (if PLA bought it like for Type 99 second) so this surely should balance the two out quite a lot. VT-4 however is much better than 96A with better mobility, protection, and firepower.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

iLION12345_1 said:


> The 99A was an excellent tank for its time, The Chinese forces have been focusing their money where needed; on their Air Force and navy. They don’t really need better tanks right now since they’ve got no use for them, their ZTZ-99As are still arguably the best tanks in the region.
> 
> It’s not that China can’t make a better tank. It’s that they don’t need it, and the current ones they have come from an Era where China wasn’t fully capable of making its own designs unlike it is now, that’s why the designs are dated.
> 
> I’m sure they’ll replace or Upgrade their tank sooner or later, whenever they feel the need for it.
> Considering how much China has advanced in other technologies, the new design will probably be comparable to its western and Russian counterparts as well.



Yes exactly and to be honest my personal opinion on Chinese tanks is that it is lowest priority, even lower than Mengshi vehicles (there are 20 types of Mengshi vehicles!) with EW variants, air defence, anti tank, modified for more troops and so on. This is tactically and even strategically more important than something to carry a 125mm to a fight lol.

So 99A represents a high tier of Chinese tanking efforts just to keep that industry alive and working on something but funding for it is so much lower than other projects. 99A is a good tank. It is in fact "too good" for PLA and PLA's doctrine. 96A is truly the perfect tank for PLA's needs and general Chinese military budgeting. Space, air, sea, cyber, electronic, domains are far more important and far more important to spend effort to lead and dominate... exactly as we are beginning to see now.

96A is really quite rubbish in comparison with so many world MBTs lol. Except of course the T-72s the T-80s the Arjuns. All these are really low tier stuff. VT-4 is really an export and polished up version of second gen 99 but with more modern electronics and equipment and a more modern powertrain. 99 always represented the rare and high tier of PLA tanking.

As for you list:

T-14
Leo 2A7+
M1A2C SEP V3
T90MS Provyv 3
Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
K-2
ZTZ-99A
VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
T90S/Al-Khalid
Arjun MK-1A

I think K-2 you have underestimated a lot. Challenger 3 doesn't belong since it is nowhere near service. I would also move T-90M down a lot because it's protection simply isn't close to even 99A and roughly similar to VT-4. Furthermore it's firepower isn't better than VT-4. I can guarantee this. Mobility has weaker engine but also around 50T. Sensors and equipment all roughly equal to those two Chinese types. Challenger 2 also should be ahead of Type 99 (second version)... better firepower and protection but inferior mobility... in fact Chally 2 is famous for crappy mobility and extremely underpowered.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

serenity said:


> No there are three Type 99 versions.
> 
> The first one was laminar welded turret of Type 98 plus modular wedge section with frame for ERA.
> 
> View attachment 815064
> 
> 
> View attachment 815065
> 
> 
> This came around year 2000 if I remember correct. You can see the sort of convex turret top which is similar to Type 98's.
> 
> Then the second version with the exact same designation but a production improvement as the first one didn't have that many maybe only 100 to 200?
> 
> View attachment 815066
> 
> 
> Bottom image. This one had a different turret.
> 
> View attachment 815067
> 
> 
> View attachment 815068
> 
> 
> View attachment 815069
> 
> 
> View attachment 815070
> 
> 
> And finally of course after that the 99A which actually totally redesigned the turret but has a similar geometry and overall shape. The 99A is 5 to 10 tonnes heavier than the previous 99 (second version and first version roughly the same weight).
> 
> View attachment 815071
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think VT-4 is just below 99A because 99A has 1500hp engine while VT-4 uses 1200hp and the 99A is 55T to 58T while VT-4 is 50T to 52T. Chinese sources claim 99A is actually closer to 60T than claimed 55T. 99A certainly offers slightly better top and side protection compared to VT-4 and equal or slightly better front protection to VT-4.
> 
> VT-4 has some nice features like RWS which 99A can take as well but PLA doctrine emphasize numbers and a totally different kind of tank warfare than VT-4 customers would be using. Same applies to APS. Apparently according to reputable Chinese sources, GL-5 is not PLA's APS and PLA while not using APS in typical peacetime setting, for urban warfare PLA tanks can take on an APS system that is not GL-5, something better. In any case 99A keeps the dazzler system from Type 98 and onwards but much improved for 99A.
> 
> So mobility between the two is roughly equal with VT-4 I think having possibly slightly better range. Protection is better on 99A (after all it does have many many tonnes more armor) and firepower is also better on 99A as it features the best sensor, communication devices, and fire control along with turret and gun mechanism that China has bothered to develop. It also has a slightly longer gun whereas VT-4 uses the same gun as Type 96A I believe (although I'm not sure on this).
> 
> Second version of 99 is roughly equal to VT-4 simply because I accounted cost. VT-4 has RWS advantage and some more modern electronics than second version of Type 99 since that version stopped being produced back in 2010! So yes VT-4 has much more modern equipment but mechanical stuff is about the same level. However, VT-4 costs nearly twice as much (if PLA bought it like for Type 99 second) so this surely should balance the two out quite a lot. VT-4 however is much better than 96A with better mobility, protection, and firepower.


The first and second version are considered mostly the same as the sensors, ERA, engine, gun and many other components are assumed to be the same. It also doesn’t have any designation AFAIK (it Likely does within the PLA, but it’s not known externally). They’ve only been referred to as ZTZ-99 (first two) and ZTZ-99A (last one).

Secondly, i was specifically talking about Pakistans VT-4s when I compared them to ZTZ-99A. PAs VT-4s use 1500HP engines (the same ones from ZTZ-99A). Regular VT-4s use 1300HP engines.

As for armor. I have no doubt 99A has better armor than the VT-4, it’s simply heavier, it also has a better design; a smaller lower front plate and a slightly better frontal arc (still poor by modern standards, but an improvement nonetheless). Side armor is too poor on both tanks to matter, but 99A’s would be naturally thicker. Armor in PAs VT-4s is improved by addition of FY-4 ERA instead of FY-2. (same ERA as 99A). Normal VT-4s use FY-2 ERA and don’t have it on the roof unlike PAs ones. Still, the armor advantage would go to the 99A.

For firepower, AFAIK all Chinese tanks except the ZTZ-99A use the same gun, a 125MM, 48 Calibre ZPT-98. PAs VT-4s use a different barrel but the same gun. They all use the same ammo as well, DTW-125 APFSDS. 99A uses DTC-10-125. So it definitely has better firepower, but I wouldn’t not say by a large margin, since the gun and ammo are only slightly bigger. An advantage nonetheless.

For C4I, sensors and electronics. I would give PAs VT-4s the lead, they’re simply newer and have the latest of what China has to offer, again, this is specific to PAs VT-4s as they have different internals and an entirely new stabilizer system. The Sights on both tanks as well as the FCS appears to be the same, if not better on VT-4. VT-4 also has RWS which China doesn’t use due to doctrine, as well as an option for a hard kill APS. Which is better than any form of dazzler/soft kill system. The other stuff such as automatic bore sight sensors, LWRs etc are shared on both tanks.

Obviously this is all Chinese technology, they can put this stuff on the ZTZ-99A anytime they want, it’s just that the tank came out a little while ago so it doesn’t have it. PAs VT4s likely weight closer to 54 tons.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## iLION12345_1

serenity said:


> Yes exactly and to be honest my personal opinion on Chinese tanks is that it is lowest priority, even lower than Mengshi vehicles (there are 20 types of Mengshi vehicles!) with EW variants, air defence, anti tank, modified for more troops and so on. This is tactically and even strategically more important than something to carry a 125mm to a fight lol.
> 
> So 99A represents a high tier of Chinese tanking efforts just to keep that industry alive and working on something but funding for it is so much lower than other projects. 99A is a good tank. It is in fact "too good" for PLA and PLA's doctrine. 96A is truly the perfect tank for PLA's needs and general Chinese military budgeting. Space, air, sea, cyber, electronic, domains are far more important and far more important to spend effort to lead and dominate... exactly as we are beginning to see now.
> 
> 96A is really quite rubbish in comparison with so many world MBTs lol. Except of course the T-72s the T-80s the Arjuns. All these are really low tier stuff. VT-4 is really an export and polished up version of second gen 99 but with more modern electronics and equipment and a more modern powertrain. 99 always represented the rare and high tier of PLA tanking.
> 
> As for you list:
> 
> T-14
> Leo 2A7+
> M1A2C SEP V3
> T90MS Provyv 3
> Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
> K-2
> ZTZ-99A
> VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
> ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
> Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
> T90S/Al-Khalid
> Arjun MK-1A
> 
> I think K-2 you have underestimated a lot. Challenger 3 doesn't belong since it is nowhere near service. I would also move T-90M down a lot because it's protection simply isn't close to even 99A and roughly similar to VT-4. Furthermore it's firepower isn't better than VT-4. I can guarantee this. Mobility has weaker engine but also around 50T. Sensors and equipment all roughly equal to those two Chinese types. Challenger 2 also should be ahead of Type 99 (second version)... better firepower and protection but inferior mobility... in fact Chally 2 is famous for crappy mobility and extremely underpowered.


VT4 is not related to the 99 series design wise at all, it uses the design of the VT1 and ZTZ96 series (basically an evolution of the type 85 just like Al Khalid, VT1 and ZTZ-96) with technology from the ZTZ99A.

PAs VT4s have several upgrades over the ones offered to other nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

iLION12345_1 said:


> The 99A was an excellent tank for its time, The Chinese forces have been focusing their money where needed; on their Air Force and navy. They don’t really need better tanks right now since they’ve got no use for them, their ZTZ-99As are still arguably the best tanks in the region.
> 
> It’s not that China can’t make a better tank. It’s that they don’t need it, and the current ones they have come from an Era where China wasn’t fully capable of making its own designs unlike it is now, that’s why the designs are dated.
> 
> I’m sure they’ll replace or Upgrade their tank sooner or later, whenever they feel the need for it.
> Considering how much China has advanced in other technologies, the new design will probably be comparable to its western and Russian counterparts as well.


the good thing is the chief designer of Type 99A has confirmed that the next gen is under development, but we are not sure about its priority though.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

IblinI said:


> the good thing is the chief designer of Type 99A has confirmed that the next gen is under development, but we are not sure about its priority though.


That’s totally understandable. an upgrade for the 99A or a new Chinese tank is due now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

serenity said:


> Yes exactly and to be honest my personal opinion on Chinese tanks is that it is lowest priority, even lower than Mengshi vehicles (there are 20 types of Mengshi vehicles!) with EW variants, air defence, anti tank, modified for more troops and so on. This is tactically and even strategically more important than something to carry a 125mm to a fight lol.
> 
> So 99A represents a high tier of Chinese tanking efforts just to keep that industry alive and working on something but funding for it is so much lower than other projects. 99A is a good tank. It is in fact "too good" for PLA and PLA's doctrine. 96A is truly the perfect tank for PLA's needs and general Chinese military budgeting. Space, air, sea, cyber, electronic, domains are far more important and far more important to spend effort to lead and dominate... exactly as we are beginning to see now.
> 
> 96A is really quite rubbish in comparison with so many world MBTs lol. Except of course the T-72s the T-80s the Arjuns. All these are really low tier stuff. VT-4 is really an export and polished up version of second gen 99 but with more modern electronics and equipment and a more modern powertrain. 99 always represented the rare and high tier of PLA tanking.
> 
> As for you list:
> 
> T-14
> Leo 2A7+
> M1A2C SEP V3
> T90MS Provyv 3
> Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
> K-2
> ZTZ-99A
> VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
> ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
> Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
> T90S/Al-Khalid
> Arjun MK-1A
> 
> I think K-2 you have underestimated a lot. Challenger 3 doesn't belong since it is nowhere near service. I would also move T-90M down a lot because it's protection simply isn't close to even 99A and roughly similar to VT-4. Furthermore it's firepower isn't better than VT-4. I can guarantee this. Mobility has weaker engine but also around 50T. Sensors and equipment all roughly equal to those two Chinese types. Challenger 2 also should be ahead of Type 99 (second version)... better firepower and protection but inferior mobility... in fact Chally 2 is famous for crappy mobility and extremely underpowered.


I hope we’re talking about the same T90M here since it has a few version in itself. I’m talking about the ones delivered to the Russian ground forces recently
I don’t think there’s any way they have worst protection than VT4 or ZTZ99. Weight isn’t everything, armor composition and design matters a lot more. I have no doubt the base armor of the T90M (without any ERA) is already better than the base armor on both the VT-4 and the ZTZ-99 due to better composition. You’d be surprised how good Russian composites and armor is, just take a look at the base armor figures for the older T90S.

The T90M has a _*much*_ better frontal arc than any Chinese tank, the front 90 degrees of the tank are covered with the thickest armor, this is less than 60 degrees in the Chinese tanks (and even less in the VT-4) due to poor design. It also has a smaller lower front plate (much smaller than VT-4 and slightly smaller than ZTZ-99). It has a better turret silhouette and much better ERA coverage on the turret.
Both the Chinese tanks have no side armor except for basic steel, which is rather thin on the sides. T90M has spaced, composite and ERA armor on its side. Not to mention the Relikt ERA on it is much newer and much more potent Than they FY-4 on the Chinese tanks. T90M is also offered with a Hard kill APS. T90M also has a rear turret bustle with blowout panels and an armored carousel, while in ZTZ-99 the ammo is still stored in the crew compartment while the carousel remains the same as T72.

All three tanks have similar generations of thermal sights. All have CITVs, LWRs and all the other basics. T90M has RWS.

As for ammo, The best Chinese ammo is the DTC-10-125 that the ZTZ-99A uses. It’s a short rod penetrator, it’s good but nothing special. VT-4 uses DTW-125, it’s not as good as the DTC-10-125, but still above average.
Russia has had comparable ammo since the early 2000s in the form of Svinets series and now has the vacuum series (which is probably not compatible with T90M as it was made with the T-14 but the Svinets series is).

Where the Chinese tanks are likely ahead (and by a good margin) is electronics, C4I, software and maybe also FCS/GCS systems. Mobility is hard to say, T90M has a weaker engine and a rather poor transmission. But Is also lighter, however I’d still give that to the Chinese tanks simply because of the transmission. However that does depend on wether Russia has started equipping T90M with its new automatic transmissions or not.

The T90M is easily better than the VT-4 and will probably outclass a ZTZ-99A in most metrics.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

serenity said:


> Yes exactly and to be honest my personal opinion on Chinese tanks is that it is lowest priority, even lower than Mengshi vehicles (there are 20 types of Mengshi vehicles!) with EW variants, air defence, anti tank, modified for more troops and so on. This is tactically and even strategically more important than something to carry a 125mm to a fight lol.
> 
> So 99A represents a high tier of Chinese tanking efforts just to keep that industry alive and working on something but funding for it is so much lower than other projects. 99A is a good tank. It is in fact "too good" for PLA and PLA's doctrine. 96A is truly the perfect tank for PLA's needs and general Chinese military budgeting. Space, air, sea, cyber, electronic, domains are far more important and far more important to spend effort to lead and dominate... exactly as we are beginning to see now.
> 
> 96A is really quite rubbish in comparison with so many world MBTs lol. Except of course the T-72s the T-80s the Arjuns. All these are really low tier stuff. VT-4 is really an export and polished up version of second gen 99 but with more modern electronics and equipment and a more modern powertrain. 99 always represented the rare and high tier of PLA tanking.
> 
> As for you list:
> 
> T-14
> Leo 2A7+
> M1A2C SEP V3
> T90MS Provyv 3
> Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
> K-2
> ZTZ-99A
> VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
> ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
> Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
> T90S/Al-Khalid
> Arjun MK-1A
> 
> I think K-2 you have underestimated a lot. Challenger 3 doesn't belong since it is nowhere near service. I would also move T-90M down a lot because it's protection simply isn't close to even 99A and roughly similar to VT-4. Furthermore it's firepower isn't better than VT-4. I can guarantee this. Mobility has weaker engine but also around 50T. Sensors and equipment all roughly equal to those two Chinese types. Challenger 2 also should be ahead of Type 99 (second version)... better firepower and protection but inferior mobility... in fact Chally 2 is famous for crappy mobility and extremely underpowered.


Challenger 2 has a rifled gun which means it automatically takes a hit in firepower. That’s why they’re replacing it in the new version. It’s mobility is also an issue as you mentioned.

I don’t know enough about the K-2 to really comment on its positioning, so I could totally be wrong there. 

I know Chinas main focus isn’t tanks, that’s why they stick to their ZTZ-96A/Bs, the ZTZ-99A is still a very impressive tank, it was never bad, it’s just slightly beginning to show its age, something China can easily fix with an upgrade.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

iLION12345_1 said:


> I hope we’re talking about the same T90M here since it has a few version in itself. I’m talking about the ones delivered to the Russian ground forces recently
> I don’t think there’s any way they have worst protection than VT4 or ZTZ99. Weight isn’t everything, armor composition and design matters a lot more. I have no doubt the base armor of the T90M (without any ERA) is already better than the base armor on both the VT-4 and the ZTZ-99 due to better composition. You’d be surprised how good Russian composites and armor is, just take a look at the base armor figures for the older T90S.
> 
> The T90M has a _*much*_ better frontal arc than any Chinese tank, the front 90 degrees of the tank are covered with the thickest armor, this is less than 60 degrees in the Chinese tanks (and even less in the VT-4) due to poor design. It also has a smaller lower front plate (much smaller than VT-4 and slightly smaller than ZTZ-99). It has a better turret silhouette and much better ERA coverage on the turret.
> Both the Chinese tanks have no side armor except for basic steel, which is rather thin on the sides. T90M has spaced, composite and ERA armor on its side. Not to mention the Relikt ERA on it is much newer and much more potent Than they FY-4 on the Chinese tanks. T90M is also offered with a Hard kill APS. T90M also has a rear turret bustle with blowout panels and an armored carousel, while in ZTZ-99 the ammo is still stored in the crew compartment while the carousel remains the same as T72.
> 
> All three tanks have similar generations of thermal sights. All have CITVs, LWRs and all the other basics. T90M has RWS.
> 
> As for ammo, The best Chinese ammo is the DTC-10-125 that the ZTZ-99A uses. It’s a short rod penetrator, it’s good but nothing special. Russia has had comparable ammo since the early 2000s in the form of Svinets and now has the vacuum series (which is probably not compatible with T90M, but the Svinets series is).
> 
> Where the Chinese tanks are likely ahead (and by a good margin) is electronics, C4I, software and maybe also FCS/GCS systems. Mobility is hard to say, T90M has a weaker engine and a rather poor transmission. But Is also lighter, however I’d still give that to the Chinese tanks simply because of the transmission. However that does depend on wether Russia has started equipping T90M with its new automatic transmissions or not.
> 
> The T90M is easily better than the VT-4 and will probably outclass a ZTZ-99A in most metrics.



Ahh yes I ignored the frontal geometry. Indeed T-90M has much better frontal arc than Chinese tanks which place no emphasis on that. PLA tank commander once said that if you find yourself in a position where shots can be coming from anywhere except front on, then the mission planning and support is a failure. So all armor up front and rest only can deal with 30mm as maximum. T-90M has overall better protection due to better arc but frontal shot only, 99A and VT-4 wins I guarantee. By a big margin too. Different doctrines here. Russian composites is not that good. No reason to be significantly better than others. We all have more than half a century of experience now and similar length of time playing with the same generations of materials and design types like laminated and welded turrets.











When you do the maths it is over 100mm of difference (and comparing with internal photos which for 99A we do not have but can guess based on 99's)

The spaced armor voids are similar. But of course frontal is not everything just different doctrines and different preferences.

I ranked Arjun lowest out of the good MBTs because it is far too underpowered for over 60T of weight. The first generation is also a poor turret design and similar poor arc design (Russians do this actually the best). Arjun places so much emphasis on protection but forgot that protection is last priority out of the three and protection is the last one to fill only after you have excellent firepower and mobility achieved. Then you give your tank protection only if you can give it even more mobility to compensate for extra weight. Indians did not have the drivetrain and powertrain technologies developed to even take 50T let alone nearly 60T part of the trial failures were due to mobility concerns and range.

Indians also strangely gave their tank rifled gun for HESH but this is for 1970s to 1990s and no longer effective after 2000s era. HESH is defeated and obsolete type of round now like Shtora is obsolete passive defence system because newer generations of missiles work on totally different guidance principles.

Arjun after all that also still does not have the absolute leading armor, or ammunition. Nor are the Indian industry even experienced in ordinance. Contrast with China having over 70 years of ordinance and artillery making of several hundred different types since then and exported to all over the world for over 50 years. I just don't think Arjun's firepower given all those reasons are match for those others and it's super poor in mobility and its protection while 60T+ would suggest is good, the armor is questionable due to no experience and the first gen's design has the same turret shape as the 1970s Leopard 2 design. Now they've modified it and it's much better but has poorer firepower and much poorer mobility compared to the rest. What's the point of even perfect protection if your tank cannot kill the other tank and cannot move to where it needs to be effectively.

We forgot Merkava 4 which is middle of the list and K2 should really be number 2 on the list. T-14 is only there as a new generation of tank and superior in doctrine and technology.

Japanese Type 90 is now even worse than Arjun 2 and Type 10 has great firepower and mobility but protection is as poor as Type 96A or T-80s, unless the Japanese upgrade Type 10 with advanced ERA which they currently do not have. Type 10 desperately needs better armor but it's expensive due to using some extremely high tensile steels. It's a very poor way to improve protection. While others are using exotic ceramic and composite armor on laminated and spaced composites and welded turret, Japanese have not really developed much in armor technology. Well they have always really been down on armor historically because Japanese war philosophy has always been to place everything on firepower and cut the enemy down quickly and brutally. Since ancient times they were low on armor, high on power and even WW2 same thing, planes, ships, tanks.



iLION12345_1 said:


> Challenger 2 has a rifled gun which means it automatically takes a hit in firepower. That’s why they’re replacing it in the new version. It’s mobility is also an issue as you mentioned.
> 
> I don’t know enough about the K-2 to really comment on its positioning, so I could totally be wrong there.
> 
> I know Chinas main focus isn’t tanks, that’s why they stick to their ZTZ-96A/Bs, the ZTZ-99A is still a very impressive tank, it was never bad, it’s just slightly beginning to show its age, something China can easily fix with an upgrade.



I think China will continue developing MBTs but it's the lowest priority military projects but still will be keeping that industry going and developments going if at least for export market potential.

K-2 has APS, adjustable suspension, top firepower, I would say even better than T-14. The sensors and equipment on K-2 is the best stuff. L55 rheinmetal gun as well. 55T and excellent drivetrain and powertrain. Overall just the best of the best in this generation. Separation storage and autoloader too. The Koreans wanted the best and certainly spent top money to develop K-2 and buy K-2. It is a $8M tank like T-14 and Type 10 (very overpriced) for own military purchase... nearly 4 times the price of 99A and twice the price of NATO modernized MBTs.

Yeah 99A is a decent all rounder that conforms to PLA strategy which is full of planning for tanking. Like PLA commanders mentioned, the networked doctrine combines helicopters, satellites, drones, and artillery support for coordination of attacks and battle management. There is no position where PLA tanks meet enemy in inferior numbers or in unexpected engagements. PLA will always meet tank fights where PLA chooses and the support is so great that the tanks really are not doing that much except wearing infantry fire and lighter firepower so nothing like 120mm or artillery. Basically all PLA needs from its tanks is mobility and to be able to fire that 125mm at odd targets that do show up somehow.

99A however is not 96A and is capable of much much more.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

serenity said:


> Ahh yes I ignored the frontal geometry. Indeed T-90M has much better frontal arc than Chinese tanks which place no emphasis on that. PLA tank commander once said that if you find yourself in a position where shots can be coming from anywhere except front on, then the mission planning and support is a failure. So all armor up front and rest only can deal with 30mm as maximum. T-90M has overall better protection due to better arc but frontal shot only, 99A and VT-4 wins I guarantee. By a big margin too. Different doctrines here. Russian composites is not that good. No reason to be significantly better than others. We all have more than half a century of experience now and similar length of time playing with the same generations of materials and design types like laminated and welded turrets.
> 
> View attachment 815085
> 
> 
> View attachment 815086
> 
> 
> When you do the maths it is over 100mm of difference (and comparing with internal photos which for 99A we do not have but can guess based on 99's)
> 
> The spaced armor voids are similar. But of course frontal is not everything just different doctrines and different preferences.
> 
> I ranked Arjun lowest out of the good MBTs because it is far too underpowered for over 60T of weight. The first generation is also a poor turret design and similar poor arc design (Russians do this actually the best). Arjun places so much emphasis on protection but forgot that protection is last priority out of the three and protection is the last one to fill only after you have excellent firepower and mobility achieved. Then you give your tank protection only if you can give it even more mobility to compensate for extra weight. Indians did not have the drivetrain and powertrain technologies developed to even take 50T let alone nearly 60T part of the trial failures were due to mobility concerns and range.
> 
> Indians also strangely gave their tank rifled gun for HESH but this is for 1970s to 1990s and no longer effective after 2000s era. HESH is defeated and obsolete type of round now like Shtora is obsolete passive defence system because newer generations of missiles work on totally different guidance principles.
> 
> Arjun after all that also still does not have the absolute leading armor, or ammunition. Nor are the Indian industry even experienced in ordinance. Contrast with China having over 70 years of ordinance and artillery making of several hundred different types since then and exported to all over the world for over 50 years. I just don't think Arjun's firepower given all those reasons are match for those others and it's super poor in mobility and its protection while 60T+ would suggest is good, the armor is questionable due to no experience and the first gen's design has the same turret shape as the 1970s Leopard 2 design. Now they've modified it and it's much better but has poorer firepower and much poorer mobility compared to the rest. What's the point of even perfect protection if your tank cannot kill the other tank and cannot move to where it needs to be effectively.
> 
> We forgot Merkava 4 which is middle of the list and K2 should really be number 2 on the list. T-14 is only there as a new generation of tank and superior in doctrine and technology.
> 
> Japanese Type 90 is now even worse than Arjun 2 and Type 10 has great firepower and mobility but protection is as poor as Type 96A or T-80s.
> 
> 
> 
> I think China will continue developing MBTs but it's the lowest priority military projects but still will be keeping that industry going and developments going if at least for export market potential.
> 
> K-2 has APS, adjustable suspension, top firepower, I would say even better than T-14. The sensors and equipment on K-2 is the best stuff. L55 rheinmetal gun as well. 55T and excellent drivetrain and powertrain. Overall just the best of the best in this generation. Separation storage and autoloader too. The Koreans wanted the best and certainly spent top money to develop K-2 and buy K-2. It is a $8M tank like T-14 and Type 10 (very overpriced) for own military purchase... nearly 4 times the price of 99A and twice the price of NATO modernized MBTs.
> 
> Yeah 99A is a decent all rounder that conforms to PLA strategy which is full of planning for tanking. Like PLA commanders mentioned, the networked doctrine combines helicopters, satellites, drones, and artillery support for coordination of attacks and battle management. There is no position where PLA tanks meet enemy in inferior numbers or in unexpected engagements. PLA will always meet tank fights where PLA chooses and the support is so great that the tanks really are not doing that much except wearing infantry fire and lighter firepower so nothing like 120mm or artillery. Basically all PLA needs from its tanks is mobility and to be able to fire that 125mm at odd targets that do show up somehow.
> 
> 99A however is not 96A and is capable of much much more.


I mean no offense but I highly doubt China can make better composite armor than the Russians (keep in mind by this I mean China 10~ years ago when ZTZ-99A was being worked on), not because Chinese composites are bad, but because Russian metallurgy and experience is simply better.
Up until the mid-2000s China was still using basic steel composites. Which while effective are not innovative.
And I also mean no offense to the Chinese tank commander, but if getting shot from the side was no concern, than every other country than China wouldn’t be putting emphasis on side armor.

The biggest threat to tanks on a battlefield aren’t other tanks, it’s infantry with anti-tank armor which will almost always try to engage from the side or the front, and with Chinese tanks the issue is such that not even the front 1/3rd of the side is covered, meaning any enemy at even a 30 degree angle can take a shot at the side and achieve penetration. That’s after the fact that China is still using Last Gen ERA and that the ERA coverage on the 99A has a massive gap on the side. (FY-4 is comparable to later iterations of Kontakt-5 these are both 2nd Gen, Relikt is 3rd generation ERA) China also doesn’t employ hard kill APS systems which basically make most armor thickness discussions irrelevant because you cannot engage the tank with most projectiles. Even the GL-5 doesn’t protect against Top-attack projectiles like trophy and ARENA. And there’s also the fact that crew survivability would be poor in the Chinese tanks due to unarmored carousel and ammo in the storage compartment, something the T90M has fixed. It also has protection against HE projectiles for its engine. So it’s not just about thicker armor, there’s a bunch of factors that go into tank protection, the T90M covers a lot more of them than ZTZ-99 or VT-4.

Just to clarify again; I don’t think China can’t make a good tank, if they prioritized tanks as much as say Russia and put in as much money, I’ve got no doubt they’d probably make one of, if not the best tank in the world, but it’s just not their priority as you said. I still think they’ll upgrade the ZTZ-99A soon as it’s beginning to show its age. That will be an interesting sight to see.

I don’t doubt the Arjun is trash, I agree with all your points there lol.

The may have underestimated the K-2 however. I still have some questions about it’s protection but I’ll do some more research on it, it sounds like a very potent tank.

As for the Merkava, i wouldn’t place it any higher on the list simply because of its design once more, it has its engine in the front, any hit achieving penetration, while probably not hitting the crew, will put the tank and all its systems out of action. The ammunition/penetration is also average at best. It’s definitely above average, but not better than the Leo or the Abrams. It’s massively helped in protection by the very common usage of Trophy APS.


----------



## serenity

iLION12345_1 said:


> I mean no offense but I highly doubt China can make better composite armor than the Russians (keep in mind by this I mean China 10~ years ago when ZTZ-99A was being worked on), not because Chinese composites are bad, but because Russian metallurgy and experience is simply better.
> Up until the mid-2000s China was still using basic steel composites. Which while effective are not innovative.



China puts lower level stuff on tanks just so they can be made more cheaply and in greater numbers. It doesn't mean it was still using steel composites in mid 2000s (please let me know the source of this info) because it only has ability to use this. If it was effective and cheap, they wouldn't bother putting something more expensive and only slightly better on tanks.

Type 99 is longer than T-90M. The distance between lower wedge corner and edge of interior space on commander side is much longer than that distance on T-90M. Of course material matters but for each gram, the performance of the overall armor pack of the two are comparable because the scientific and technological level between these two are comparable. There is really no reason to believe that 99A's was treated the same as 96A.

T-90M is roughly 50T and 99A is close to 60T. Let's say there's 5T total of pure armor difference. With T-90M it spreads its armor more whereas the 99A focuses almost all that armor for pure frontal. And then there's 5T difference still. PA would have been demonstrated VT-4's frontal in live testing with just mechanical turret being shot at by various things. I'm not sure if the Russians would have offered such things but T-90 is not hard to shred through. Better arc but side shot is as lethal anyway. Angled shots is where T-90 does better.

Anyway the whole argument there is similar to saying even up to mid-2000s the US was still using B-52. It ignores the big picture and ignores cost saving efforts. It doesn't go towards proving the whole country is only technologically capable of that level.

But generally Chinese tanks do take compromises upon compromises due to cost saving, preference for higher numbers of units built, and doctrine of how the tanks are used which brings us to the next point below.



iLION12345_1 said:


> And I also mean no offense to the Chinese tank commander, but if getting shot from the side was no concern, than every other country than China wouldn’t be putting emphasis on side armor.



Every country has different circumstances and doctrines. China's is building and sending a lot of tanks. The idea is to always outgun and have better protection than whatever the tank is facing. In China's case really it is just Type 96A since that is the majority tank force. 96A has no hope against any of the tanks on that list but doctrine again here is important. 96A will never face an equal number of superior tanks. Not even close. The whole PLA commander's point is that helicopters, long range artillery and things like drones have reduced the capability of the enemy so much that PLA tanks will not be driving into artillery fire or even anything more than 30mm fire. If there is the odd tank or anti tank infantry then the far superior numbered force overwhelms that.

Every country is in a different position with what else they have. It is never just about a tank itself.

In the PLA's case the never getting shot from the side is the task of this support which is the largest in the world and at least the second most well equipped (only talking about home turf or neighboring area). Urban fighting for tanks is already when strategy has fallen apart and not something China if defending China would need to do much if any of. If that is the case APS becomes much more useful and necessary.



iLION12345_1 said:


> The biggest threat to tanks on a battlefield aren’t other tanks, it’s infantry with anti-tank armor which will almost always try to engage from the side or the front, and with Chinese tanks the issue is such that not even the front 1/3rd of the side is covered, meaning any enemy at even a 30 degree angle can take a shot at the side and achieve penetration. That’s after the fact that China is still using Last Gen ERA and that the ERA coverage on the 99A has a massive gap on the side. (FY-4 is comparable to later iterations of Kontakt-5 these are both 2nd Gen, Relikt is 3rd generation ERA) China also doesn’t employ hard kill APS systems which basically make most armor thickness discussions irrelevant because you cannot engage the tank with most projectiles. Even the GL-5 doesn’t protect against Top-attack projectiles like trophy and ARENA. And there’s also the fact that crew survivability would be poor in the Chinese tanks due to unarmored carousel and ammo in the storage compartment, something the T90M has fixed. It also has protection against HE projectiles for its engine. So it’s not just about thicker armor, there’s a bunch of factors that go into tank
> protection, the T90M covers a lot more of them than ZTZ-99 or VT-4.



Yes T-90M has a better all around protection but in urban and against anti-tank infantry all are equally dead if shots come from top or purely to the side. No matter what MBT, a pure side shot using latest anti-tank weapons are all 100% kills. Of course older RPGs will not penetrate but I'm talking the latest dedicated anti-tank weapons that can nearly get through the front.

So anyway that's all decisions for the army. Do they want that extra protection that's useful in 1% to 20% scenarios or place that to supplement frontal protection even more. All compromise in available armor. All of this comes down to engine. Which is why western tanks are the best in mobility + protection balance. The engine determines how much you have to play with and the level of compromise between these.

T-90M may cover a lot more angles better but also dead in pure side shot or top shot. Arena is Russian, Trophy is Israeli. I don't think any of these three APS are designed for top attack missiles. Only T-14's APS is designed to also engage top attack missiles. APS is most important against infantry and urban setting. So the APS itself matters more than the tank in these settings. It is actually rare for non-urban fighting where infantry is fighting tanks. Infantry are too easily detected by networked military. Urban is different and every war in recent decades where infantry have gone up to effectively kill tanks has been in urban environment. China truly does not prepare for this where geurilla fighters or infantry are shooting them in city. Maybe Taiwan scenario but I doubt China wants to commit to military solution. It is only to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence so clearly it works only as a deterrence. Neither side want that but lets say if that is happening, then you can bet PLA will lose many tanks if Taiwanese are armed with many anti-tank missiles or PLA will refrain entirely from using tanks and send only anti-infantry drones and robots.











And many different types of anti-infantry methods from expensive to efficient.



iLION12345_1 said:


> Just to clarify again; I don’t think China can’t make a good tank, if they prioritized tanks as much as say Russia and put in as much money, I’ve got no doubt they’d probably make one of, if not the best tank in the world, but it’s just not their priority as you said. I still think they’ll upgrade the ZTZ-99A soon as it’s beginning to show its age. That will be an interesting sight to see.



I doubt China will bother to make a top tier tank that is better than 99A in terms of relative position in that league of tanks when next generation tanks come out. I think even NATO countries don't have new generation tank programs but want to keep upgrading this generation... only Russia for some reason chose to pour money and energy into that path because of particular situation and wider strategy of expected and planned wars. China is developing some replacement but just in trials and sort of conceptualizing. If it does, it would need to be much better to justify the spending. 99A is middle ground. Sacrificing side armor and angled shot survival for pure frontal armor and guaranteed shot survival for frontal. Infantry and top attack missiles yeah it doesn't seem to care much about but mostly due to doctrine where it doesn't plan on using them in situations where they are in that kind of environment, if so then they will put on the best APS they can develop just for protection against top attack missiles.

It's very expensive to achieve this like T-14. Need much more electronics and software to integrate AESA panels with those APS. Chinese tank philosophy is very different and partly due to not having been in that sort of fighting unlike Russia has with tensions with Europe, Chechnya, and US France and Germany have with wars in middle east and north africa where their tanks have been used. Of course also the tensions with Russia from their side. China just views tanks as this mechanical thing to carry that gun while wearing 30mm shots from all angles and 120mm/125mm from front. The rest is drones drones drones and helicopters, artillery support (China really really does emphasis artillery and anti-surface missiles) and even electronic warfare. Tanks is too one dimensional to Chinese planning and consideration.

I don't think China will bother with something like leading tank battle innovation like T-14 for example. Instead drones kill tanks 99 times out of 100 and tanks kill helicopters and drones 1 time out of 100 if it is lucky.

Infantry is a different consideration and PLA thinks when fighting any enemy in China, it has infantry advantage and all the supply line advantage too.

For Taiwan scenario, I doubt China wants to go to war and has no need as long as Taiwan doesn't declare independence. The military threat is there to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence but the real strategy for reunification and ending the Chinese Civil War is through total economic victory. Economic victory means industrial victory and science and technology victory. Then military advantage is even greater in 20 years, more in 50 year, too undeniable in 100 years etc. Resolved of course before that but it is already clear the trends.




iLION12345_1 said:


> I don’t doubt the Arjun is trash, I agree with all your points there lol.
> 
> The may have underestimated the K-2 however. I still have some questions about it’s protection but I’ll do some more research on it, it sounds like a very potent tank.
> 
> As for the Merkava, i wouldn’t place it any higher on the list simply because of its design once more, it has its engine in the front, any hit achieving penetration, while probably not hitting the crew, will put the tank and all its systems out of action. The ammunition/penetration is also average at best. It’s definitely above average, but not better than the Leo or the Abrams. It’s massively helped in protection by the very common usage of Trophy APS.



Arjun is an example of extremely poor planning and unwillingness to shift design as time dragged on. They kept 1970s and 1980s concerns and considerations into the 1990s and so on.

K-2 is just excellent against tanks, networked warfare (since South Korea itself is pretty strong in networked warfare and supporting assets are there), and infantry. It is good at urban fighting too due to AESA and APS. RWS and more cameras and sensors.

Merkava 4 is old. It's quite good but far from invincible I mean even farmers and geurillas have taken out Leopard 2A5, M1A1/2, Leclerc, and many Merkavas. This is partly why China prefers drones and other aspects of army (not even counting those other domains) over just pure cool and top tier MBT.

Arjun however is fcking expensive for what it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

Interesting visual demonstration
















T-90S in first and second picture and T-90MS third picture. T-90MS core turret is actually the exact same geometry as T-90 and T-90S. It has some containers which are not armor but can be packed with modular armor surely just like Type 96-99 can have side chambers packed with modular blocks that are simply bolted down well.

If you look at T-90S side you will see the side armor itself is actually less than 5cm if even that. However, the arc design shields this very well for every gram of armor placed. This is really the mathematically perfect way to lay out finite armor as engineering compromise with engine, mobility, weight, range, and so on.

Now keep in mind T-90 is a much smaller tank than Type 99. In fact the T-90 is actually the same size (but shorter) than Type 96A.

This is 99A from the top.






Now both use layered composites and spaced armor where the physics is the same and I suspect the placement is roughly similar of internal armor panels. However T-90M underneath ERA wedge looks like this.






It is only this that is armor pack with wedge carrying only ERA.







Between the wedge is empty space.











Very similar to Leopard 2A5 and Type 99 series where wedge is empty and frame for ERA.

With 99 first and second, the armor pack is like this in red.






HOWEVER this second 99 has a wedge modular section that includes top ERA pieces! But in this illustration, the armor pack is that thickness just minus the top surface layer which is lifted as part of the wedge structure.






Type 99A however changed again. Each 99 changed the turret production. The whole thing stripped down still keeps the same shape. It changed with changed doctrine and what 99A is to be used for and what kind of engagement and damage it can expect to take. It isn't using the same modular method as 98, 99 I and II. This entire front end is partly why it is around 5 tonnes more than Type 99 I and II. The whole front section is core armor pack similar to those others for example 98's and 96s two images below.











The length of armor for 99A is THICK. Sacrificing side and angles. ERA attachment method is very different to 99 I and II.







This distance is more than 100mm more than T-90M's. Keeping in mind Type 99A is MUCH bigger than T-90M when you consider scale.

However T-90M protects from these shots far more than 99A and any PLA tank.






But 10 degrees more to the side than this angle the T-90M is just as dead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

So previously with Leopard 2A5 as first to use modular wedge shape, Type 99 used a similar approach but used the wedge as a frame for ERA and once damaged, the whole thing is lifted away just like non-wedged Type 98 core armor pack. Leopard 2A5's wedge section is to try and deflect certain types of ammo but sabot never cares about angle and geometry only after it starts penetrating does the geometry come into play but that is purely a^2 + b^2 = c^2 on the straight line, except sabot does not go straight due to the physics of penetration where armor plate type matters A LOT!











For example it is easier to rip through a substance once the tear is done, the strategy with layered composites is to demand the sabot to penetrate again and again to use energy and material to rip through a new surface every 1cm or so it travels. Empty space between this is even important and actually useful too.

The shape of the sabot's tip matters. Sharp tip actually bounces off. Rounded and cut tip can cause penetrator rod to dig in and change trajectory as it enters. Most APFSDS are seemingly sharp tip but when you look closely it is slightly rounded right at the end.

No penetrator bounces these days unless impact angle is less than 10 degree or something like that. Rounds also come in in parabolic arc so impact angle is further enhanced making bounce off a thing of the long past.

So why they use wedge? This is 1. for geometry to enhance the effective thickness of material most statistical shots have to travel through and 2. to allow driver access to hatch. There is no such thing as a shot trap as talked about in the past. Nowadays penetrator andd armor do not allow shot trap to even be physically possible as in the deflection caused type. However the armor between turret and hull in these wedge designs are exposed and thinnest but very rarely does this get presented to an incoming round because incoming rounds 99% of the time are coming in parabolic arc like a negative parabolic function and simply cannot land between this.

The core armor behind Leopard 2A5+'s wedge section is the same as old Leopards. The one behind Type 99 I and II are similar to Type 98's. Type 99A is totally redesigned turret. The entire wedge shape is core armor pack and ERA is simply on top. It is a very different ERA to Type 99 I and II's and may be partly why they chose this new design. Also the way these tanks are used are very different. Perhaps PLA only wishes to use 99A against higher tier adversary and does not expect easy modular replacement of armor pack like with 98 and 99 I and II. Where 99A gets into fight against opponents which can basically penetrate those other tanks but 99A is designed to withstand that but require total replacement of entire armor pack after shots.

Clearly 98, 99 I and II are from an era that expects lower energy threats or different opponents completely.

Underneath VT-4's ERA is unknown whether it's like 99A or 99I and II.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Considering the presence of older models of other tanks , still room to grow VT-4 numbers or even bring in the Turkish Tank

VT-4 increase figures by 100%
Altay : 25% <Place an Order 300 Units> and retire the very old platforms in equal amount

Would be nice to fill this gap between *VT-4* and *Al-Khalid* Tanks
VT-4 Numbers are quite modest figures





**The older platforms could also be moved to Western Front across the Pakistan/Afghanistan border or Supporting FC role in Balochistan 

Since there are almost 3 Tank platforms which ideally should be retired due to Technological advancement on battlefield , we need to induct at least 1 more Modern Platform in order to compensate the numbers on the battle field


----------



## Reichmarshal

initially when vt 4 failed trials in Pakistan, China came back n offered the T99 to PA

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Considering the presence of older models of other tanks , still room to grow VT-4 numbers or even bring in the Turkish Tank
> 
> VT-4 increase figures by 100%
> Altay : 25% <Place an Order 300 Units> and retire the very old platforms in equal amount
> 
> Would be nice to fill this gap between *VT-4* and *Al-Khalid* Tanks
> VT-4 Numbers are quite modest figures
> View attachment 815168
> 
> 
> **The older platforms could also be moved to Western Front across the Pakistan/Afghanistan border or Supporting FC role in Balochistan
> 
> Since there are almost 3 Tank platforms which ideally should be retired due to Technological advancement on battlefield , we need to induct at least 1 more Modern Platform in order to compensate the numbers on the battle field


Type 85UG is better than the Al-Zarrar in nearly every metric. 

There is absolutely no need for Another tank at all. The VT-4 and Al-Khalid have enough of a lead over IA tanks already, more platforms would be a massive waste of money, especially ones from the west or Turkey that don’t fit into our logistics systems at all; they can’t cross our bridges, can’t use our ammo and have no shared parts with the rest of the fleet. It’s like equipping an army with AKs and then handing an M4 to one in every 100 soldiers and expect them to be useful. 

PA has enough older types to replace already, they need to spend the money to buy more VT-4s and AK-1s (Also AK-2s in the near future) in order to replace those, not buy another very expensive platform. PA also needs money for many other acquisitions that are much likely a lot higher on the priority list, like gunships, IFVs and modern APCs. 

And lastly, the Altay isn’t ready, and won’t be for a few years. So let’s please not get into that. It will never serve in the PA unless we massively modify it to use existing ammo and induct an entirely new fleet of bridge layers, transport and Recovery vehicles in the PA to cater for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Inception-06

khurramkareem said:


> khurramkareem



Then welcome back, after 11 years!


----------



## farooqbhai007

Inception-06 said:


> THen welcome back, after 11 years!


One message a year then disappear

Reactions: Haha Haha:
5


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> It’s not my fault you know literally next to nothing about the basics of tank design, tank gun design, or tank ammunition design, otherwise I’d tell you just how poor Chinese tanks are in all three regions when compared to any modern western or Russian tank, it’s literally like China made a design in the 50s (which they copied from what T55…) and then forgot to update it until they got a T72…Which they also copied and made the ZTZ-99…
> 
> You can put as much technology as you want on a tank, the basic design issues will remain.


Which tank is best in your opinion now a days ?

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Reichmarshal said:


> initially when vt 4 failed trials in Pakistan, China came back n offered the T99 to PA



In that case why did Pakistan decided to pick *VT-4* if it failed trials ?
Which tank is more superior?

*VT-4* VS *T99 *?

I feel , Pakistan still also needs to slightly improve the count for Tanks
The current Al Khalid Program is manufacturing Tanks at a very Slow-Moderate pace

The numbers need to improve a bit


*T99 ~ Service Entry Year 2001, only 1200 Units constructed (Manufactured for China)*






*VT-4 , Service Entry 2017 *







Based on just the initial launch of the Tank , *VT-4 Should have latest knowledge and performance improvements* over the older model i.e. T-99

It has almost 20 year worth of lessons learned form the previous Chinese Tank Program integrated into it's development

From Modernization perspective it makes sense why the newer tank may have been chosen by Pakistan Army


----------



## iLION12345_1

Scorpiooo said:


> Which tank is best in your opinion now a days ?


In terms of pure technology and capability, the T-14. Realistically, the Leopard 2A7V. Especially once they give it the 130MM gun, it’s already gotten trophy Hard kill APS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> In that case why did Pakistan decided to pick *VT-4* if it failed trials ?
> Which tank is more superior?
> 
> *VT-4* VS *T99 *?


You trust his BS? VT-4 failed trial and China offered Typ99A but PA still buys VT-4. 

End up Type99A never export? What kind of logic is this?


----------



## iLION12345_1

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> In that case why did Pakistan decided to pick *VT-4* if it failed trials ?
> Which tank is more superior?
> 
> *VT-4* VS *T99 *?
> 
> I feel , Pakistan still also needs to slightly improve the count for Tanks
> The current Al Khalid Program is manufacturing Tanks at a very Slow-Moderate pace
> 
> The numbers need to improve a bit
> 
> 
> *T99 ~ Service Entry Year 2001, only 1200 Units constructed (Manufactured for China)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *VT-4 , Service Entry 2017 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on just the initial launch of the Tank , *VT-4 Should have latest knowledge and performance improvements* over the older model i.e. T-99
> 
> It has almost 20 year worth of lessons learned form the previous Chinese Tank Program integrated into it's development
> 
> From Modernization perspective it makes sense why the newer tank may have been chosen by Pakistan Army


Regardless of wether his claims are true or not (there is no source to back it up apart from hearsay), the VT-4P is a better pick for the PA due to logistical and cost reasons. The ZTZ-99A cannot share ammo and other parts from our current tanks unlike VT-4. And the VT-4 did not *fail* trials in Pakistan. PA simply had higher requirements that none of the options met, so it conducted re-trials with better variants, that’s where the upgraded VT-4 PA currently operates came from. 

The ZTZ-99A is not 20 years old. The original ZTZ-99 is. It’s been upgraded massively since.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

iLION12345_1 said:


> Regardless of wether his claims are true or not (there is no source to back it up apart from hearsay), the VT-4P is a better pick for the PA due to logistical and cost reasons. The ZTZ-99A cannot share ammo and other parts from our current tanks unlike VT-4. And the VT-4 did not *fail* trials in Pakistan. PA simply had higher requirements that none of the options met, so it conducted re-trials with better variants, that’s where the upgraded VT-4 PA currently operates came from.
> 
> The ZTZ-99A is not 20 years old. The original ZTZ-99 is. It’s been upgraded massively since.


There will be never a product which totally fits a customers requirement during tender trial process. Customer do feed back to supplier of the preference and option they wish to implement.
From my source, no major failure of VT-4 engine during the trial, if a customer preference requirement is considered as failure. I dont know what to say. There are simply too many misinfo by some individual try to spread during the initial trial period of VT-4. Like claiming the VT-4 suffer huge engine failure during the process. That is simply not true.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

@Beast
My view was VT-4 is a more mature and more scientifically better , enhanced Tank as it as 20 years of newer research and Technology behind it

Most likely when initially it was Trialed Pakistan may have requested some enhancements for their own needs and once the additions were made in design Pakistan Army purchased the Tanks

Since the deal was signed it is likely because the VT-4 as passed all performance matrix

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oom

I read that the Thais complain armour on the VT4 is much thinner then the T-80 oplot they initially planned to purchase. Given that it will most likely to alloted to our strike corps, can the VT4 withstand barrages of ATGMs ?


----------



## Abid123

iLION12345_1 said:


> If Pakistan had the money to run it, it’d fit the terrain just fine. Americans used them in Iraqi and Iranian deserts to much success. It’s more that the tank may not fit our doctrine. It’s arguably one of the best tanks in service anywhere, just for some countries, not all.


I dont think money is the reason. The Egyptians have a huge fleet of 1000+ M1 Abrams. You are probably right about it not fiting our doctrine. At the end of the day it was rejected for a reason.


----------



## PakFactor

Oom said:


> I read that the Thais complain armour on the VT4 is much thinner then the T-80 oplot they initially planned to purchase. Given that it will most likely to alloted to our strike corps, can the VT4 withstand barrages of ATGMs ?



I doubt it withstand a barrage of ATGMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> @Beast
> My view was VT-4 is a more mature and more scientifically better , enhanced Tank as it as 20 years of newer research and Technology behind it
> 
> Most likely when initially it was Trialed Pakistan may have requested some enhancements for their own needs and once the additions were made in design Pakistan Army purchased the Tanks
> 
> Since the deal was signed it is likely because the VT-4 as passed all performance matrix


PA would not buy it, if it did not meet their requirement. There is no product that is perfect in every aspect but what fit them best out of others.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Farhan Bohra

iLION12345_1 said:


> Type 85UG is better than the Al-Zarrar in nearly every metric.
> 
> There is absolutely no need for Another tank at all. The VT-4 and Al-Khalid have enough of a lead over IA tanks already, more platforms would be a massive waste of money, especially ones from the west or Turkey that don’t fit into our logistics systems at all; they can’t cross our bridges, can’t use our ammo and have no shared parts with the rest of the fleet. It’s like equipping an army with AKs and then handing an M4 to one in every 100 soldiers and expect them to be useful.
> 
> PA has enough older types to replace already, they need to spend the money to buy more VT-4s and AK-1s (Also AK-2s in the near future) in order to replace those, not buy another very expensive platform. PA also needs money for many other acquisitions that are much likely a lot higher on the priority list, like gunships, IFVs and modern APCs.
> 
> And lastly, the Altay isn’t ready, and won’t be for a few years. So let’s please not get into that. It will never serve in the PA unless we massively modify it to use existing ammo and induct an entirely new fleet of bridge layers, transport and Recovery vehicles in the PA to cater for it.


I don’t know where is the lead. When whole IA totally focused toward vertical envelopment. 

But that is for the Pakistanis to analyse.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Farhan Bohra said:


> I don’t know where is the lead. When whole IA totally focused toward vertical envelopment.
> 
> But that is for the Pakistanis to analyse.


The lead is in the technological capabilities of tanks, I’ve discussed it a billion times before, you can find it on this thread and others. The average Indian tanks lags quite far behind the average Pakistani one in capability, but that’s just one metric, there’s several hundred to consider in a Pak v Ind environment, and obviously the discussion of which side has which lead is long and tedious.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

Abid123 said:


> One of the best, if not the best comment I have seen on PDF. We dont have a proper or established military doctrine. This is the sad reality. We are a confused bunch of people. We must get rid of this defensive force logic. As famously said "offensive is the best defense"


Then why are there 2 x Strike Corps and why are they equipped with the top of the line tanks that PA possesses ?

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Abid123 said:


> One of the best, if not the best comment I have seen on PDF. We dont have a proper or established military doctrine. This is the sad reality. We are a confused bunch of people. We must get rid of this defensive force logic. As famously said "offensive is the best defense"


PAs dedicated strike corps which also happen to be the most well equipped Corps in the PA: are we a joke to you?

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Reichmarshal

PA strategy is "offensive defense".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Iron Shrappenel

PakFactor said:


> Yes, I know but if you pay attention carefully to the border with Pakistan/India and look into India itself its relatively flat. Kashmir is another story not much tank warfare will take place there. Central Punjab & Sindh should also be the focus to prevent Indian penetration and around Lahore, etc. There is enough utility and justification for heavy tanks.


Beg to differ... The desert might not have been the problem to begin with... It's the punjab flats that are the problem in my opinion. The heavily agriculturalised land and the fact that the water table along the Pakistan India border is close to 6 to 10 feet ( especially in Sialkot district etc ) with tube wells gushing water around 30 ft... A massive tank battle among both sides ( as has happened before ) where large mechanised division would move on them would lead to mud and vehicles stuck like chewing gum in hair... Count the rice paddies, sugar cane crops and add in a 72 tone tank... You've got yourself a good quagmire.... I'm realizing most of the analysis being done here is not based off of ground realities but rather wishful thinking.... I'd suggest before you guys go off on your buying spree, get a measuring tape a pair of joggers and measure 50 kanals of freshly ploughed agro land in the june/july heat... You'll have an idea of what you're dealing with...



The Eagle said:


> Thread topic:
> 
> Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions​Treat yourself being informed. Please avoid derailing.


Derailing ? Bhai jaan idhar tau train mein train waj rahin hain. Please make another thread where they can extensively discuss the different military tactica as they wish....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Iron Shrappenel

Reichmarshal said:


> PA strategy is "offensive defense".


Exactly, that's why mobility, fire power and range is on top of the list... The ability of the tank to operate long durations between resupplying is a must have for PA. logistically speaking even though great emphasis was made on logistics, movement, allocation and division of resources among the units ( a problem faced in all our wars ).... We still lack proper armored trucks with reinforced cabins for our logistical divisions.. These in case of a push into enemy territory would be juicy targets for sabotage and commando operations.... Thus making it more important in my opinion for Tanks that we buy be able to operate long hours in between replenishments....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

Iron Shrappenel said:


> Beg to differ... The desert might not have been the problem to begin with... It's the punjab flats that are the problem in my opinion. The heavily agriculturalised land and the fact that the water table along the Pakistan India border is close to 6 to 10 feet ( especially in Sialkot district etc ) with tube wells gushing water around 30 ft... A massive tank battle among both sides ( as has happened before ) where large mechanised division would move on them would lead to mud and vehicles stuck like chewing gum in hair... Count the rice paddies, sugar cane crops and add in a 72 tone tank... You've got yourself a good quagmire.... I'm realizing most of the analysis being done here is not based off of ground realities but rather wishful thinking.... I'd suggest before you guys go off on your buying spree, get a measuring tape a pair of joggers and measure 50 kanals of freshly ploughed agro land in the june/july heat... You'll have an idea of what you're dealing with...
> 
> 
> Derailing ? Bhai jaan idhar tau train mein train waj rahin hain. Please make another thread where they can extensively discuss the different military tactica as they wish....



And the extensive network of defensive canals built on both sides to obstruct armour movement that has only been expanded by several times as opposed to how it was during the 1965 and 71 wars.
A basic scenario ,PA has ample amount of tactical UAVs , IA setting up bridges takes time enough to be detected by a UAV and with PA's edge in a large amount of SPH regiments you get a immediate volley of fire to stop that bridging op.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Iron Shrappenel said:


> Beg to differ... The desert might not have been the problem to begin with... It's the punjab flats that are the problem in my opinion. The heavily agriculturalised land and the fact that the water table along the Pakistan India border is close to 6 to 10 feet ( especially in Sialkot district etc ) with tube wells gushing water around 30 ft... A massive tank battle among both sides ( as has happened before ) where large mechanised division would move on them would lead to mud and vehicles stuck like chewing gum in hair... Count the rice paddies, sugar cane crops and add in a 72 tone tank... You've got yourself a good quagmire.... I'm realizing most of the analysis being done here is not based off of ground realities but rather wishful thinking.... I'd suggest before you guys go off on your buying spree, get a measuring tape a pair of joggers and measure 50 kanals of freshly ploughed agro land in the june/july heat... You'll have an idea of what you're dealing with...
> 
> 
> Derailing ? Bhai jaan idhar tau train mein train waj rahin hain. Please make another thread where they can extensively discuss the different military tactica as they wish....


People often forget how much logistics goes into deploying a single tank let alone hundreds. We have absolutely none of the supporting infrastructure for a tank heavier than 60 tons, even that was only added after VT4s induction, most of our military bridges are still only capable of carrying upto 50 tons. Not to mention the cost and complexity of inducting a tank that doesn’t use any shared parts or ammo with our current tanks. I highly doubt we’ll see another tank type in the PA for at least two decades now. They’ll continue to build up the AK and VT4 fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

iLION12345_1 said:


> People often forget how much logistics goes into deploying a single tank let alone hundreds. We have absolutely none of the supporting infrastructure for a tank heavier than 60 tons, even that was only added after VT4s induction, most of our military bridges are still only capable of carrying upto 50 tons. Not to mention the cost and complexity of inducting a tank that doesn’t use any shared parts or ammo with our current tanks. I highly doubt we’ll see another tank type in the PA for at least two decades now. They’ll continue to build up the AK and VT4 fleet.


Yes pontoon bridges , Armored bridge layers and wheeled bridge layers all stand at 50 ton max capacity , for VT4 PA has had to induct new 70 ton capacity systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## alimobin memon

Oom said:


> I read that the Thais complain armour on the VT4 is much thinner then the T-80 oplot they initially planned to purchase. Given that it will most likely to alloted to our strike corps, can the VT4 withstand barrages of ATGMs ?


No tank would survive barrages of ATGM, technically hard kill aps like trophy has less probably too in case of barrages. VT4 is better than T90 variants it has to face that matters the most. There is this claim by an us army colonel that around 48 times atgm was fired but trophy intercepted but it was not in barrage format rather 1 or 2 at a time. So that claim if you make is not entirely good claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus



Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Close up of 12.7mm

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
5


----------



## iLION12345_1

A very good video covering why tanks are still extremely relevant. People who think ATGMs/Launchers and drones are going to make them obsolete should watch this.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
2


----------



## waz

iLION12345_1 said:


> A very good video covering why tanks are still extremely relevant. People who think ATGMs/Launchers and drones are going to make them obsolete should watch this.



Good video.
This whole thing of ditching tanks is the talk of amateurs. No way can you hold land, take up defensive positions, provide close fire support to infantry for a prolonged time etc just with drones. Our battlefront is wide and also fluid hence we need it all.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## 伝説のネコ神様

iLION12345_1 said:


> The 99A was an excellent tank for its time, The Chinese forces have been focusing their money where needed; on their Air Force and navy. They don’t really need better tanks right now since they’ve got no use for them, their ZTZ-99As are still arguably the best tanks in the region.
> 
> It’s not that China can’t make a better tank. It’s that they don’t need it, and the current ones they have come from an Era where China wasn’t fully capable of making its own designs unlike it is now, that’s why the designs are dated.
> 
> I’m sure they’ll replace or Upgrade their tank sooner or later, whenever they feel the need for it.
> Considering how much China has advanced in other technologies, the new design will probably be comparable to its western and Russian counterparts as well.


I would argue it is not because they have no use of tanks, but more like ZTZ-99A ain't bad enough to urge them to make developing an new MBT or MBT platform into top piority. 

The Type-62 is really outdated so they decide to develop ZTQ-15. ZTZ-99A's has a good frontal protection, but we are know it's 30 degree problem and its soviet style auto loader actually limit china to insert a better munition. Its not like current munition is bad or something, but due to the fact modern Armor start to put heavier and heavier armor, it definitely better to use better munition. The problem lies in the modern technology can not provide any "game change" achievement such as material to provide better protection but lot lighter weight, much better canon and shell.

Under current tech, either put better armor or better gun will increase the weight and without a solution to provide lighter weight but super density material and much powerful and reliable engine, you risk of sacrifice mobility and even reliability to achieve these status. Some might argue APS will solve the problem, but from what I learned, Drozd 1 only have around 75% chance of intercept rate, not sure about arena and Drozd 2 tho, but the charge is limited, and it have range requirement, if fired upclosed it lack of time to react. So it will not solved all the problem. Tho china do have a Hard Kill APS system called GL5 and it is originally mounted on Vt-4 model (correct me if I was wrong, really hard to identify the model from the video) for the showcase. Based on video it seems to intercept rocket.

Also, PLA after the recent reform, they focus on mobility and reconnaissance even more. So there is no way for them to sacrifice Mobility and reliability to shift the focus into heavier armor and huge but not necessary better gun. And our own non-script competitive war game shows the result that under modern war against superior foe, most of the armor are not even damaged by tank but Long range artillery, Rocket launcher or CAS in some cases due to their opponent have way better reconnaissance capability and able to pin point red team's location and vaporized them during their rally phase (per-reformed Unit always having this problem) , something which really interesting because for what I read some of the Ukrainian Armored unit were destroyed under same circumstance by Russia. 

Some of the armor during the war game is destroyed by some small nimble infantry anti tank unit, apparently they set up an ambush, and due to the red team lack of the reconnaissance, around 10 armor was wasted before they locate the blue team anti-tank infantry unit, which cost them one third of an armor battalion. (which is interesting some of the Russia Armored was destroyed by Ukrainian infantry ambush and the video shows that Russian force also having problem such as lack of reconnaissance capability) 

So because of those recent development, PLA decide to consolidate their resource to built more reconnaissance equipment such as reconnaissance vehicle, UAV, helicopter with great performance in reconnaissance (both Z-19 and Z-10M/ME consist good reconnaissance capability and having a very impressive operation range) 

And under the PLA's new doctrine how to utilize the reconnaissance and data-link to form up a battle field monitor and conduct network-centric warfare is way more important, since they can simply use long range artillery to weaken their foe before the front unit engage their target, and even try to outflank them, ambush them instead conduct a frontal assault. 

And because of that the new MBT Project have very low priority, they simply does not require the MBT to out performance their foe, but provide enough fighting capability to face small skirmish. And ZTZ-99A despite start to fall behind, still capable of carring this duty, which hence the poiunt it not bad enough for them to make it higher priority.

Tho it does not means that China will not develop new armor, just until they find a better solution to provide a more suitable platform, sacrifice mobility for heavier armor or heavier but not necessary better canon does not solve the problem for them. since a direct hit of 155 shell which guided by reconnaissance unit and fired by an SPG will guaranteed the kill. 

Honestly I think VT-4 will have better future, because despite PLA does not prioritize to use tank to carry out anti-Tank duty, their client might not share their doctrine. And if their client such as PA can provide enough feed back (which is something I really like it, PA do provide many useful feedback to help china to come up a better design), come out a upgrade package to specifically satisfied PA's need is totally possible. As for ZTZ-99, if PLA ever gona upgrade the model, likely use the feed back from the VT-4 or from their war gaming result. 

But it is something not gona happen very soon, army's budget is prioritized in filling the list of support unit such as artillery, reconnaissance and army aviation and such. Increase the support unity support efficient having higher priority.


the video of Russia Armor Unit get ambushed, you can see it take them sometime to react to the attack, and if Ukraine ambush were better organized who know how many unit Russia would lost.





video link to introduced Drozd APS





video link to introduce GL5

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Basel

waz said:


> Good video.
> This whole thing of ditching tanks is the talk of amateurs. No way can you hold land, take up defensive positions, provide close fire support to infantry for a prolonged time etc just with drones. Our battlefront is wide and also fluid hence we need it all.



A next gen tank could be unmanned or a manned tank with UAV/UGV capabilities, this should be explored by China and Pakistan for future conflicts.


----------



## 伝説のネコ神様

Basel said:


> A next gen tank could be unmanned or a manned tank with UAV/UGV capabilities, this should be explored by China and Pakistan for future conflicts.


Kind depend on what you mean, if you ask for the data-link between UAV and Tank that is not something too difficult and basically a shelf product. All you need is a digital map system and a data link to link up with UAV. 

If you mean the tank to have capability to launch UAV and link up in the same time, then it is another question.
Aside from does Tank really need to launch UAV themselves, the tech is also already available. 
Reconnaissance vehicle usually has the capability of launching UAV and link with it. It just it usually not imply to the tank.


----------



## Basel

伝説のネコ神様 said:


> Kind depend on what you mean, if you ask for the data-link between UAV and Tank that is not something too difficult and basically a shelf product. All you need is a digital map system and a data link to link up with UAV.
> 
> If you mean the tank to have capability to launch UAV and link up in the same time, then it is another question.
> Aside from does Tank really need to launch UAV themselves, the tech is also already available.
> Reconnaissance vehicle usually has the capability of launching UAV and link with it. It just it usually not imply to the tank.



Tanks need to have capabilities to search, track and engage all types of UAVs/UCAVs, also if a scan eagle UAV or something better can be matted with tank and tank crew can deploy it for situational awareness and target acquisition etc. Then lone tank will be able to better defend itself, now if you put a tank like this in NCW environment with other advance assets then you have next gen fighting capabilities.

Moreover, tanks should get something like loyal wing man which air forces are looking for manned fighters.


----------



## Dazzler

Farhan Bohra said:


> I don’t know where is the lead. When whole IA totally focused toward vertical envelopment.
> 
> But that is for the Pakistanis to analyse.


Ammo, optics, fcs/gcs, protection and mobility.


----------



## DeusExAstra

A bit offtopic, but it's related with VT-2B/VT-5/VT-5 tanks:

CH-series transmission limitations



Spoiler: CH-series












CH-series transmission structural scheme



Spoiler: CH-series scheme













Spoiler: Machine translation



(4) Figure 2-3-39 of the domestic CH series planetary transmission mechanism shows a schematic diagram of the transmission scheme of China's CH series three-degree-of-freedom planetary transmission mechanism. The speed change mechanism consists of 4 planetary rows (the third and fourth planetary rows form a composite planetary row) and 6 operating elements (4 brakes, 2 clutches), which can realize 6 forward gears and 3 reverse gears.
JCa
- ky

Figure 2-3-39 Schematic diagram of CH series planetary gearbox​The fourth row is a double star row with internal and external jets, sharing the sun wheel and planetary frame with the third planetary row. Following the previous analysis, the transmission ratio of the planetary mechanism can be obtained, as shown in Table 2-3-5.

Table 2-3-5 Variable speed gears, operating parts and transmission ratios
Gear
Variable speed transmission ratio
First gear
(1+k2)



CH700 transmission demonstrator


Spoiler: CH700 transmission











So, I suppose, if this scheme is correct (according to few sources it takes 4/2 instead of using full 6/3), VT-4's CH1000B should be the same scheme with 4/2 real and 6/3 ("full", but they're fully not involved)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Super Falcon

We must not indulge our self in 3rd gen tanks wait few more years save the money for tanks like German KF 51 APEX PREDATORS

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## DeusExAstra

Hello!

Heard some rumors about planned VT-4 autoloader expansion to use more powerful APFDS, was this one of the demands of the Pakistani military during the testing?


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> Hello!
> 
> Heard some rumors about planned VT-4 autoloader expansion to use more powerful APFDS, was this one of the demands of the Pakistani military during the testing?


It was not. VT-4 uses a standard T72 style and size auto-loader (of course it is modernized, but the same design, style and dimensions). All Chinese tanks use that style and size autoloader. China does not make any APFSDS longer than the maximum length limit of the T72 style autoloader. The two best Chinese APFSDS are BTA-4 that is used with VT-4 and DTC-10-125 which is used by ZTZ-99A, both are short rod penetrators with 760MM length (Shell and charge), 760MM is the maximum size that can be used by the auto-loaders of Al-Khalid, ZTZ-96, ZTZ-99 and VT-4.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## DeusExAstra

iLION12345_1 said:


> It was not. VT-4 uses a standard T72 style and size auto-loader (of course it is modernized, but the same design, style and dimensions). All Chinese tanks use that style and size autoloader. China does not make any APFSDS longer than the maximum length limit of the T72 style autoloader. The two best Chinese APFSDS are BTA-4 that is used with VT-4 and DTC-10-125 which is used by ZTZ-99A, both are short rod penetrators with 760MM length (Shell and charge), 760MM is the maximum size that can be used by the auto-loaders of Al-Khalid, ZTZ-96, ZTZ-99 and VT-4.


But were there any demands to make it wider, for future, at least? Cause few of my Chinese friends said NORINCO working on it "right now" for export VT's)

About it's length, It's shorter, than 760mm, because of separate place for shell and charge, the limit for shell part should be ~690mm.

And judging on those leaked DTC10-125 data, it should be around ~10-15mm bigger than DTW-125/BTA-4 (~580mm rod)


----------



## siegecrossbow

iLION12345_1 said:


> It was not. VT-4 uses a standard T72 style and size auto-loader (of course it is modernized, but the same design, style and dimensions). All Chinese tanks use that style and size autoloader. China does not make any APFSDS longer than the maximum length limit of the T72 style autoloader. The two best Chinese APFSDS are BTA-4 that is used with VT-4 and DTC-10-125 which is used by ZTZ-99A, both are short rod penetrators with 760MM length (Shell and charge), 760MM is the maximum size that can be used by the auto-loaders of Al-Khalid, ZTZ-96, ZTZ-99 and VT-4.



Type-15 doesn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

DeusExAstra said:


> But were there any demands to make it wider, for future, at least? Cause few of my Chinese friends said NORINCO working on it "right now" for export VT's)
> 
> About it's length, It's shorter, than 760mm, because of separate place for shell and charge, the limit for shell part should be ~690mm.
> 
> And judging on those leaked DTC10-125 data, it should be around ~10-15mm bigger than DTW-125/BTA-4 (~580mm rod)


Making a longer rod will sacrifice the gunpowder utilized. There is pro and cons. Doesn't mean a longer rod will always better in term armour penetration.


----------



## DeusExAstra

Beast said:


> Making a longer rod will sacrifice the gunpowder utilized. There is pro and cons. Doesn't mean a longer rod will always better in term armour penetration.


The main point is keep it balanced, for example, increasing rod lenght for DTC10-125 for ~2,5% and muzzle velocity for ~1,15% comparing to DTW-125 led to increasing of LOS performance for ~ 13%, which is pretty good.

The problem is angle performance for shorter rods, especially if we talk about 90 degreed penetration

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

Pakistan made mistake by buying these VT 4 They don't offer anything against future warfare we did hurry to buy them rather waited for tech innovation like panther tank atleast we could have waited for longer to use those tech if panther in our future tank Al Khalid 2

Reactions: Haha Haha:
8


----------



## Beast

Super Falcon said:


> Pakistan made mistake by buying these VT 4 They don't offer anything against future warfare we did hurry to buy them rather waited for tech innovation like panther tank atleast we could have waited for longer to use those tech if panther in our future tank Al Khalid 2


Wait for how long? 20 years?  The German themselves havent even finalise this tank and you are to claim Pakistan can get this goodies? And you think Pakistan economy is very good and Germans are kind to give credit for you?

VT-4 are currently a match for T-90S , M1A2 or Challenger 2 that are currently serving in major countries. The decision to got for VT-4 is to fill in current challenge and not wait for future while the threat gap is there for next 10-20 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Super Falcon said:


> Pakistan made mistake by buying these VT 4 They don't offer anything against future warfare we did hurry to buy them rather waited for tech innovation like panther tank atleast we could have waited for longer to use those tech if panther in our future tank Al Khalid 2


No kidding. I don't see major innovation in Panther tank at all. I only see overengineered tank, extremely expensive, 20 round.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

vi-va said:


> No kidding. I don't see major innovation in Panther tank at all. I only see overengineered tank, extremely expensive, 20 round.


Precisely, beside slightly bigger gun. The engine is the same HP and same as transmission. As for next gen network, there is yet to have any breakthru of what their marketing claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Super Falcon said:


> Pakistan made mistake by buying these VT 4 They don't offer anything against future warfare we did hurry to buy them rather waited for tech innovation like panther tank atleast we could have waited for longer to use those tech if panther in our future tank Al Khalid 2



Don’t write such outlandish posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

waz said:


> Don’t write such outlandish posts.


He is well known to be a troll..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## iLION12345_1

siegecrossbow said:


> Type-15 doesn't.


Type 15 is not an MBT. Nor does it have a 125MM Gun.



DeusExAstra said:


> But were there any demands to make it wider, for future, at least? Cause few of my Chinese friends said NORINCO working on it "right now" for export VT's)
> 
> About it's length, It's shorter, than 760mm, because of separate place for shell and charge, the limit for shell part should be ~690mm.
> 
> And judging on those leaked DTC10-125 data, it should be around ~10-15mm bigger than DTW-125/BTA-4 (~580mm rod)


There has been no open interest or data about China making new auto-loaders or bigger ammo so far. I’m certain they’re working on it, China surely has the money and expertise to make them, but tanks are not a high priority for China unlike fighter jets and Ships. I doubt VT-4 will get a bigger auto-loader and new ammo soon, but we might see it in a local (as in for the PLA) tank.

I meant to say 680MM, 760MM was a typo, I was thinking of something else.

I have seen the DTC-10 “leaked photos and data” many times, it has a longer penetrator yes, the overall ammo length is still the same as BTA-4. Means something else was made shorter.
It is still a short rod penetrator with likely only marginal improvement in penetration. It can be used in VT-4, ZTZ-96B and ZTZ-99A. This also points to the fact that it’s not longer than 680MM.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

Basel said:


> A next gen tank could be unmanned or a manned tank with UAV/UGV capabilities, this should be explored by China and Pakistan for future conflicts.


ambitious project

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## emotionless_teenage

waz said:


> Don’t write such outlandish posts.


That guy is an idiot

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK



Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Dazzler

HRK said:


> View attachment 873653


Share the video.


----------



## HRK

Dazzler said:


> Share the video.


This is one of the picture published by HIT at its website

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## syed_yusuf

HRK said:


> View attachment 873653


What does it say ?


----------



## HRK

syed_yusuf said:


> What does it say ?


VT-4 tank gun Indigenization

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

I thought this had already been posted, otherwise I’d have done it a couple of days ago when Farooq tweeted about it.

It’s been known since the second trials that VT-4 was using a Pakistani Gun barrel. It’s basically the same one used in AZ, UG and AK series (although there were some minor modifications for the VT-4 in order to mate it to the slightly different gun breech).

It was done because the Chinese Barrel wasn’t front removable for easy maintenance + any indigenization is cheaper than none. I wonder if any other changes were made to HITs barrels over the 15 year or so period they’ve been in production.

The poster states that 87% of the barrels components are indigenous.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Signalian

PA does play a lot around with Chinese origin tanks. Type-59 is a testimony to that, today it stands as AZ.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> I thought this had already been posted, otherwise I’d have done it a couple of days ago when Farooq tweeted about it.
> 
> It’s been known since the second trials that VT-4 was using a Pakistani Gun barrel. It’s basically the same one used in AZ, UG and AK series (although there were some minor modifications for the VT-4 in order to mate it to the slightly different gun breech).
> 
> It was done because the Chinese Barrel wasn’t front removable for easy maintenance + any indigenization is cheaper than none. I wonder if any other changes were made to HITs barrels over the 15 year or so period they’ve been in production.
> 
> The poster states that 87% of the barrels components are indigenous.


Hmc gun boasts better barrel life and easy to maintain in field conditions than the zpt-98 although the latter offers higher chamber pressure at the cost of shelf life and heavier maintenance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

iLION12345_1 said:


> I thought this had already been posted, otherwise I’d have done it a couple of days ago when Farooq tweeted about it.
> 
> It’s been known since the second trials that VT-4 was using a Pakistani Gun barrel. It’s basically the same one used in AZ, UG and AK series (although there were some minor modifications for the VT-4 in order to mate it to the slightly different gun breech).
> 
> It was done because the Chinese Barrel wasn’t front removable for easy maintenance + any indigenization is cheaper than none. I wonder if any other changes were made to HITs barrels over the 15 year or so period they’ve been in production.
> 
> The poster states that 87% of the barrels components are indigenous.


yes it was known from sometime but ... this is I think is the first official confirmation related to indigenous gun barrel

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

HRK said:


> yes it was known from sometime but ... this is I think is the first official confirmation related to indigenous gun barrel


True. First time they've confirmed it officially and even showed guns to the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Paul2

In light of Ukraine war experience, both sides have long exhausted their replacement stocks for all barrels.

Both Ukraine, and Russia only have one barrel factory per country, which only make few hundred barrels per year at best.

NATO countries were a big surprise too. There are only 2 industrial scale manufacturers of autofretted barrels, both in EU: Rheinmetall, and Nexter owned.


----------



## emotionless_teenage

Paul2 said:


> In light of Ukraine war experience, both sides have long exhausted their replacement stocks for all barrels.
> 
> Both Ukraine, and Russia only have one barrel factory per country, which only make few hundred barrels per year at best.
> 
> NATO countries were a big surprise too. There are only 2 industrial scale manufacturers of autofretted barrels, both in EU: Rheinmetall, and Nexter owned.


Other former warsaw countries produced tank barrel as well like Slovakia and Poland. These companies aren't as big as Rheinmetall but they're not mom and pop industry either


----------



## LKJ86

Via @鼎盛沙龙 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## serenity

GL-5 APS equipped? PLA's own do not use GL-5 but something more modern.


----------



## iLION12345_1

serenity said:


> GL-5 APS equipped? PLA's own do not use GL-5 but something more modern.


PLA tanks have not been seen with a proper Hard kill system as of yet. GL5 is likely the best APS China makes (that is publicly known). And even then neither GL5 or the 99As system have top-attack defense capability.

That’s a VT4 at Zuhai.


----------



## KampfAlwin

serenity said:


> GL-5 APS equipped? PLA's own do not use GL-5 but something more modern.


That doesn't look like GL-5, it looks like it can pivot up and down, unlike GL-5 which is fixed.


----------



## serenity

iLION12345_1 said:


> PLA tanks have not been seen with a proper Hard kill system as of yet. GL5 is likely the best APS China makes (that is publicly known). And even then neither GL5 or the 99As system have top-attack defense capability.
> 
> That’s a VT4 at Zuhai.



GL-5 is NOT the best APS China makes. Just because it is the only one offered for export does not make it the only one China makes. After the whole GL-5 becoming an available option on exported vehicles back in 2017 when it was shown publicly, many Chinese netizens questioned why the PLA's own tanks do not use GL-5 and the answer from PLA affiliated was that 1. APS for PLA vehicles are not photographed similar in how many Chinese weapons systems are simply not photographed or at least very rarely captured and the information is tightly controlled. 2. GL-5 is quite antiquated and long rejected by PLA. There is at least one system that is better and more modern of a APS type and only during wartime it might be shown and even then it would be unintended leaks of photos rather than state allowing it.

GL-5 is many decades old now and takes similar approach to old Soviet style APS systems. The newer ones require sensors that are too expensive to integrate in huge numbers. So even during wartimes the vast majority of vehicles wouldn't even be using APS unless it is a more mission critical component.



KampfAlwin said:


> That doesn't look like GL-5, it looks like it can pivot up and down, unlike GL-5 which is fixed.



Yeah it looks like some variation of GL-5 but GL-5 like projectiles.


----------



## iLION12345_1

serenity said:


> GL-5 is NOT the best APS China makes. Just because it is the only one offered for export does not make it the only one China makes. After the whole GL-5 becoming an available option on exported vehicles back in 2017 when it was shown publicly, many Chinese netizens questioned why the PLA's own tanks do not use GL-5 and the answer from PLA affiliated was that 1. APS for PLA vehicles are not photographed similar in how many Chinese weapons systems are simply not photographed or at least very rarely captured and the information is tightly controlled. 2. GL-5 is quite antiquated and long rejected by PLA. There is at least one system that is better and more modern of a APS type and only during wartime it might be shown and even then it would be unintended leaks of photos rather than state allowing it.
> 
> GL-5 is many decades old now and takes similar approach to old Soviet style APS systems. The newer ones require sensors that are too expensive to integrate in huge numbers. So even during wartimes the vast majority of vehicles wouldn't even be using APS unless it is a more mission critical component.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it looks like some variation of GL-5 but GL-5 like projectiles.


I said “publicly shown” for a reason. As it stands, a better APS system has NOT been seen from China, nor has it been seen equipped online Chinese MBTs. The system on the ZTZ-99 isn’t even a proper hard kill APS. My point still stands. A proper, top-attack defending, hard kill APS is one of the hardest things to make, I wouldn’t be surprised if even China hasn’t successfully made one yet considering their lack of attention towards tank based doctrine. Speculation is not proof. 

You can say China has a ton of hidden tech and maybe you’d be right, but that doesn’t count until it’s confirmed. By that metric I can say Pakistan has a dozen hidden technologies too, and nobody can prove me right or wrong.


----------



## Elernal

iLION12345_1 said:


> I said “publicly shown” for a reason. As it stands, a better APS system has NOT been seen from China, nor has it been seen equipped online Chinese MBTs. The system on the ZTZ-99 isn’t even a proper hard kill APS. My point still stands. A proper, top-attack defending, hard kill APS is one of the hardest things to make, I wouldn’t be surprised if even China hasn’t successfully made one yet considering their lack of attention towards tank based doctrine. Speculation is not proof.
> 
> You can say China has a ton of hidden tech and maybe you’d be right, but that doesn’t count until it’s confirmed. By that metric I can say Pakistan has a dozen hidden technologies too, and nobody can prove me right or wrong.


I would like to say what you did not express, after this Russian-Ukrainian war PLA will only be more determined to emphasize the role of artillery, I also thought before that PLA will launch a new main battle tank like its western counterparts, but it seems that instead of upgrading these MBTs PLA thinks that upgrading the artillery equipment is more worth doing


----------



## Sinnerman108

Smepig said:


> I would like to say what you did not express, after this Russian-Ukrainian war PLA will only be more determined to emphasize the role of artillery, I also thought before that PLA will launch a new main battle tank like its western counterparts, but it seems that instead of upgrading these MBTs PLA thinks that upgrading the artillery equipment is more worth doing



Tank, is history.

it's infantry equipped with drones and smart weapons backed 
with artillery without ricking air assets.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Sinnerman108 said:


> Tank, is history.
> 
> it's infantry equipped with drones and smart weapons backed
> with artillery without ricking air assets.


Tanks are not history, and anyone claiming so needs to do more research. They are as relevant as ever.



Smepig said:


> I would like to say what you did not express, after this Russian-Ukrainian war PLA will only be more determined to emphasize the role of artillery, I also thought before that PLA will launch a new main battle tank like its western counterparts, but it seems that instead of upgrading these MBTs PLA thinks that upgrading the artillery equipment is more worth doing


They’re right imo. China doesn’t need better tanks, they don’t have anyone nearby that has anything to compare to what they have. And America isn’t really going to be invading China with its abrams (or vice versa). Most Tanks cannot be used in a conflict against India and Taiwan either. So it’s smart of them to invest money in the stuff they’d actually use like artillery, light tanks, jets and their naval fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## serenity

It is true but China since the 1950s emphasized artillery in ground forces. Definitely emphasized artillery over tanks. Tanks is not totally useless but compared to decades ago, much more useless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

iLION12345_1 said:


> Tanks are not history, and anyone claiming so needs to do more research. They are as relevant as ever.
> 
> 
> They’re right imo. China doesn’t need better tanks, they don’t have anyone nearby that has anything to compare to what they have. And America isn’t really going to be invading China with its abrams (or vice versa). Most Tanks cannot be used in a conflict against India and Taiwan either. So it’s smart of them to invest money in the stuff they’d actually use like artillery, light tanks, jets and their naval fleet.


When General Dynamics and the entire US military which leads the forefront in unmanned warfare - and the IDF which leads in hard kill systems believes the tank is still relevant - what is a single liner piecemeal statement on PDF worth?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Elernal

SQ8 said:


> When General Dynamics and the entire US military which leads the forefront in unmanned warfare - and the IDF which leads in hard kill systems believes the tank is still relevant - what is a single liner piecemeal statement on PDF worth?


That's because the information you currently have is outdated, this year's war in Russia and Ukraine is the most intense war of the century so far, and the most effective test of the effectiveness of land warfare doctrine, when you say that tanks are given priority by the U.S. and Israel I wonder if you have considered who these tanks are opposing, first consider this before mentioning unmanned warfare and hard kill is not too late, and of course, not to mention the IDF's hard kill capability is not even close to the level of the current permanent members of the UN, just that he has been bullying weak opponents. When the U.S. Army is always looking for ways to put more urban warfare kits on Abrams you will find that things like tanks are actually not as effective as many other units, especially the artillery units that are currently making a splash, and the Army does not need such units that pursue single combat capability in a complete information-based combat system, which is also contrary to U.S. air control doctrine

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Smepig said:


> That's because the information you currently have is outdated, this year's war in Russia and Ukraine is the most intense war of the century so far, and the most effective test of the effectiveness of land warfare doctrine, when you say that tanks are given priority by the U.S. and Israel I wonder if you have considered who these tanks are opposing, first consider this before mentioning unmanned warfare and hard kill is not too late, and of course, not to mention the IDF's hard kill capability is not even close to the level of the current permanent members of the UN, just that he has been bullying weak opponents. When the U.S. Army is always looking for ways to put more urban warfare kits on Abrams you will find that things like tanks are actually not as effective as many other units, especially the artillery units that are currently making a splash, and the Army does not need such units that pursue single combat capability in a complete information-based combat system, which is also contrary to U.S. air control doctrine


Me When people start equating the Pak-Ind theatre and doctrine to the shitshow of a fight that isn’t even a proper conventional conflict in Ukraine-Russia or the power projection based militaries of Europe: 🤡

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1


----------



## PakFactor

iLION12345_1 said:


> Me When people start equating the Pak-Ind theatre and doctrine to the shitshow of a fight that isn’t even a proper conventional conflict in Ukraine-Russia or the power projection based militaries of Europe: 🤡




So to get this straight, do you consider the power projection of European armies lesser than Indo-Pak in conventional warfare?

Reactions: Wow Wow:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

PakFactor said:


> So to get this straight, do you consider the power projection of European armies lesser than Indo-Pak in conventional warfare?


I don’t entirely get the question but I’ll try to give an answer.

Can the major European nations (UK, Germany, France and to some extent Italy) project their power further and more effectively in other parts of the world than india and Pakistan? Yes, most definitely, especially after all their recent defense budget increases due to the Russian invasion.
Because that’s what they need to do. France needs to be in Africa, the US needs to be basically everywhere but the US itself, all of them need to be in Ukraine etc, india and Pakistan have no reason to be anywhere else but their own countries, and even then Pakistani forces have many foreign deployments, more so than india, but only in a training or advisory roles, neither country is fighting in another apart from under the UN.
EU nations don’t have as much use for a large tank force because they don’t face a threat of direct invasion, nor do they plan on taking several thousand MBTs to invade another nation (the one country that might need to do so, USA, still has several thousand MBTs, the other European nations are going for quality of tanks over quantity).

Does that mean that if they were put in place of india or Pakistan and asked to fight the other they would fare better than india or Pakistan themselves? No, because even if they have better power projection and overall mode advanced technology, they’re not set up to fight our war. On Afghanistan and Vietnam’s terms, even the US forces could not break through. But put either Afghanistan or Vietnam next to the US and see how many seconds both nations survive, similarly if you put the UK or Germany next to Pakistan, I’d wager we’d have a much easier time beating them than we would India in this entirely hypothetical scenario (of course, economic power be damned in that case).

India and Pakistan are (obviously) far better set up to fight an indo-Pak war, both the countries and militaries literally train every waking day to fight each other. Both doctrines and terrains are very tank friendly and tank heavy. And if the Russian forces weren’t so incompetent at strategy and logistics, tanks would be the most important part of their victory, but send your tanks one by one into an urban area without infantry or air cover and what do you expect apart from them being picked off one by one by modern ATGMs provided by the west.

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict did nothing to prove how good UAVs or how obsolete tanks are in a conventional war, all it did was prove how important proper doctrine, strategy, logistics and morale is.​

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
4


----------



## PakFactor

iLION12345_1 said:


> I don’t entirely get the question but I’ll the to give an answer.
> 
> Can the major European nations (UK, Germany, France and to some extent Italy) project their power further and more effectively in other parts of the world than india and Pakistan? Yes, most definitely, especially after all their recent defense budget increases due to the Russian invasion.
> Because that’s what they need to do. France needs to be in Africa, the US needs to be basically everywhere but the US itself, all of them need to be in Ukraine etc
> They don’t have as much use for a large tank force because they don’t face a threat of direct invasion, nor do they plan on taking several thousand MBTs to invade another nation (the one country that might need to do so, USA, still has several thousand MBTs, the other European nations are going for quality of tanks over quantity).
> 
> Does that mean that if they were put in place of india or Pakistan and asked to fight the other they would fare better than india or Pakistan themselves? No, because even if they have better power projection and overall mode advanced technology, they’re not set up to fight our war. On Afghanistan and Vietnam’s terms, even the US forces could not break through. But put either Afghanistan or Vietnam next to the US and see how many seconds both nations survive, similarly if you put the UK or Germany next to Pakistan, I’d wager we’d have a much easier time beating them than we would India in this entirely hypothetical scenario (of course, economic power be damned in that case).
> 
> India and Pakistan are (obviously) far better set up to fight an indo-Pak war, both the countries and militaries literally train every waking day to fight each other. Both doctrines and terrains are very tank friendly and tank heavy. And if the Russian forces weren’t so incompetent at strategy and logistics, tanks would be the most important part of their victory, but send your tanks one by one into an urban area without infantry or air cover and what do you expect apart from them being picked off one by one by modern ATGMs provided by the west.
> 
> The Russian-Ukrainian conflict did nothing to prove how good UAVs or how obsolete tanks are in a conventional war, all it did was prove how important proper doctrine, strategy, logistics and Morale is.​​



Ok. Now your point is clear to understand. Thanks.


----------



## LeGenD

iLION12345_1 said:


> India and Pakistan are (obviously) far better set up to fight an indo-Pak war, both the countries and militaries literally train every waking day to fight each other. Both doctrines and terrains are very tank friendly and tank heavy. And if the Russian forces weren’t so incompetent at strategy and logistics, tanks would be the most important part of their victory, but send your tanks one by one into an urban area without infantry or air cover and what do you expect apart from them being picked off one by one by modern ATGMs provided by the west.
> 
> The Russian-Ukrainian conflict did nothing to prove how good UAVs or how obsolete tanks are in a conventional war, all it did was prove how important proper doctrine, strategy, logistics and morale is.​


Russian invasion of Ukraine was originally well-planned and executed but Russian tanks could not survive in Ukrainian environments. Ukrainian forces have taken out entire columns of Russian forces [on the move] in different locations. Ukrainian forces also had a total of 250 S-300 launchers in their possession to make it very difficult for Russian jets to provide CAS to Russian forces in different locations.

Ukrainian forces have also suffered losses in men and material in various engagements but NATO continues to provide equipment and valuable INTEL to them. NATO have made this war very costly for Russia to fight by extension.

Many now assume that Russian forces are incompetent and lack in courage but they were not equipped to fight NATO in reality. Many had bought into sheer hype created by Russian analysts over the years and thought that Russia forces could steamroll Baltics. I maintained on this forum that I would like to see Russian forces defeat POLAND in a war, let alone Baltics.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## iLION12345_1

LeGenD said:


> Russian invasion of Ukraine was originally well-planned and executed but Russian tanks could not survive in Ukrainian environments. Ukrainian forces have taken out entire columns of Russian forces [on the move] in different locations. Ukrainian forces also had a total of 250 S-300 launchers in their possession to make it very difficult for Russian jets to provide CAS to Russian forces in different locations.
> 
> Ukrainian forces have also suffered losses in men and material in various engagements but NATO continues to provide equipment and valuable INTEL to them. NATO have made this war very costly for Russia to fight by extension.
> 
> Many now assume that Russian forces are incompetent and lack in courage but they were not equipped to fight NATO in reality. Many had bought into sheer hype created by Russian analysts over the years and thought that Russia forces could steamroll Baltics. I maintained on this forum that I would like to see Russian forces defeat POLAND in a war, let alone Baltics.


I agree with you, I never expected Russia to be able to win. It was very well known how poorly maintained their military is, how low morale is and how many ghost soldiers and officers there are in their forces. 

On top of that it was very poorly executed after the first week or so of fighting. In most cases it’s individual Russian tanks or jets without infantry covert, AD cover or SEAD/DEAD/EW cover just getting picked off. I’m not sure if Russia somehow didn’t expect the west to arm Ukraine or what, but either way they were always to me the perfect example of a paper tiger military, one with high numbers and statistics but no chance of pulling off an entire invasion like that. Russians didn’t even know what they were doing in Ukraine. “Denazifying”, what a meme.

That’s not to say Ukraine’s military was in any better state while starting, but western intelligence, training and armament plus their actual will to fight has changed things considerably.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## KampfAlwin

Interesting... VT-4 with a new type of APS

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## arslank03

KampfAlwin said:


> Interesting... VT-4 with a new type of APS
> View attachment 888952



im pretty certian PA will have suggested improvements and these are those improvements. Top attack protection is nice, wish there was an extra round or two

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

Smepig said:


> That's because the information you currently have is outdated, this year's war in Russia and Ukraine is the most intense war of the century so far, and the most effective test of the effectiveness of land warfare doctrine, when you say that tanks are given priority by the U.S. and Israel I wonder if you have considered who these tanks are opposing, first consider this before mentioning unmanned warfare and hard kill is not too late, and of course, not to mention the IDF's hard kill capability is not even close to the level of the current permanent members of the UN, just that he has been bullying weak opponents. When the U.S. Army is always looking for ways to put more urban warfare kits on Abrams you will find that things like tanks are actually not as effective as many other units, especially the artillery units that are currently making a splash, and the Army does not need such units that pursue single combat capability in a complete information-based combat system, which is also contrary to U.S. air control doctrine


The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is ANYTHING but conventional or intense in the standard sense.
The extremely poor execution by Russia of the assets on the ground pretty much negates the effectiveness of armor as @iLION12345_1 points out but also rotary and fixed wing assets. Russian deployment of support elements - poor or non existent CAS and even poorly used Unmanned assets makes this conflict more a measure of how ill prepared Russia us for war instead of any true reflection on armored warfare.

Your example of urban TUSK kits for M1s is also completely misplaced and irrelevant as tanks have faced difficulties in urban warfare since WWII. Why were they not ruled obsolete then based on your logic?

Even element in warfare has a particular use case(s) where it performs best. Tanks don’t favor confined places - nor are they single shot elements sent into enemy territory without reconnaissance or support elements.
That had held true since they were introduced, in WW1 to WW2, to Vietnam to Chechnya and Iraq until today.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Inception-06

SQ8 said:


> The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is ANYTHING but conventional or intense in the standard sense.
> The extremely poor execution by Russia of the assets on the ground pretty much negates the effectiveness of armor as @iLION12345_1 points out but also rotary and fixed wing assets. Russian deployment of support elements - poor or non existent CAS and even poorly used Unmanned assets makes this conflict more a measure of how ill prepared Russia us for war instead of any true reflection on armored warfare.
> 
> Your example of urban TUSK kits for M1s is also completely misplaced and irrelevant as tanks have faced difficulties in urban warfare since WWII. Why were they not ruled obsolete then based on your logic?
> 
> Even element in warfare has a particular use case(s) where it performs best. Tanks don’t favor confined places - nor are they single shot elements sent into enemy territory without reconnaissance or support elements.
> That had held true since they were introduced, in WW1 to WW2, to Vietnam to Chechnya and Iraq until today.



Do you expect Pakistan or India would do a better execution of assets at the ground then the Russian Military?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Inception-06 said:


> Do you expect Pakistan or India would do a better execution of assets at the ground then the Russian Military?


Against each other? I definitely do. 
Both are fully volunteer forces with rather patriotic/motivated soldiers and have been practicing it for 7 odd decades including several wars with each other already. Both have highly thought out logistical and defensive lines as well as dedicated formations for dedicated tasks. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a sudden and mostly unplanned action contract to popular belief. A Pakistan-india war will not be as such, it will unfortunately also be much bloodier, especially with how Muslims are currently viewed in India. 

Where both forces might suffer is obviously economics and internal fiascos. There’s over a dozen separatist movements in India and Pakistan has its fair share of terrorist elements to contend with. Neither india and especially not Pakistan can hold out on a war as long as Russia has, yes they’re doing poorly, but they’re still better economically than both india and Pakistan combined.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Inception-06 said:


> Do you expect Pakistan or India would do a better execution of assets at the ground then the Russian Military?


You doubt our pdf's manstein?

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Inception-06

Raja Porus said:


> You doubt our pdf's manstein?



I don’t have any doubt in what I have seen. I am reading since years and now moreover since Syrian civil war and Russia Ukraine war, that Tanks failed on the Battlefield because they lacked the support of Infantrymen. That’s easy written here in PDF many times. But no one did try to explain what exactly is the role of Infantrymen in the battlefield when it’s accompanying the Tank. Is it to walk in front of the Tank ? Is it walk near the Tank ? Run on the flanks of the Tank ? Is it driving with battle taxi in Pakistani case the M-113 or APC with the speed of the Tank near the flanks ? Or be behind the Tanks and when Enemy formation is firing or spotted and Infantrymen has to dismount and what comes after that ? I tried to scratch this core issue years ago, but the enthusiastic writing here didn’t reach the Level to discuss this core issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## blain2

Inception-06 said:


> I don’t have any doubt in what I have seen. I am reading since years and now moreover since Syrian civil war and Russia Ukraine war, that Tanks failed on the Battlefield because they lacked the support of Infantrymen. That’s easy written here in PDF many times. But no one did try to explain what exactly is the role of Infantrymen in the battlefield when it’s accompanying the Tank. Is it to walk in front of the Tank ? Is it walk near the Tank ? Run on the flanks of the Tank ? Is it driving with battle taxi in Pakistani case the M-113 or APC with the speed of the Tank near the flanks ? Or be behind the Tanks and when Enemy formation is firing or spotted and Infantrymen has to dismount and what comes after that ? I tried to scratch this core issue years ago, but the enthusiastic writing here didn’t reach the Level to discuss this core issue.
> 
> View attachment 889305


Not sure if I clearly understand what you are asking. In general, Infantry's role is to "close with and destroy" the enemy with armor support and in this specific case of combined arms operations. It is the infantry that holds the ground, so whether the infantry moves on foot or in APCs/IFVs with the armor, the idea is to get infantry in the vicinity of contact with the adversary and then through superior fire and maneuver, assault and take over the positions (you could add 10 other missions/capabilities to this list that the infantry could deliver on).

How the infantry is employed when the armor moves depends on the situation and the frontage requiring coverage. There are entire manuals written on infantry employment with combined arms as well as on the movement to contact. You are essentially teaching both infantry and armor to advance while keeping in mind own and opposing direct/indirect fire among a thousand other considerations.

Reactions: Love Love:
3


----------



## Inception-06

blain2 said:


> Not sure if I clearly understand what you are asking. In general, Infantry's role is to "close with and destroy" the enemy with armor support and in this specific case of combined arms operations. It is the infantry that holds the ground, so whether the infantry moves on foot or in APCs/IFVs with the armor, the idea is to get infantry in the vicinity of contact with the adversary and then through superior fire and maneuver, assault and take over the positions (you could add 10 other missions/capabilities to this list that the infantry could deliver on).
> 
> How the infantry is employed when the armor moves depends on the situation and the frontage requiring coverage. There are entire manuals written on infantry employment with combined arms as well as on the movement to contact. You are essentially teaching both infantry and armor to advance while keeping in mind own and opposing direct/indirect fire among a thousand other considerations.


@Raja Porus 
What’s the transport/ arms equipment of mechanised Infantrymen compared to regular Infantry of Pakistan Army do you see any development from the 2000s till today ? Do you think that the Pakistani Tank are well armed to fight enemy Infantry ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酸梅梅梅干 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

Inception-06 said:


> @Raja Porus
> What’s the transport/ arms equipment of mechanised Infantrymen compared to regular Infantry of Pakistan Army do you see any development from the 2000s till today ? Do you think that the Pakistani Tank are well armed to fight enemy Infantry ?


APCs for infantry. Tanks operating in conjunction with infantry in enemy territory and in own terrain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KampfAlwin

Another image of the VT-4 With APS, Zhuhai Airshow.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @学习军团 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Princeps Senatus

IceCold said:


> Pakistan Army under Bajwa has become a terrorist organization killing and murdering anyone that dare challenges the status quo of corruption and thugs imposed on us. China should stop supporting this organization till the time the criminals who have hijacked this institution are brought to justice. This is an appeal from every Pakistani.




Pakistanis need to learn not to air their dirty laundry in front of others

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Bleek

IceCold said:


> Pakistan Army under Bajwa has become a terrorist organization killing and murdering anyone that dare challenges the status quo of corruption and thugs imposed on us. China should stop supporting this organization till the time the criminals who have hijacked this institution are brought to justice. This is an appeal from every Pakistani.


This is a VT-4 tank thread

And China is not your father, get your own shit done 

In fact, China quite likes the Sharif brothers

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## KampfAlwin

It appears ZTZ-99A's best round is now available for export for the new VT-4 with APS! I suppose this means PLA has moved on from it, and has made a better one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

KampfAlwin said:


> It appears ZTZ-99A's best round is now available for export for the new VT-4 with APS! I suppose this means PLA has moved on from it, and has made a better one.
> View attachment 893769


I don’t think so. Unless they’ve made a breakthrough in ammo technology or fundamentally changed the design of their auto-loaders, they’re still using this same ammo. The T72 style auto-loaders in all Chinese tanks cannot accommodate larger ammo than this, besides, the best of Chinese tank tech has been available for export since 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

iLION12345_1 said:


> I don’t think so. Unless they’ve made a breakthrough in ammo technology or fundamentally changed the design of their auto-loaders, they’re still using this same ammo. The T72 style auto-loaders in all Chinese tanks cannot accommodate larger ammo than this, besides, the best of Chinese tank tech has been available for export since 2016.


 Do Pakistani VT-4 have this onboard Drone ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

Inception-06 said:


> Do Pakistani VT-4 have this onboard Drone ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 893906
> View attachment 893907


Not that I’m aware of, no.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

According to wikipedia:


----------



## iLION12345_1

MultaniGuy said:


> According to wikipedia:
> 
> View attachment 894194


1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source at all, refrain from using it.
2. I was the one to publicize the numbers of the VT4 deal and their origins myself. These are not accurate.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abid123

This is the best MBT in South Asia right?


----------



## MultaniGuy

iLION12345_1 said:


> 1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source at all, refrain from using it.
> 2. I was the one to publicize the numbers of the VT4 deal and their origins myself. These are not accurate.


Most of the time Wikipedia is right. Not all the time though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

MultaniGuy said:


> Most of the time Wikipedia is right. Not all the time though.


Most of the time it is extremely inaccurate. Anybody can edit it. The only time it is right is when someone who knows what they’re doing edits it, before it’s put back to the false information by the lately Indian admin team. At least that’s the case with anything related to China and Pakistan. 



Abid123 said:


> This is the best MBT in South Asia right?


By quite a margin.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## CivilianSupremacy

iLION12345_1 said:


> Most of the time it is extremely inaccurate. Anybody can edit it. The only time it is right is when someone who knows what they’re doing edits it, before it’s put back to the false information by the lately Indian admin team. At least that’s the case with anything related to China and Pakistan.
> 
> 
> By quite a margin.



Hi Bro,

I have read through the comments. I appreciate your knowledge about Tanks & PA. Have you served in the PA or worked with HIT ?

I also noticed various comments about Tank being an obsolete weapon and purchase of VT-4 is not liked by many for the same reasons.

I myself couldn't understand the urgency in buying Tanks but my reasons are different then most. I don't write-off tanks completely especially in Indo-Pak scenario. I understand we do need Tanks given our situation with India. But my concern is about Pakistan armed forces setting its priorities right. I would not have bothered, if we had surplus money and we would have replaced all of our F-7s, Mirages plus already would have invested heavily in drones and We would have bought modern gunship helis etc. But prioritizing the tanks over all those critical weaponaries does not make sense to me. What I think is that given our dire economic conditions, we should have focused only on critical weapon systems which we cannot build at home like Air / Naval platforms and relied locally on Tanks & APCs etc. So, in other words ideally, we should have relied on Al-khalid and improved it locally as much as possible. We already have huge number of tanks in our inventory. We also know, a war in 21st century will not always end up in tank vs tank battles. The list of vulnerabilities for tanks is grown exponentially lately. Every kind of drones have spurred out. Even saw video of Quad-ropters carrying a single anti-armour rocket in exhibition in china. Bigger UAVs carrying upto 16 anti-tank missiles, Gunship helis likes of Apaches are nightmare for armoured divisions, Air-power / air-force is another massive threat, mines and even shoulder fired ammunitions.. So I could be wrong, but my thoughts are that we should have relied on AL-khalids and invested this huge amount of $$ on somewhere else maybe gunships or maybe for air-force for more J-10Cs or JFB3s. You know our economy. Economy is seriously is at dangerous level. Again, I would not have critisized VT-4 inductions had our economy be great. But it bothers me seeing the priorities of PA.

What are your thoughts on it. Why PA believed that prioritizing Tanks was necessary ?

Also, I may have other questions, how can I communicate without going-off the topic. Is there a way to communicate one to one? if you like and if its possible.

Thanks.


----------



## Primus

iLION12345_1 said:


> Anybody can edit it


Last I time I did that, I got straight up IP banned from wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Sifar zero

Bleek said:


> This is a VT-4 tank thread
> 
> And China is not your father, get your own shit done
> 
> In fact, China quite likes the Sharif brothers


Leave them,they derail every thread with there usual bs.


----------



## Bleek

Sifar zero said:


> Leave them,they derail every thread with there usual bs.


I don't usually interact with people who derail threads or trolls, but just sometimes I wish Pakistanis would see the bigger picture from an objective point of view, so many of them are naive and think China is their daddy who would come to save the day for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abid123

Bleek said:


> I don't usually interact with people who derail threads or trolls, but just sometimes I wish Pakistanis would see the bigger picture from an objective point of view, so many of them are naive and think China is their daddy who would come to save the day for them.


There is a senior member here that thinks every Chinese weapon is available for export to Pakistan😂 Including nuclear submarines, J-20, ICBM's etc...

Reactions: Haha Haha:
4


----------



## SaadH

Abid123 said:


> There is a senior member here that thinks every Chinese weapon is available for export to Pakistan😂 Including nuclear submarines, J-20, ICBM's etc...


There are even more senior members who think the same for weapons from US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Primus said:


> Last I time I did that, I got straight up IP banned from wikipedia


I spent several hours fixing the Pakistan army’s equipment page on Wikipedia, fixed the numbers, added sources etc etc. Was reversed by an Indian moderator within minutes and I was banned from the page. Did the same with the PAFs page over a year later, got IP banned.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Primus

iLION12345_1 said:


> I spent several hours fixing the Pakistan army’s equipment page on Wikipedia, fixed the numbers, added sources etc etc. Was reversed by an Indian moderator within minutes and I was banned from the page. Did the same with the PAFs page over a year later, got IP banned.


Well...I guess the Indian knows the Pakistan military better than Pakistanis.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## PakFactor

iLION12345_1 said:


> Most of the time it is extremely inaccurate. Anybody can edit it. The only time it is right is when someone who knows what they’re doing edits it, before it’s put back to the false information by the lately Indian admin team. At least that’s the case with anything related to China and Pakistan.
> 
> 
> By quite a margin.



I don't bother with Wikipedia or these open sources, as it's just Indian-run and garbage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

PakFactor said:


> I don't bother with Wikipedia or these open sources, as it's just Indian-run and garbage.


Yes, but there is no other source that is easily accessible like Wikipedia though


----------



## iLION12345_1

CivilianSupremacy said:


> Hi Bro,
> 
> I have read through the comments. I appreciate your knowledge about Tanks & PA. Have you served in the PA or worked with HIT ?
> 
> I also noticed various comments about Tank being an obsolete weapon and purchase of VT-4 is not liked by many for the same reasons.
> 
> I myself couldn't understand the urgency in buying Tanks but my reasons are different then most. I don't write-off tanks completely especially in Indo-Pak scenario. I understand we do need Tanks given our situation with India. But my concern is about Pakistan armed forces setting its priorities right. I would not have bothered, if we had surplus money and we would have replaced all of our F-7s, Mirages plus already would have invested heavily in drones and We would have bought modern gunship helis etc. But prioritizing the tanks over all those critical weaponaries does not make sense to me. What I think is that given our dire economic conditions, we should have focused only on critical weapon systems which we cannot build at home like Air / Naval platforms and relied locally on Tanks & APCs etc. So, in other words ideally, we should have relied on Al-khalid and improved it locally as much as possible. We already have huge number of tanks in our inventory. We also know, a war in 21st century will not always end up in tank vs tank battles. The list of vulnerabilities for tanks is grown exponentially lately. Every kind of drones have spurred out. Even saw video of Quad-ropters carrying a single anti-armour rocket in exhibition in china. Bigger UAVs carrying upto 16 anti-tank missiles, Gunship helis likes of Apaches are nightmare for armoured divisions, Air-power / air-force is another massive threat, mines and even shoulder fired ammunitions.. So I could be wrong, but my thoughts are that we should have relied on AL-khalids and invested this huge amount of $$ on somewhere else maybe gunships or maybe for air-force for more J-10Cs or JFB3s. You know our economy. Economy is seriously is at dangerous level. Again, I would not have critisized VT-4 inductions had our economy be great. But it bothers me seeing the priorities of PA.
> 
> What are your thoughts on it. Why PA believed that prioritizing Tanks was necessary ?
> 
> Also, I may have other questions, how can I communicate without going-off the topic. Is there a way to communicate one to one? if you like and if its possible.
> 
> Thanks.


Tanks are not obsolete, me and other members have explained why several different times, but for the perfect sum-up, I recommend Nicholas Moran’s (known as “TheChieftain” on YouTube) video on the same topic. This applies even more so to the Pak-Ind theatre and doctrines. That video should also answer your questions related to all these technologies that will apparently render tanks more vulnerable. Every time a new advancement in anti-tank warfare has been made since the 1910s, people have said that tanks will become obsolete, and yet here we are, in a world where everyone is still spending billions on them. You know the tank was originally made for trench warfare? Do we have trenches now? But we still have tanks. And don’t you think the biggest advocate for the retirement of the tank would have been an ATGM? Well 40 years since those were made, and we still have tanks.


a VT-4 is more important to the Pakistani army than a JF-17 and a J-10, because guess what, the army doesn’t fly jets, the Air Force does. They have separate budgets, separate priorities and separate requirements. We cannot view them as a single component.
Yes, In times of need the navy and Air Force have cut down their budgets to allow the army more money to operate, as in the war on terror, but the army is always going to be less keen on reciprocating that due to more than just tactical reasons.

The vast majority of the tanks in the PA are decades older than the oldest F7 in the PAF. I know that analogy doesn’t really work given the entirely different machines, but it should give you a sense of why there’s an urgency to replace the older tanks as well. And I simply don’t see how a JF-17 or a J-10 or a gunship or a drone is more important or urgent as compared to a tank, they all serve completely and entirely different roles. What good is a modern gunship if the tanks it’s covering are obsolete? What good is a drone when the enemy can simply push through your defensive lines or obliterate your offensive lines (again, tanks)? What good is a fighter jet if there are no tanks and troops on the ground to take and hold land or defend an airbase to operate out of?

The PA invested in modern gunships far before it invested in the VT-4, twice, the deals didn’t work out do to several other reasons, buying or not buying VT-4s wouldn’t have affected them. There isn’t just a set amount of money that the forces get to buy new weapons, they hardly get any, the weapons are bought on long term loans and installments, the VT-4 deal doesn’t effect the J-10C deal, and neither of them effect the T-129 deal. It’s much much more complicated than simple 2+2.
And what about drones? The Pakistani forces have one of the most versatile and capable drone fleets on the planet. If there’s anything they have literally put all their money on, it’s drones. WL-1, WL-2, CH4B, Akinci, TB-2, Anka, Shahpar 2, Luna, Burraq, Uqab NG is there any type of drone on planet earth PA/PAF/PN hasn’t bought?

And then let’s discuss the point everyone seems to be bringing up, why a new tank? Why not more work on the Al-Khalid? So let me just put it this way. *The Haider will be more Pakistani-made eventually than the Al-Khalid ever was and could ever be. The Haider IS the next Al-Khalid. *Just think about it, it’s the same basic platform but with a bunch of improvements, let’s say we didn’t buy the VT-4 and HIT made an AK-2, guess what engine it would have? The same one as VT-4. Guess what ERA and armor HIT would put on it? The same one as VT-4. Basically, if HIT made an AK-2, it would literally be a VT-4, so why bother when the work is already done? It would cost _*significantly *_ more to develop the AK into what would essentially just be another VT-4 than to start making the VT-4 locally, which is exactly what we are doing.
Another point people seem to be confused over is how Pakistani the AK is and how not-Pakistani the VT-4 is, well, let me put it this way, the Al-Khalid is a lot less Pakistani than people keep thinking it is and the VT-4 (Haider) a lot more so (in typical Pakistani fashion, all we did was reverse engineer, and assemble with little development and innovation)
The PA isn’t just ordering VT-4s from China, they bought TOT for it, the same production lines that made the AK will now make the Haider, and maybe we will see a Haider I and Haider II someday, For all intents and purposes, the Haider _*IS*_ the next Al-Khalid. There are Some important things I simply cannot say here that would make PAs VT-4 acquisition make a lot more sense.

You can ask all the questions you want, but responses are not guaranteed, I don’t always have the time. As for direct messages, you can post on my profile, open a new thread, ask a moderator, there’s plenty of ways.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
3 | Like Like:
15


----------



## CivilianSupremacy

iLION12345_1 said:


> Tanks are not obsolete, me and other members have explained why several different times, but for the perfect sum-up, I recommend Nicholas Moran’s (known as “TheChieftain” on YouTube) video on the same topic. This applies even more so to the Pak-Ind theatre and doctrines. That video should also answer your questions related to all these technologies that will apparently render tanks more vulnerable. Every time a new advancement in anti-tank warfare has been made since the 1910s, people have said that tanks will become obsolete, and yet here we are, in a world where everyone is still spending billions on them. You know the tank was originally made for trench warfare? Do we have trenches now? But we still have tanks. And don’t you think the biggest advocate for the retirement of the tank would have been an ATGM? Well 40 years since those were made, and we still have tanks.
> 
> 
> a VT-4 is more important to the Pakistani army than a JF-17 and a J-10, because guess what, the army doesn’t fly jets, the Air Force does. They have separate budgets, separate priorities and separate requirements. We cannot view them as a single component.
> Yes, In times of need the navy and Air Force have cut down their budgets to allow the army more money to operate, as in the war on terror, but the army is always going to be less keen on reciprocating that due to more than just tactical reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of the tanks in the PA are decades older than the oldest F7 in the PAF. I know that analogy doesn’t really work given the entirely different machines, but it should give you a sense of why there’s an urgency to replace the older tanks as well. And I simply don’t see how a JF-17 or a J-10 or a gunship or a drone is more important or urgent as compared to a tank, they all serve completely and entirely different roles. What good is a modern gunship if the tanks it’s covering are obsolete? What good is a drone when the enemy can simply push through your defensive lines or obliterate your offensive lines (again, tanks)? What good is a fighter jet if there are no tanks and troops on the ground to take and hold land or defend an airbase to operate out of?
> 
> The PA invested in modern gunships far before it invested in the VT-4, twice, the deals didn’t work out do to several other reasons, buying or not buying VT-4s wouldn’t have affected them. There isn’t just a set amount of money that the forces get to buy new weapons, they hardly get any, the weapons are bought on long term loans and installments, the VT-4 deal doesn’t effect the J-10C deal, and neither of them effect the T-129 deal. It’s much much more complicated than simple 2+2.
> And what about drones? The Pakistani forces have one of the most versatile and capable drone fleets on the planet. If there’s anything they have literally put all their money on, it’s drones. WL-1, WL-2, CH4B, Akinci, TB-2, Anka, Shahpar 2, Luna, Burraq, Uqab NG is there any type of drone on planet earth PA/PAF/PN hasn’t bought?
> 
> And then let’s discuss the point everyone seems to be bringing up, why a new tank? Why not more work on the Al-Khalid? So let me just put it this way. *The Haider will be more Pakistani-made eventually than the Al-Khalid ever was and could ever be. The Haider IS the next Al-Khalid. *Just think about it, it’s the same basic platform but with a bunch of improvements, let’s say we didn’t buy the VT-4 and HIT made an AK-2, guess what engine it would have? The same one as VT-4. Guess what ERA and armor HIT would put on it? The same one as VT-4. Basically, if HIT made an AK-2, it would literally be a VT-4, so why bother when the work is already done? It would cost _*significantly *_ more to develop the AK into what would essentially just be another VT-4 than to start making the VT-4 locally, which is exactly what we are doing.
> Another point people seem to be confused over is how Pakistani the AK is and how not-Pakistani the VT-4 is, well, let me put it this way, the Al-Khalid is a lot less Pakistani than people keep thinking it is and the VT-4 (Haider) a lot more so (in typical Pakistani fashion, all we did was reverse engineer, and assemble with little development and innovation)
> The PA isn’t just ordering VT-4s from China, they bought TOT for it, the same production lines that made the AK will now make the Haider, and maybe we will see a Haider I and Haider II someday, For all intents and purposes, the Haider _*IS*_ the next Al-Khalid. There are Some important things I simply cannot say here that would make PAs VT-4 acquisition make a lot more sense.
> 
> You can ask all the questions you want, but responses are not guaranteed, I don’t always have the time. As for direct messages, you can post on my profile, open a new thread, ask a moderator, there’s plenty of ways.



Thank you for your time. Good to know your point of view & valid points. I just wanted to know the urgency PA felt with such dire economic situations that they give priority to the tanks.

Another questions below about VT-4 or tanks in general deployments. Reply whenever you get time. Thanks in advance.

Where these VT-4s are deployed in PA? I mean which division. Also, Where actually Army keeps its Tanks in General ? I mean like for airforce, we can see each airbase from gmaps satellite view and see the hangars and we know here the fighter jets are located. For, the army or armoured divisions, I am unable to locate such. All I see is cantonments, residential areas and buildings / some sheds. So is it intentional setup that the enemy may not know exact location where the armoured vehicles & Tanks are located ? However, I do see a dozen or so hangars in the Gujranwala Cantt (from the satellite view). They look quite obvious for armoured corp. So, I am bit curious where the rest of huge number of tanks & APCs?. Also, another related question that Most of the cantonments are now almost within the cities. So this military gear is usually inside the cantonments / inside cities ? Or these are stationed outside the cities for easy access towards the border / action area ? 
I am asking these layman questions because out of curiosity I spend lot of time seeing LOC through the maps. So a layman's concept is that Army is sitting around the LOC and guarding the borders. But infact, in the peace times there's nothing around LOC. All I see is a small posts (maybe for 10-15 soldiers) after every 20-30 kms and nothing to back it up with a bigger military base. So, I assume the most of military is sitting within the cities parameters (within the cantonments) ? Am I right ? or do we have bases / tanks positioned forward at the LOC ?. 

and last question about PA strength. Common knowledge is that its about 600,000 active troops. So my question is this 6 lacs army is all combat units ? Or does it include the personal staff, PAs, sectaries, drivers, gardeners, plumbers, golf courses maintenance staff, the staff at various CMH (hospitals) etc. Because an institution as large as PA needs to employs all non-combat staff as well. So total no of employees is 6 Lacs OR the combat units only are 6 lacs. If grand total is 6 lac then how many are the combat units. 

Thanks.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Few stuffs that IMO should be incorporated into Al Haidar:

ASELSAN AKKOR or PULAT type active hard-kill protection.
STM ALPAGUT or DELI type loitering kamikaze munitions.
STM Kargu-type mini UAVs for 24/7 situational awareness within 3 to 5km range.
Net centric environment with other land and aerial assets, especially tactical UAVs flying under the HALE UAVs.
EW suits including anti-drone, mine etc. jammers.
Being alone and _Ahmak_ are the same. Korkut type AD systems with programmable munitions (ASELSAN ATOM) are a must in the formation to shoot down the enemy loitering munition like dumb ducks! If necessary AI based load sharing can be done to use the resident remote controlled machine guns in the tanks for firing ATOM type munitions in a net centric environment to collectively face loitering munitions in a distributed sensor fusion manner.
Etc.
Bottom line: spare the Turkish assymeyric technologies, spoil your tanks. Losers do their best, winners fill their Harems with concubines from the beautiful Rajput or Byzantine princesses.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## IblinI

iLION12345_1 said:


> The Pakistani forces have one of the most versatile and capable drone fleets on the planet. If there’s anything they have literally put all their money on, it’s drones. WL-1, WL-2, CH4B, Akinci, TB-2, Anka, Shahpar 2, Luna, Burraq, Uqab NG


What is the reason and logic behind of inducting this many type of drones？


----------



## iLION12345_1

IblinI said:


> What is the reason and logic behind of inducting this many type of drones？


A few reasons. The most obvious is that all three services want a drone for each kind of role, surveillance, medium combat drone, heavy combat drone etc etc.
Hence these drones are spread out between the forces, each of the different arms (army, navy, Air Force) have purchased a different drone for their different category and needs. @farooqbhai007 did a good breakdown of which arm operates which drone in which capacity. 

The second one could be financing, let’s say the PA wants 100 heavy drones, if it buys 100 from China at once, maybe they can’t get a good deal, but if they buy 30 from China, 30 from Turkey and make 30 themselves, maybe then they have enough money to get near their desired number. This is sort of a common thing in the forces, especially the PA, they don’t have the money to buy a lot of one thing, so in a game of logistical and financial balancing, they sometimes opt to go to several different vendors and get multiple good deals and financing lines to reach their requirements.

There’s also the “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” approach with drones. Turkish drones are more readily available for local production, modification and TOT, Chinese drones are not, however Chinese drones can be delivered by China much quicker than Turkey can deliver its drones because some of them aren’t ready and their production base isn’t as big.

Basically there’s a ton of factors involved related to money, politics and all the different roles different drones can do.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Inception-06

CivilianSupremacy said:


> Thank you for your time. Good to know your point of view & valid points. I just wanted to know the urgency PA felt with such dire economic situations that they give priority to the tanks.
> 
> Another questions below about VT-4 or tanks in general deployments. Reply whenever you get time. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Where these VT-4s are deployed in PA? I mean which division. Also, Where actually Army keeps its Tanks in General ? I mean like for airforce, we can see each airbase from gmaps satellite view and see the hangars and we know here the fighter jets are located. For, the army or armoured divisions, I am unable to locate such. All I see is cantonments, residential areas and buildings / some sheds. So is it intentional setup that the enemy may not know exact location where the armoured vehicles & Tanks are located ? However, I do see a dozen or so hangars in the Gujranwala Cantt (from the satellite view). They look quite obvious for armoured corp. So, I am bit curious where the rest of huge number of tanks & APCs?. Also, another related question that Most of the cantonments are now almost within the cities. So this military gear is usually inside the cantonments / inside cities ? Or these are stationed outside the cities for easy access towards the border / action area ?
> I am asking these layman questions because out of curiosity I spend lot of time seeing LOC through the maps. So a layman's concept is that Army is sitting around the LOC and guarding the borders. But infact, in the peace times there's nothing around LOC. All I see is a small posts (maybe for 10-15 soldiers) after every 20-30 kms and nothing to back it up with a bigger military base. So, I assume the most of military is sitting within the cities parameters (within the cantonments) ? Am I right ? or do we have bases / tanks positioned forward at the LOC ?.
> 
> and last question about PA strength. Common knowledge is that its about 600,000 active troops. So my question is this 6 lacs army is all combat units ? Or does it include the personal staff, PAs, sectaries, drivers, gardeners, plumbers, golf courses maintenance staff, the staff at various CMH (hospitals) etc. Because an institution as large as PA needs to employs all non-combat staff as well. So total no of employees is 6 Lacs OR the combat units only are 6 lacs. If grand total is 6 lac then how many are the combat units.
> 
> Thanks.


 Your are collecting sensitiv informations for which purpose ?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Inception-06 said:


> Your are collecting sensitiv informations for which purpose ?


My personal guess...judging by a newly made account and a ton of questions regarding Pak military's equipment, logistics, deployment, etc.
...is that he is some Raj47 type...posing as a Pakistani...trying to become an expert...thinking himself smart. Little does he know that the person he is asking will not divulge anything that's not already public knowledge.

Or I could be wrong...and he could be someone who is truly curious and just trying to add to his knowledge by asking a knowledgeable member.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

Inception-06 said:


> Your are collecting sensitiv informations for which purpose ?


Bro check out the "golf course maintenance staff" line lmao.

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## CivilianSupremacy

Inception-06 said:


> Your are collecting sensitiv informations for which purpose ?





Cookie Monster said:


> My personal guess...judging by a newly made account and a ton of questions regarding Pak military's equipment, logistics, deployment, etc.
> ...is that he is some Raj47 type...posing as a Pakistani...trying to become an expert...thinking himself smart. Little does he know that the person he is asking will not divulge anything that's not already public knowledge.
> 
> Or I could be wrong...and he could be someone who is truly curious and just trying to add to his knowledge by asking a knowledgeable member.



Well, if these are really sensitive information. Then you or the person I am asking can simply deny the information and filter out only the relevant information. 

The problem in the forums is that 'experts' (by only just number of posts) think they really are experts (I am talking generally . I am not specific to anyone) and they suppress curiosity. I just do not shy to ask the questions which comes to my mind. That shold be the core reason for the forums to be constructive. We learn from each other's experiences and knowledge. 

As far as sensitive information is concerned, What I asked is certainly not a sensitive information. It wold be like a common knowledge for indian military already. If a nobody like me can view everything on publicly available satellite imagery- then you must be aware that how much information will be available to people whose job is to keep an eye on PA. Believe me, indian military will not send a random new account on Pakistani forum to extract "sensitive information".

Our problem in our country is that everything related to Military is so sacred that you can't even ask questions. We as Pakistanis need to know how our military functions, we pay for the military with out taxes. There is no civilian audit on the largest organisation of the country. Anyways, all these things can be asked in a perfect world where there is complete civilian supremacy. 

I maybe the new member, but I know each one of you as I anonymously keep reading forums and usually my questions gets answered by just looking at the archives. I keep following these stuff even when this forum was non-existent and there used to be pafdef and pakistanidefenceforum.com sites. 

Anyways, now I tell you why I am curious about this common knowledge. (its not sensitive, do not sell me this crap please ) Because, I sincerely do not want to criticize PA because of lack of my information. I just want to know they are always prepared. 

I appreciate @iLION12345_1 for giving me insights into VT-4 deal which I earlier was thinking to be not appropriate in current economic conditions. I watched the video he recommended and I regard the points in his reply. Tanks may not be the end today. But the world is going into that direction anyways. A Autonomous AI controlled vehicle launching swarms of lethal loitering drones / ammunition. Each one able to target / locate and destroy armoured vehicles is the future. Ofcourse by then tanks would have employed better protections but more more huge money is required to keep up the defenses of the tanks then it is required for aggressive guided ammunition to kill opponents. So, tanks will remain part of battlefield for a long time but support systems / guided artillery / anti tanks and plethora of drones will accompany them. So its all about perfect balance. I am no way as "expert" as you guys here are. Infact I am a noob. My domain is technology. 
​


farooqbhai007 said:


> Bro check out the "golf course maintenance staff" line lmao.


What do you think who I am ? and what do you deduce from this like Farooq Bhai ? and what's my purpose would be ?

I suggest not to come to conclusions that quick.


----------



## CivilianSupremacy

farooqbhai007 said:


> Bro check out the "golf course maintenance staff" line lmao.


Farooq Bhai.. 

The military should not be a "holy" organization where you can't ask questions. The information I am seeking should even be available on military websites. Citizen of Pakistan should know, its our basic right. How much are the employees. How much is combat force and how much are non-combat employees. Whats really wrong in giving an example for "golf course maintenance staff" along with many other roles which naturally PA employs ? 

Can't really get into this mindset of this insecurity. I am here to gain information from you guys so that I don't end up criticizing PA unfairly. Some of you guys, the military geeks can clear the common perceptions more precisely. If you will just mock then it will be counter production and indication that perceptions against PA are real . Which I believe is not correct entirely.


----------



## PakFactor

CivilianSupremacy said:


> Farooq Bhai..
> 
> The military should not be a "holy" organization where you can't ask questions. The information I am seeking should even be available on military websites. Citizen of Pakistan should know, its our basic right. How much are the employees. How much is combat force and how much are non-combat employees. Whats really wrong in giving an example for "golf course maintenance staff" along with many other roles which naturally PA employs ?
> 
> Can't really get into this mindset of this insecurity. I am here to gain information from you guys so that I don't end up criticizing PA unfairly. Some of you guys, the military geeks can clear the common perceptions more precisely. If you will just mock then it will be counter production and indication that perceptions against PA are real . Which I believe is not correct entirely.



The US Military doesn't get into detailed publication of information your requesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Cookie Monster

CivilianSupremacy said:


> Well, if these are really sensitive information. Then you or the person I am asking can simply deny the information and filter out only the relevant information.
> 
> The problem in the forums is that 'experts' (by only just number of posts) think they really are experts (I am talking generally . I am not specific to anyone) and they suppress curiosity. I just do not shy to ask the questions which comes to my mind. That shold be the core reason for the forums to be constructive. We learn from each other's experiences and knowledge.
> 
> As far as sensitive information is concerned, What I asked is certainly not a sensitive information. It wold be like a common knowledge for indian military already. If a nobody like me can view everything on publicly available satellite imagery- then you must be aware that how much information will be available to people whose job is to keep an eye on PA. Believe me, indian military will not send a random new account on Pakistani forum to extract "sensitive information".
> 
> Our problem in our country is that everything related to Military is so sacred that you can't even ask questions. We as Pakistanis need to know how our military functions, we pay for the military with out taxes. There is no civilian audit on the largest organisation of the country. Anyways, all these things can be asked in a perfect world where there is complete civilian supremacy.
> 
> I maybe the new member, but I know each one of you as I anonymously keep reading forums and usually my questions gets answered by just looking at the archives. I keep following these stuff even when this forum was non-existent and there used to be pafdef and pakistanidefenceforum.com sites.
> 
> Anyways, now I tell you why I am curious about this common knowledge. (its not sensitive, do not sell me this crap please ) Because, I sincerely do not want to criticize PA because of lack of my information. I just want to know they are always prepared.
> 
> I appreciate @iLION12345_1 for giving me insights into VT-4 deal which I earlier was thinking to be not appropriate in current economic conditions. I watched the video he recommended and I regard the points in his reply. Tanks may not be the end today. But the world is going into that direction anyways. A Autonomous AI controlled vehicle launching swarms of lethal loitering drones / ammunition. Each one able to target / locate and destroy armoured vehicles is the future. Ofcourse by then tanks would have employed better protections but more more huge money is required to keep up the defenses of the tanks then it is required for aggressive guided ammunition to kill opponents. So, tanks will remain part of battlefield for a long time but support systems / guided artillery / anti tanks and plethora of drones will accompany them. So its all about perfect balance. I am no way as "expert" as you guys here are. Infact I am a noob. My domain is technology.
> ​
> 
> What do you think who I am ? and what do you deduce from this like Farooq Bhai ? and what's my purpose would be ?
> 
> I suggest not to come to conclusions that quick.


You didn't need to quote me...
...nobody is trying to kill ur curiosity.

Any sensible member here knows Indian army is smarter in its Intel collection than having a random person create an account here and ask questions. I also already wrote that the member u r asking won't be giving out any sensitive information...it's already available publicly.

What I said was..."some Raj47 type" based on ur comment of using satellite imagery u mentioned...it was part light humor...part based on ur creating new account and asking a plethora of really specific questions...which to put bluntly would raise suspicions(hence why Inception 06 asked)...
...that's mainly bcuz it's not the norm. Most members who are that curious and have that many questions...do lots of research on their own first...which requires a lot of reading.

BUT I did take into account...that u could be genuinely curious and it only seems sus but is not so. Hence why there was no need for u to respond and justify.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bleek

iLION12345_1 said:


> Rhe Pakistani forces have one of the most versatile and capable drone fleets on the planet. If there’s anything they have literally put all their money on, it’s drones. WL-1, WL-2, CH4B, Akinci, TB-2, Anka, Shahpar 2, Luna, Burraq, Uqab NG is there any type of drone on planet earth PA/PAF/PN hasn’t bought?


Was Anka ever confirmed?

There is this unconfirmed rumour here too


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590418997690142721


----------



## LeGenD

iLION12345_1 said:


> I spent several hours fixing the Pakistan army’s equipment page on Wikipedia, fixed the numbers, added sources etc etc. Was reversed by an Indian moderator within minutes and I was banned from the page. Did the same with the PAFs page over a year later, got IP banned.



It can be helpful to explain EDITS in the Talk Page of an article. More information in following link:






Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Bleek said:


> Was Anka ever confirmed?
> 
> There is this unconfirmed rumour here too
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590418997690142721


I doubt any of our forces are actually getting ANKA, but interest was shown and some of its tech might show up in PACs local MALE drone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

iLION12345_1 said:


> I doubt any of our forces are actually getting ANKA, but interest was shown and some of its tech might show up in PACs local MALE drone.


PAC local Male drone according to my reports is dead.

Reactions: Angry Angry:
1


----------



## Inception-06

Why 


Zarvan said:


> PAC local Male drone according to my reports is dead.


?


----------



## Beast

Inception-06 said:


> Why
> 
> ?


Funds funds funds..

Build factory, build research, build production plant, train personnel for all these manufacturing and facilities. All these will cost more than just buying ready available. Let just be practical.

Everybody wish they can build their own but is it feasible in terms of cost? Japan insist on manufacturing the AH-64 gunship, believing it will upgrade Japan defense industries thru tech and skill personnel. But it end up bankrupt Kawasaki defence industries becos per unit cost it much more than what US sold to them per unit.

If it can bankrupt a rich country defense industries like Japan. What makes u Pakistan which short of fund will flare better?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

PAKISTAN EXPANDS VT-4 DEAL BY HUNDREDS MORE TANKS, TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY


----------



## Beast

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> PAKISTAN EXPANDS VT-4 DEAL BY HUNDREDS MORE TANKS, TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
> View attachment 895272


I think it makes sense. If PA buys in certain large number. There is no reason China will refuse TOT since the huge amount from the deal will be enough to cover the R&D for this tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

State-owned Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) corporation has exercised follow-up options signed during its original order for 300 VT-4 Third-Generation Main Battle Tanks in 2017 with China.
These options constitute 160 additional units, most of which will be locally assembled with kits imported from Norinco. This increases the buy order to a total of 460 tanks. Additionally, the HIT has successfully acquired, and implemented a transfer-of-technology agreement and will thus build an additional 110 upgraded VT-4 tanks at Taxila with completely indigenous equipment and components. This increases the total VT-4 order for the Pakistan Army’s Armoured Corps to 570 units. In addition, the HIT has signed follow-up options for a further 110 completely indigenously-built units, which will be most likely exercised in the future, increasing the total order in the next few years to a total of 680 VT-4s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ali_Baba

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> State-owned Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) corporation has exercised follow-up options signed during its original order for 300 VT-4 Third-Generation Main Battle Tanks in 2017 with China.
> These options constitute 160 additional units, most of which will be locally assembled with kits imported from Norinco. This increases the buy order to a total of 460 tanks. Additionally, the HIT has successfully acquired, and implemented a transfer-of-technology agreement and will thus build an additional 110 upgraded VT-4 tanks at Taxila with completely indigenous equipment and components. This increases the total VT-4 order for the Pakistan Army’s Armoured Corps to 570 units. In addition, the HIT has signed follow-up options for a further 110 completely indigenously-built units, which will be most likely exercised in the future, increasing the total order in the next few years to a total of 680 VT-4s.
> View attachment 895273



No sign of a self defence system?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Ali_Baba said:


> No sign of a self defence system?


Won’t be any for a while.



FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> State-owned Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) corporation has exercised follow-up options signed during its original order for 300 VT-4 Third-Generation Main Battle Tanks in 2017 with China.
> These options constitute 160 additional units, most of which will be locally assembled with kits imported from Norinco. This increases the buy order to a total of 460 tanks. Additionally, the HIT has successfully acquired, and implemented a transfer-of-technology agreement and will thus build an additional 110 upgraded VT-4 tanks at Taxila with completely indigenous equipment and components. This increases the total VT-4 order for the Pakistan Army’s Armoured Corps to 570 units. In addition, the HIT has signed follow-up options for a further 110 completely indigenously-built units, which will be most likely exercised in the future, increasing the total order in the next few years to a total of 680 VT-4s.
> View attachment 895273


Confirmed this nearly two months ago already

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PDF

Zarvan said:


> PAC local Male drone according to my reports is dead.


It's still alive. Just not on steroids.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## syed_yusuf

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> State-owned Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) corporation has exercised follow-up options signed during its original order for 300 VT-4 Third-Generation Main Battle Tanks in 2017 with China.
> These options constitute 160 additional units, most of which will be locally assembled with kits imported from Norinco. This increases the buy order to a total of 460 tanks. Additionally, the HIT has successfully acquired, and implemented a transfer-of-technology agreement and will thus build an additional 110 upgraded VT-4 tanks at Taxila with completely indigenous equipment and components. This increases the total VT-4 order for the Pakistan Army’s Armoured Corps to 570 units. In addition, the HIT has signed follow-up options for a further 110 completely indigenously-built units, which will be most likely exercised in the future, increasing the total order in the next few years to a total of 680 VT-4s.
> View attachment 895273


good news, i hope they can complete this number in in next 3-4 years to keep the cost down and capability superiority vis-a-vis india


----------



## DeusExAstra

Hello again) Does anyone know if some VT4 were already in production by HIT?

Saw this photo, not sure



Spoiler

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

DeusExAstra said:


> Hello again) Does anyone know if some VT4 were already in production by HIT?
> 
> Saw this photo, not sure
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 895928


Its from IDEAS, not HIT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> Hello again) Does anyone know if some VT4 were already in production by HIT?
> 
> Saw this photo, not sure
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 895928


VT-4s are already in production (only assembly at the moment, will switch to actual production eventually) at HIT. This one is from IDEAS however, not produced at HIT.

It could be that this one was assembled at HIT, in which case it would be one of the earliest if not the first, but more likely this is just one that was directly delivered by China, and HIT is displaying it because they are going to be producing the tank locally.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Princeps Senatus

@iLION12345_1 Do you know why we didn't opt for side mounted ERA with VT-4?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Princeps Senatus said:


> @iLION12345_1 Do you know why we didn't opt for side mounted ERA with VT-4?
> View attachment 896193


Who says we didnt opt?

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Princeps Senatus said:


> @iLION12345_1 Do you know why we didn't opt for side mounted ERA with VT-4?
> View attachment 896193


Note FY2 ERA on the brochure, it’s the older VT-4.
PAs VT-4s had FY4 before it was even offered for export. The difference between FY4 and FY2 is as they say “Zameen Asman Ka farq”

That being said, VT-4 has enough power to be equipped with Side ERA, and PA can opt to equip them at any moment if they want, it’s a modular thing, can even be done in the field if necessary.
Not sure if they’d Put FY4 on the sides though, maybe AORAK or FY2, depends on how much it effects mobility.

I personally think in the case of an actual conflict it would be one of the first modifications PA would do to its MBTs when they realize how vulnerable the sides can be.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## alimobin memon

iLION12345_1 said:


> Note FY2 ERA on the brochure, it’s the older VT-4.
> PAs VT-4s had FY4 before it was even offered for export. The difference between FY4 and FY2 is as they say “Zameen Asman Ka farq”
> 
> That being said, VT-4 has enough power to be equipped with Side ERA, and PA can opt to equip them at any moment if they want, it’s a modular thing, can even be done in the field if necessary.
> Not sure if they’d Put FY4 on the sides though, maybe AORAK or FY2, depends on how much it effects mobility.
> 
> I personally think in the case of an actual conflict it would be one of the first modifications PA would do to its MBTs when they realize how vulnerable the sides can be.


They have added 1500 hp for pa tanks maybe the reason is side armour with era. 

Between what is ak protection level now not just front also side armour ?


----------



## iLION12345_1

alimobin memon said:


> They have added 1500 hp for pa tanks maybe the reason is side armour with era.
> 
> Between what is ak protection level now not just front also side armour ?


PA VT4s have 1200HP engine like all VT-4s, 1500HP was a myth. 1200 is more than enough for it to carry side-ERA. Even if it’s FY4 and not FY2, but regardless, it will slow the tank down a bit, any weight will. 

AK protection level has been the same since it was introduced in 2001, it has not seen any armor changes, at least none significant enough to mention. It used to carry side ERA once upon a time and was even seen with a somewhat decent side armor package, but it never saw widespread use. PA can still equip them with armor/ERA on the side if it wants to, it’s just a question of wether the mobility trade off is worth it for them. As for exact armor numbers, nobody can give you those for the AK, not even most of HIT, and what’s on the internet is nearly all false, I can tell you this much, it can withstand its own APFSDS followed by its own HEAT projectile (and the other way around, which is a much harder thing to do given how HEAT messes with composite armor) on the turret, without ERA.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Princeps Senatus

iLION12345_1 said:


> It used to carry side ERA once upon a time and was even seen with a somewhat decent side armor package, but it never saw widespread use.


Do you have a photo?


----------



## alimobin memon

iLION12345_1 said:


> PA VT4s have 1200HP engine like all VT-4s, 1500HP was a myth. 1200 is more than enough for it to carry side-ERA. Even if it’s FY4 and not FY2, but regardless, it will slow the tank down a bit, any weight will.
> 
> AK protection level has been the same since it was introduced in 2001, it has not seen any armor changes, at least none significant enough to mention. It used to carry side ERA once upon a time and was even seen with a somewhat decent side armor package, but it never saw widespread use. PA can still equip them with armor/ERA on the side if it wants to, it’s just a question of wether the mobility trade off is worth it for them. As for exact armor numbers, nobody can give you those for the AK, not even most of HIT, and what’s on the internet is nearly all false, I can tell you this much, it can withstand its own APFSDS followed by its own HEAT projectile (and the other way around, which is a much harder thing to do given how HEAT messes with composite armor) on the turret, without ERA.


As far as I know its 1500hp version not 1200hp. These tanks are targeted for offensive capabilities and if its speed os reduced due to weight is not a plus point. Its modular tank Pakistan will integrate drone launching capability in it too as seen in vt4 1A


----------



## DeusExAstra

iLION12345_1 said:


> Note FY2 ERA on the brochure, it’s the older VT-4.
> PAs VT-4s had FY4 before it was even offered for export. The difference between FY4 and FY2 is as they say “Zameen Asman Ka farq”
> 
> That being said, VT-4 has enough power to be equipped with Side ERA, and PA can opt to equip them at any moment if they want, it’s a modular thing, can even be done in the field if necessary.
> Not sure if they’d Put FY4 on the sides though, maybe AORAK or FY2, depends on how much it effects mobility.
> 
> I personally think in the case of an actual conflict it would be one of the first modifications PA would do to its MBTs when they realize how vulnerable the sides can be.


What about FY-V for export? I mean, we all saw those presentations photos claims ~250mm penetration ability decrease for DTW-125/BTA-4 for "FY-IVE", but I'm not sure, It would be great protection buff for VT4P.


----------



## Iron Shrappenel

Do our VT-4s have an Active Protection System ? It is inevitable and a must for PA. All tanks should have aps but newer acquisitions must have it. Hope they get ToT for that subsystem and just slap it on every tracked mfer my 5th grade passed friend calls a tank.


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> What about FY-V for export? I mean, we all saw those presentations photos claims ~250mm penetration ability decrease for DTW-125/BTA-4 for "FY-IVE", but I'm not sure, It would be great protection buff for VT4P.


What is FY-V? I don’t think there is any such thing officially. Visually Type 99A is also using FY-IV.

FY-IV is the best Chinese ERA offered for export, and the claimed figures are pretty believable so I don’t doubt them. FY-IV is not exactly next-Gen ERA like the latest Russian stuff, the figures claimed for it are just a bit better than the previous Gen Kontakt-5, however the ammo it’s tested against (BTA-4) is significantly better than the BM-42 Kontakt-5 is tested against.



Iron Shrappenel said:


> Do our VT-4s have an Active Protection System ? It is inevitable and a must for PA. All tanks should have aps but newer acquisitions must have it. Hope they get ToT for that subsystem and just slap it on every tracked mfer my 5th grade passed friend calls a tank.


Yes and no. There are many types and layers of active protection systems. Passive warning systems, passive jamming systems, active systems (that can be further divided).

VT-4 is the only tank in the sub-continent (or really the only armored vehicle) with at least a basic Active protection system given it has laser warning receivers, automatic smoke-launchers and automatic laser-seeking targeting. These are “passive” active protection measures. 

China offers two hard-kill APS for the VT-4 (like trophy, that’s a hard-kill system). One is the GL-5, it’s decent but it doesn’t protect against top-attack munitions, and the newer one that’s just been displayed at the Zhuhai Air Show, that does have top attack protection. PA is definitely interested in and will likely purchase the second one eventually, but it is very costly, and they’d rather replace all their older tanks before they invest in something like that.

Al-Khalid was once tested with the Shtora APS, which is an old Soviet passive jamming system that also has all of the above things that the VT-4 has plus IR jammers that would work against older systems (but are now obsolete). PA rightfully did not buy it, it was obsolete at the time already, but they should have kept the Laser warning receiver component of it. Similarly we did not buy it with our T80UDs and india did not buy it with its T90S.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

alimobin memon said:


> As far as I know its 1500hp version not 1200hp. These tanks are targeted for offensive capabilities and if its speed os reduced due to weight is not a plus point. Its modular tank Pakistan will integrate drone launching capability in it too as seen in vt4 1A


It has a 1200HP engine, this is confirmed news, there is no source to back up the claim that it has 1500HP. I too believed that at the start but I’ve personally confirmed it with HIT.
You can technically tune the engine to make 1500HP if you want, or de-tune it to 1000, but the tuning is done so as to achieve the perfect combination of range, reliability and power output. This is true for all tank engines.

You can’t go on an offensive with speed alone, the sides of the VT-4, and all Pakistani tanks (and by extension Indian tanks too) are weak, mainly because none of them have been powerful enough so far to carry significant side armor without a mobility penalty, this is less of an issue on the VT-4. The main threat to MBTs is infantry, and infantry can flank a tank. Putting on side armor is much cheaper (and at times also lighter) than an APS system.

Can’t comment on the drone launching capability, that’s easy enough to add. But PA has other place to put funds right now.



Princeps Senatus said:


> Do you have a photo?























Top to bottom: Al-Zarrar with side ERA package. 
UD with its 1/3rd side covered in extra armor (also seen in Indian T90S models, but with Kontakt 5 ERA instead). All PA UDs have it. 
AK with full side skirt, this is not armor, rather a anti-thermal signature measure. 
AK with Side armor similar to UD, used to be commonly seen, now not so much.
AK with a full side armor kit, doesn’t cover all the way down, but is still a lot better than nothing, especially if they put ERA on top, was not seen outside some models at HIT.
AK with Shtora APS. The IR dazzlers on the cheeks are obsolete stuff, PA didn’t buy the system (thankfully), but I wish they got the LWRs (nodes above the barrel) and the automatic smoke deployment and threat targeting systems that come with shtora. Some companies (ALTCOP and GIDS) made such systems locally too, but they were never employed in large numbers, only seen on a few AKs and AZs, they’re basically the most basic form of an APS.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## DeusExAstra

iLION12345_1 said:


> What is FY-V? I don’t think there is any such thing officially. Visually Type 99A is also using FY-IV.
> 
> FY-IV is the best Chinese ERA offered for export, and the claimed figures are pretty believable so I don’t doubt them. FY-IV is not exactly next-Gen ERA like the latest Russian stuff, the figures claimed for it are just a bit better than the previous Gen Kontakt-5, however the ammo it’s tested against (BTA-4) is significantly better than the BM-42 Kontakt-5 is tested against.


Well, as far as I'm aware of, they installed FY-V ERA at least for 99A turret. The main difference is thickness of it's plates, that's why blocks of this are thicker.


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> Well, as far as I'm aware of, they installed FY-V ERA at least for 99A turret. The main difference is thickness of it's plates, that's why blocks of this are thicker.


I think just thickness doesn’t count for a new type. VT4 turret has different thicknesses of FYIV. If they just made FYIV thicker and put it on there that’s still FYIV, if they’ve changed the chemical characteristics, makeup, plates etc to improve it then we can consider it FYV or something else.

Still, it is totally possible, FYIV is not cutting edge, China can easily make better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ghazi52

Display at IDEA 2022, Karachi..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NooriNuth

ghazi52 said:


> Display at IDEA 2022, Karachi..
> 
> View attachment 896749


Turkish gun? On the top


----------



## ghazi52

.,.,
Pictures of Chinese VT-4A1 MBT's (Main Battle Tank's) Hard-Kill APS (Active Protection System) GL-6 at IDEAS 2022.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

VT4A1 tank equipped with a small vehicle-mounted vertical take-off and landing drone, which adopts a coaxial reverse dual-rotor design with foldable rotors. Compared with traditional drones, its lateral size is larger Reduced for easy storage into the drone storage launch compartment of the tank turret.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alimobin memon

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> VT4A1 tank equipped with a small vehicle-mounted vertical take-off and landing drone, which adopts a coaxial reverse dual-rotor design with foldable rotors. Compared with traditional drones, its lateral size is larger Reduced for easy storage into the drone storage launch compartment of the tank turret.
> 
> View attachment 897764
> 
> 
> View attachment 897765


GL6 APS AND DRONE WILL COME TO PAK IN A YEAR MARK MY WORDS. INSHAALLAH

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

Pakistan army should consider light tanks as well to get great flexibility of weapons choice we share major mountain lines from India to Afghanistan these heavy MBT cannot operate in these harsh environments 

ZTQ 15 or VT 5 makes better choice rather than heavy bulky tanks all the time


----------



## CivilianSupremacy

Hi, @iLION12345_1 

How armoured units formation work normally in PA. Are the tactics evolved w.r.t technology & modern age ? Are any mobile Air-defense units attached with armoured units in PA. If yes then what kind ? Anyones which can defend the tanks & unit again enemy gunship Helis & UAVs? I assume in an all out war, the airforce will already have lot in their plate, In many instances army maybe will be at its own. 

Also, some basic question about deployment: 
Indians made IBUs - integrated battle units after 2001 I guess. That includes infantry, armoured, mechnical and other units all together. Do we have different deployment tactics or similar ? Do our armoured divisions available on all eastern sectors OR only at few sectors? - ofcourse not really practical on high mountainous sectors but can they be quickly deployed at all sectors in Punjab & Sindh ? 
I read that there is armoured division in Gujranwala and Multan. Does it mean all armored units are stationed only in these 2 places ? I hope not. 
I guess i already asked similar question before - but some people misunderstood me.


----------



## iLION12345_1

CivilianSupremacy said:


> Hi, @iLION12345_1
> 
> How armoured units formation work normally in PA. Are the tactics evolved w.r.t technology & modern age ? Are any mobile Air-defense units attached with armoured units in PA. If yes then what kind ? Anyones which can defend the tanks & unit again enemy gunship Helis & UAVs? I assume in an all out war, the airforce will already have lot in their plate, In many instances army maybe will be at its own.
> 
> Also, some basic question about deployment:
> Indians made IBUs - integrated battle units after 2001 I guess. That includes infantry, armoured, mechnical and other units all together. Do we have different deployment tactics or similar ? Do our armoured divisions available on all eastern sectors OR only at few sectors? - ofcourse not really practical on high mountainous sectors but can they be quickly deployed at all sectors in Punjab & Sindh ?
> I read that there is armoured division in Gujranwala and Multan. Does it mean all armored units are stationed only in these 2 places ? I hope not.
> I guess i already asked similar question before - but some people misunderstood me.


I would recommend reading the forum threads regarding these specific topics to find answers, most of them are already available and fairly obvious. I know that some of it will involve quite a bit of digging, but I simply don’t have the time to type out answers to these because they’ll inevitably be long and drawn out. It’s not that people misunderstood, it that such questions often draw out suspicion rather than interest. 

To sum it up as shortly as possible; Of course PAs tactics change with time and technology (and most importantly with how the enemy planning changes). Of course there is mobile SHORAD cover, you simply can’t do an armored assault without it, FM90, Orleikons, thousands of MANPADS and smaller calibre AA guns, A2A missiles on Helicopters and UAVs etc. 
PA is searching for a new, modern SHORAD system at the moment as well, again, details regarding what systems they’ve tested and how it’s going is available on the forum. Post-1999 there’s been a huge influence on combined ops between the PAF-PA and several exercises regarding that too, they absolutely cannot work without each other in an all out war. 

Your questions regarding deployments, tactics and battle orders can be answered better by other users, I tend not to talk about such stuff both because there’s people who have more knowledge than me and because I don’t want to risk divulging something that shouldn’t be made public, and again, a fair bit is already available on the forum in the postings of certain members.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Sifar zero

iLION12345_1 said:


> I would recommend reading the forum threads regarding these specific topics to find answers, most of them are already available and fairly obvious. I know that some of it will involve quite a bit of digging, but I simply don’t have the time to type out answers to these because they’ll inevitably be long and drawn out. It’s not that people misunderstood, it that such questions often draw out suspicion rather than interest.
> 
> To sum it up as shortly as possible; Of course PAs tactics change with time and technology (and most importantly with how the enemy planning changes). Of course there is mobile SHORAD cover, you simply can’t do an armored assault without it, FM90, Orleikons, thousands of MANPADS and smaller calibre AA guns, A2A missiles on Helicopters and UAVs etc.
> PA is searching for a new, modern SHORAD system at the moment as well, again, details regarding what systems they’ve tested and how it’s going is available on the forum. Post-1999 there’s been a huge influence on combined ops between the PAF-PA and several exercises regarding that too, they absolutely cannot work without each other in an all out war.
> 
> Your questions regarding deployments, tactics and battle orders can be answered better by other users, I tend not to talk about such stuff both because there’s people who have more knowledge than me and because I don’t want to risk divulging something that shouldn’t be made public, and again, a fair bit is already available on the forum in the postings of certain members.


Don't we have a SHORAD already??


----------



## Zarvan

Pakistan and China need to come up with system like TROPHY of Israel for their Tanks and integrate with all of their Tanks. Without a Trophy like system Tanks and APC are sitting ducks.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Zarvan said:


> Pakistan and China need to come up with system like TROPHY of Israel for their Tanks and integrate with all of their Tanks. Without a Trophy like system Tanks and APC are sitting ducks.


Come on man, can at least you of all stop this annoying-*** trend of popping into a random thread, making a random demand/claim without even reading about what’s going on and then just leave. What do you think the GL5 and GL6 are? Did you even read the long conversation that was just had about PA and APS systems?

I’m just sort of tired of technical threads being ruined by this stuff.



Sifar zero said:


> Don't we have a SHORAD already??


Yes we do, FM90, but it’s not that good, they’re looking for something more modern to supplement it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Princeps Senatus

Zarvan said:


> Pakistan and China need to come up with system like TROPHY of Israel for their Tanks and integrate with all of their Tanks. Without a Trophy like system Tanks and APC are sitting ducks.


🤦‍♂️


----------



## Zarvan

iLION12345_1 said:


> Come on man, can at least you of all stop this annoying-*** trend of popping into a random thread, making a random demand/claim without even reading about what’s going on and then just leave. What do you think the GL5 and GL6 are? Did you even read the long conversation that was just had about PA and APS systems?
> 
> I’m just sort of tired of technical threads being ruined by this stuff.
> 
> 
> Yes we do, FM90, but it’s not that good, they’re looking for something more modern.


After seeing what happened to Tanks in Ukraine. This is the most legitimate demand. And yes, I know China is working on them but until they are integrated in all of older and new Tanks demand would still remain there. Because without those systems Tanks are pretty much a gone case.


----------



## RescueRanger

Zarvan said:


> After seeing what happened to Tanks in Ukraine. This is the most legitimate demand. And yes, I know China is working on them but until they are integrated in all of older and new Tanks demand would still remain there. Because without those systems Tanks are pretty much a gone case.


Don’t use Ukraine as a test case for deployment of armour in a theatre by a professional army. Russia has proved its military c2 and tactics are a laughing stock.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Zarvan said:


> After seeing what happened to Tanks in Ukraine. This is the most legitimate demand. And yes, I know China is working on them but until they are integrated in all of older and new Tanks demand would still remain there. Because without those systems Tanks are pretty much a gone case.


My problem is not your demand, even if the example of Ukraine is flawed, my problem is that it adds absolutely nothing of value to this thread or the discussion that was being conducted here. You just write a two-liner to ask for an unrealistic demand and that’s it? Even though said demand and it’s need was already discussed multiple times prior on the thread. And then you just assume that tanks are a “gone case” without really anything to back that up. 

This is basically a waste of a post in a technical thread. That’s my problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CrazyZ

Zarvan said:


> After seeing what happened to Tanks in Ukraine. This is the most legitimate demand. And yes, I know China is working on them but until they are integrated in all of older and new Tanks demand would still remain there. Because without those systems Tanks are pretty much a gone case.


A big part of this is bad tactics....not enough infantry and air support. Tanks will always be subject to a 10% - 20% loss rate (just the nature of tank combat). Personally, I don't think APS is a magic solution. Russian tanks with early APS systems have been knocked out in this war (most likely by artillery). Major take away is that focusing on armor just for the frontal arc of the tank is not enough. Ways to armor the top have to be explored as well. Personally I think some sort of unmanned turret or retro redesign like a casemate tank chassis may be solutions.


----------



## CivilianSupremacy

iLION12345_1 said:


> I would recommend reading the forum threads regarding these specific topics to find answers, most of them are already available and fairly obvious. I know that some of it will involve quite a bit of digging, but I simply don’t have the time to type out answers to these because they’ll inevitably be long and drawn out. It’s not that people misunderstood, it that such questions often draw out suspicion rather than interest.
> 
> To sum it up as shortly as possible; Of course PAs tactics change with time and technology (and most importantly with how the enemy planning changes). Of course there is mobile SHORAD cover, you simply can’t do an armored assault without it, FM90, Orleikons, thousands of MANPADS and smaller calibre AA guns, A2A missiles on Helicopters and UAVs etc.
> PA is searching for a new, modern SHORAD system at the moment as well, again, details regarding what systems they’ve tested and how it’s going is available on the forum. Post-1999 there’s been a huge influence on combined ops between the PAF-PA and several exercises regarding that too, they absolutely cannot work without each other in an all out war.
> 
> Your questions regarding deployments, tactics and battle orders can be answered better by other users, I tend not to talk about such stuff both because there’s people who have more knowledge than me and because I don’t want to risk divulging something that shouldn’t be made public, and again, a fair bit is already available on the forum in the postings of certain members.



Fair enough! First of all Thank you for sharing the information with me & everyone. 

I will dig up rest of the information I seek on deployments. The knowledgeable person as yourself can surely know that I do not seek any confidential info at all. The military people in enemy state already would know these thing in fairly much details. 
I only wanted to clear the perception. The perception (right or wrong) is that entire military machine sits within the cantonments which are almost inside the cities. Now, if the armoured divisions / units are only lets say in select few cantonments then assuming the worst case scenario:- With several GPS guided stand off munition the enemy can create choke points exploiting fairly populated areas around cantonments to slow down the deployment while they do their own armored thrust in our territory. I just wanted to know that this perception is wrong. I hope that our armoured units + air mobile defense units along with regularly infantry are strategically placed all over Punjab and Sindh, so they can be deployed quite quickly. I am convinced that if enemy ever has to do a full-scale war they will try do it keeping the secrecy as much as possible, giving as less time to our forces as possible. Because they know once PA fully deployed, or once our airforce is airborne then enemy will get tit-for tat. 

Or quite possible, perhaps the perception is actually right, but the way I envision the worst case scenario is wrong. Perhaps PA knows that even if military machine needs to move from few cantonments, they know, they will be able to do the deployments in timely manner no matter what. Perhaps I have over-estimated the worst case scenario. 

I usually emphasize things from strategic POV more then the tactical POV. The importance of quick reaction, the deployments, these things matter to me most. First wave of attack is the most critical in any war scenario. I am quite confident for PAF, the way their bases are placed, the ADA units ready in every squadron. However would like ADA response time get even quicker
given the supersonic cruise missile age. But still good enough. But my concerns are for PA & PN (perhaps for lack of information). 

However, I will search around and try find these answers. Thanks for your answers on air-defense being attached with PA armoured units and glad to know that PA & PAF are doing much more combined-op trainings post 1999.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

@iLION12345_1

I think something like this could be an interesting application from a CAS standpoint.






HaroBanx Industries Pvt Ltd.







www.harobanx.com





Basically, as the PAF gradually moves towards more J-10CE and JF-17 Block-3s, I think there's an opportunity to repurpose the Block-1s into a more CAS-type platform. I don't know how much more the Block-I can handle from an electronics standpoint, but adding a low-powered, air-cooled AESA radar, HMD/S and targeting pod can unlock a few things. Namely, we could deploy AGMs like the AAHAN above and pair with outside-the-cockpit cueing.

This could basically become our Jaguar in the sense of providing precision anti-armor/vehicle capability. We could even go a step further and try making a Sensor-Fuzed Weapon-type system (e.g., pair small loitering munitions into a stand-off range dispenser, like GB500).

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Princeps Senatus

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @iLION12345_1
> 
> I think something like this could be an interesting application from a CAS standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HaroBanx Industries Pvt Ltd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.harobanx.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, as the PAF gradually moves towards more J-10CE and JF-17 Block-3s, I think there's an opportunity to repurpose the Block-1s into a more CAS-type platform. I don't know how much more the Block-I can handle from an electronics standpoint, but adding a low-powered, air-cooled AESA radar, HMD/S and targeting pod can unlock a few things. Namely, we could deploy AGMs like the AAHAN above and pair with outside-the-cockpit cueing.
> 
> This could basically become our Jaguar in the sense of providing precision anti-armor/vehicle capability. We could even go a step further and try making a Sensor-Fuzed Weapon-type system (e.g., pair small loitering munitions into a stand-off range dispenser, like GB500).
> 
> View attachment 899019
> 
> 
> View attachment 899024


Why not just upgrade the Block 1s to Block 3 standard?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @iLION12345_1
> 
> I think something like this could be an interesting application from a CAS standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HaroBanx Industries Pvt Ltd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.harobanx.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, as the PAF gradually moves towards more J-10CE and JF-17 Block-3s, I think there's an opportunity to repurpose the Block-1s into a more CAS-type platform. I don't know how much more the Block-I can handle from an electronics standpoint, but adding a low-powered, air-cooled AESA radar, HMD/S and targeting pod can unlock a few things. Namely, we could deploy AGMs like the AAHAN above and pair with outside-the-cockpit cueing.
> 
> This could basically become our Jaguar in the sense of providing precision anti-armor/vehicle capability. We could even go a step further and try making a Sensor-Fuzed Weapon-type system (e.g., pair small loitering munitions into a stand-off range dispenser, like GB500).
> 
> View attachment 899019
> 
> 
> View attachment 899024


Using dedicated fighter jets for CAS in the Pakistan-india theatre provides a rather unique set of both use cases and threats due to the SAM and fighter rich environment we’d have over a rather small geographical area. The Pakistan-india theatre is so unique, that there is really no other example around the world we can realistically apply to it. 

Firstly it raises some major questions regarding wether the combined-ops training of the forces is strong enough to where a multi-layered and multi-day assault over (and across) the border can be planned and executed. 

Let’s say a strike corps of the PA is going on an armored offensive into Indian territory in a certain location, can PAF firstly divert CAS assets and dedicate them to cover said offensive, on top of that can the PAF divert and dedicate A2A assets to said strike corps to cover the birds providing CAS to them, on top of that can the PAF divert and dedicate long range strike assets to said corps for SEAD/DEAD, and then there’s the air EW, ELINT and AWACS layers on top of that, while also coordinating with PA SHORADs, LOMADs and HIMARs systems, Gunships and tank commanders. Not to mention an entirely new layer of UAVs with the PA and the PAF. 
In this way it raises equal questions about how good the PAF is at asset management and cross-task planning (how well each different type of aircraft can take care of the other, I.e. the SEAD/DEAD birds for the A2A and CAS, the A2A birds for the SEAD/DEAD and CAS etc). 

This is just a small glimpse into how complex a CAS operation for the PAF is, if they can pull all of this off within acceptable standards, then yes, the JF-17 block 1s, or any fighter for that matter, can be a very useful CAS bird. 

Given Pakistans terrain, air-refueling would be a minimum, and the jets could even go about without more than one drop tank and carry more ordinance instead, deciding to refuel at the nearest base instead of staying on station longer (that’s up to the PAF to decide what ratio of loiter time versus amount of ordinance works best). 

I realize very little of this is in actual response or relation to your post, which really I have nothing to add to it, I agree with you, but I like to bring all of these possibilities up to remind us how many factors are being calculated for a single, seemingly simple, CAS run. 

That being said, I feel like PAF is already converting older JF-17 blocks to A2G roles sort of “spiritually”, they know that once they have enough Block 3s and J-10Cs, they can give as many roles from the mirage to the JF-17 as they want. 

It’s already carrying REKs, doing SEAD/DEAD with ARMs, now carrying Ra’ads and ASHMs etc, all of this once belonged to the mirage, which is now only unique in its SOW carrying capability (something I assume PAF is working on, getting new SOWs that work with the JF) and more importantly; it’s bomb-truck capability. 

So if you’ve noticed, the more J-10Cs and Block 3s we get, the more precision strike roles the older JF-17 blocks take, I can’t say for certain how much this gives them a boost in CAS capabilities, but I can say that the more J-10Cs and Block 3s we get, the more free mirages we have that are no longer doing anything, and those are honestly perfect for basic CAS roles with large amounts of (unguided/cheaply guided) ordinance. That’s why I think the mirage still has a big role to play in the PAF, it’s been through countless roles already, now it could have another one. If anything I hope the PAF is looking into making them better CAS platforms and getting out the last bit of life from them this way instead of trying to put BVRs on them (I still don’t get the point behind that…).



Princeps Senatus said:


> Why not just upgrade the Block 1s to Block 3 standard?


Block 1s are already upgraded to block 2 standard IIRC. Upgrading to block 3 would take rather massive changes, at this point they’d rather keep producing more fighters to increase numbers instead of taking block 1s and 2s off active duty to upgrade them, that would be both expensive and decrease available aircraft. 

There is a better method to upgrade them if PAF wants to; wait until the airframes/engines run out of life and do a full rebuild of them into block 3s, but that depends on wether it’s cost effective, it could be cheaper to simply produce new block 3s.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Princeps Senatus

iLION12345_1 said:


> Block 1s are already upgraded to block 2 standard IIRC. Upgrading to block 3 would take rather massive changes, at this point they’d rather keep producing more fighters to increase numbers instead of taking block 1s and 2s off active duty to upgrade them, that would be both expensive and decrease available aircraft.
> 
> There is a better method to upgrade them if PAF wants to; wait until the airframes/engines run out of life and do a full rebuild of them into block 3s, but that depends on wether it’s cost effective, it could be cheaper to simply produce new block 3s.


I know, right now the effort needed to upgrade them is better spent producing new Block 3s. But once the production stops, upgrading them would be a no brainer imo. Between Block 1 and 3 they use the same engine and there aren't any major structural changes. Mostly just avionics. It should be pretty doable.


----------



## iLION12345_1

CivilianSupremacy said:


> Fair enough! First of all Thank you for sharing the information with me & everyone.
> 
> I will dig up rest of the information I seek on deployments. The knowledgeable person as yourself can surely know that I do not seek any confidential info at all. The military people in enemy state already would know these thing in fairly much details.
> I only wanted to clear the perception. The perception (right or wrong) is that entire military machine sits within the cantonments which are almost inside the cities. Now, if the armoured divisions / units are only lets say in select few cantonments then assuming the worst case scenario:- With several GPS guided stand off munition the enemy can create choke points exploiting fairly populated areas around cantonments to slow down the deployment while they do their own armored thrust in our territory. I just wanted to know that this perception is wrong. I hope that our armoured units + air mobile defense units along with regularly infantry are strategically placed all over Punjab and Sindh, so they can be deployed quite quickly. I am convinced that if enemy ever has to do a full-scale war they will try do it keeping the secrecy as much as possible, giving as less time to our forces as possible. Because they know once PA fully deployed, or once our airforce is airborne then enemy will get tit-for tat.
> 
> Or quite possible, perhaps the perception is actually right, but the way I envision the worst case scenario is wrong. Perhaps PA knows that even if military machine needs to move from few cantonments, they know, they will be able to do the deployments in timely manner no matter what. Perhaps I have over-estimated the worst case scenario.
> 
> I usually emphasize things from strategic POV more then the tactical POV. The importance of quick reaction, the deployments, these things matter to me most. First wave of attack is the most critical in any war scenario. I am quite confident for PAF, the way their bases are placed, the ADA units ready in every squadron. However would like ADA response time get even quicker
> given the supersonic cruise missile age. But still good enough. But my concerns are for PA & PN (perhaps for lack of information).
> 
> However, I will search around and try find these answers. Thanks for your answers on air-defense being attached with PA armoured units and glad to know that PA & PAF are doing much more combined-op trainings post 1999.


It’s more of the “duh, of course they do that” kind of question that annoys people, I honestly don’t understand why.
What I mean to say is, when people come here and ask questions that seem like they have obvious answers, people assume it’s suspicious (which again, I don’t get why, you’re right to say most of this is already public information, so why the suspicion), but at the same time very few have time to asnwer these questions in detail since they’re obviously very broad topics, hence looking at existing discussions can help.

PAs deployments are very vast and very well thought out, the entire military has literally existed for 70 years for a single task. To fight india, so they better bloody well know what they’re doing, same goes for our freinds across the border. The placements of cantonments themselves is strategic, and the working boundary/borders of Pakistan and india outside of Kashmir are not active conflict zones and hence do not have large concentrations of troops during peacetime. Only border guards like the BSF and rangers, however in case a conflict does break out, the signs are often present well before, and the concenred regiments are present at their required strategic locations outside cantonments already.

Let me give you a single example, February 2019, Pakistan army regiments were out of their cantonments and in forward positions at borders before the Pakistan Air Force had even responded the next morning, this includes armor and artillery. 

Due to Pakistans geogprahy, Pakistani strike and defensive corps have a much shorter distance to their forward operations bases than the Indian forces, Pakistan is a thin country, while this does create strategic depth issues, It also gives mobility advantages. Forces stationed at Baluchistan can be at the Indian border within the day if needed, the Pakistani doctrine actually banks on this providing them numerical parity or even superiority at the start of a conventional conflict. 

Lastly, it comes down to intelligence gathering and pre-planning, if the enemy has attacked and you’re still in your cantonments you might as well have lost already, but that’s not how things work. India and Pakistan host massive militaries, some of the largest in the world, you don’t simply attack the other without getting noticed, there’s a massive pre-indication of a war every time these two countries fight or get close to it, and forces are already rushing or present at the border due to these inclinations. 



Princeps Senatus said:


> I know, right now the effort needed to upgrade them is better spent producing new Block 3s. But once the production stops, upgrading them would be a no brainer imo. Between Block 1 and 3 they use the same engine and there aren't any major structural changes. Mostly just avionics. It should be pretty doable.


There are definitely some structural changes that would require extensive modifications, you’re forgetting that the FBW system has changed, the wiring for the new hardpoints, entirely new electronics, wiring (MAWS and onboard EW) and piping/wiring for the radar up front, composite materials, wing strengthening, the list goes on. We’re not sure when the block 3 production stops, if at all, in the near future, maybe they’re still being produced by the time block 1s run out of engine and airframe life, what then? Do they stop and upgrade these or keep making more? And If god wills, maybe by then we have enough funds and a larger factory to do both at once? The possibilities are there. Let’s see what happens.
The block 3 may not look like it, but it has _*a lot*_ of changes. It makes Block 1 to block 2 look like a mere facelift.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## farooqbhai007

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @iLION12345_1
> 
> I think something like this could be an interesting application from a CAS standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HaroBanx Industries Pvt Ltd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.harobanx.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, as the PAF gradually moves towards more J-10CE and JF-17 Block-3s, I think there's an opportunity to repurpose the Block-1s into a more CAS-type platform. I don't know how much more the Block-I can handle from an electronics standpoint, but adding a low-powered, air-cooled AESA radar, HMD/S and targeting pod can unlock a few things. Namely, we could deploy AGMs like the AAHAN above and pair with outside-the-cockpit cueing.
> 
> This could basically become our Jaguar in the sense of providing precision anti-armor/vehicle capability. We could even go a step further and try making a Sensor-Fuzed Weapon-type system (e.g., pair small loitering munitions into a stand-off range dispenser, like GB500).
> 
> View attachment 899019
> 
> 
> View attachment 899024


1. I'm surprised no one has posted pics of the biggest loitering munition from ideas. Integrated dynamics presented a Target drone that could carry 4 micro munitions , as well as a Loitering munition variant of that same target drone which basically utilized a 20lbs warhead. Now before retards start going range range range , the range is 100km and warhead size is 20lb/9kg.













2.The micro munition pic that you posted was also taken by me

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
4


----------



## Bilal.

farooqbhai007 said:


> 1. I'm surprised no one has posted pics of the biggest loitering munition from ideas. Integrated dynamics presented a Target drone that could carry 4 micro munitions , as well as a Loitering munition variant of that same target drone which basically utilized a 20lbs warhead. Now before retards start going range range range , the range is 100km and warhead size is 20lb/9kg.
> View attachment 899136
> 
> View attachment 899137
> 
> View attachment 899138
> 
> 
> 2.The micro munition pic that you posted was also taken by me


I remember this platform used to be marketed as a target drone back in the early 2000s. There was also a jet powered Nishan-TJ.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## akramishaqkhan

iLION12345_1 said:


> It’s more of the “duh, of course they do that” kind of question that annoys people, I honestly don’t understand why.
> What I mean to say is, when people come here and ask questions that seem like they have obvious answers, people assume it’s suspicious (which again, I don’t get why, you’re right to say most of this is already public information, so why the suspicion), but at the same time very few have time to asnwer these questions in detail since they’re obviously very broad topics, hence looking at existing discussions can help.
> 
> PAs deployments are very vast and very well thought out, the entire military has literally existed for 70 years for a single task. To fight india, so they better bloody well know what they’re doing, same goes for our freinds across the border. The placements of cantonments themselves is strategic, and the working boundary/borders of Pakistan and india outside of Kashmir are not active conflict zones and hence do not have large concentrations of troops during peacetime. Only border guards like the BSF and rangers, however in case a conflict does break out, the signs are often present well before, and the concenred regiments are present at their required strategic locations outside cantonments already.
> 
> Let me give you a single example, February 2019, Pakistan army regiments were out of their cantonments and in forward positions at borders before the Pakistan Air Force had even responded the next morning, this includes armor and artillery.
> 
> Due to Pakistans geogprahy, Pakistani strike and defensive corps have a much shorter distance to their forward operations bases than the Indian forces, Pakistan is a thin country, while this does create strategic depth issues, It also gives mobility advantages. Forces stationed at Baluchistan can be at the Indian border within the day if needed, the Pakistani doctrine actually banks on this providing them numerical parity or even superiority at the start of a conventional conflict.
> 
> Lastly, it comes down to intelligence gathering and pre-planning, if the enemy has attacked and you’re still in your cantonments you might as well have lost already, but that’s not how things work. India and Pakistan host massive militaries, some of the largest in the world, you don’t simply attack the other without getting noticed, there’s a massive pre-indication of a war every time these two countries fight or get close to it, and forces are already rushing or present at the border due to these inclinations.
> 
> 
> There are definitely some structural changes that would require extensive modifications, you’re forgetting that the FBW system has changed, the wiring for the new hardpoints, entirely new electronics, wiring (MAWS and onboard EW) and piping/wiring for the radar up front, composite materials, wing strengthening, the list goes on. We’re not sure when the block 3 production stops, if at all, in the near future, maybe they’re still being produced by the time block 1s run out of engine and airframe life, what then? Do they stop and upgrade these or keep making more? And If god wills, maybe by then we have enough funds and a larger factory to do both at once? The possibilities are there. Let’s see what happens.
> The block 3 may not look like it, but it has _*a lot*_ of changes. It makes Block 1 to block 2 look like a mere facelift.


The battle readiness of all the Corps are not the same. Some fare better than others. 
Internal audit and readiness assessments have shown some major weaknesses. Many of which came to fore when PA had to mobilize during the Kargil episode. We had serious challenges with the 5th Corp. The picture is not as rosey as people like to portray.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

akramishaqkhan said:


> The battle readiness of all the Corps are not the same. Some fare better than others.
> Internal audit and readiness assessments have shown some major weaknesses. Many of which came to fore when PA had to mobilize during the Kargil episode. We had serious challenges with the 5th Corp. The picture is not as rosey as people like to portray.


I’ve often argued that the PA is too big for its own good and it needs to downsize, but I’m in the minority regarding that opinion, I know how the situation is, it’s far worst across the border. No military is ever 100% ready to mobilize at any time, they bank on the fact that when and if a conflict starts, there will be an influx of funds to mobilize the corps that aren’t ready enough to mobilize as is. This is even more present in European militaries, who almost entirely rely on this system due to recent cuts (Germany being a big example, their logistical and readiness nightmares are pretty public). Only with the recent Ukraine conflict have they started increasing their readiness levels. By comparison Pakistani and Indian forces have much higher readiness levels due to the nature of their conflicts. 

However it would be very inaccurate to compare PAs readiness levels now to Kargil, it was already proven inaccurate in the time leading up to the standoffs in the 2000s and more recently in 2019. A lot has changed, and wars aren’t fought with 100% mobilization anymore anyways, more like smaller skirmishes, hence quality over quantity must be the aim and not Vice versa. Pakistan and india are taking their time to understand that, whoever does it first will be in a better position.

and I’m not sure where you got access to actual readiness assessments to back up those claims either, true or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

iLION12345_1 said:


> Using dedicated fighter jets for CAS in the Pakistan-india theatre provides a rather unique set of both use cases and threats due to the SAM and fighter rich environment we’d have over a rather small geographical area. The Pakistan-india theatre is so unique, that there is really no other example around the world we can realistically apply to it.
> 
> Firstly it raises some major questions regarding wether the combined-ops training of the forces is strong enough to where a multi-layered and multi-day assault over (and across) the border can be planned and executed.
> 
> Let’s say a strike corps of the PA is going on an armored offensive into Indian territory in a certain location, can PAF firstly divert CAS assets and dedicate them to cover said offensive, on top of that can the PAF divert and dedicate A2A assets to said strike corps to cover the birds providing CAS to them, on top of that can the PAF divert and dedicate long range strike assets to said corps for SEAD/DEAD, and then there’s the air EW, ELINT and AWACS layers on top of that, while also coordinating with PA SHORADs, LOMADs and HIMARs systems, Gunships and tank commanders. Not to mention an entirely new layer of UAVs with the PA and the PAF.
> In this way it raises equal questions about how good the PAF is at asset management and cross-task planning (how well each different type of aircraft can take care of the other, I.e. the SEAD/DEAD birds for the A2A and CAS, the A2A birds for the SEAD/DEAD and CAS etc).
> 
> This is just a small glimpse into how complex a CAS operation for the PAF is, if they can pull all of this off within acceptable standards, then yes, the JF-17 block 1s, or any fighter for that matter, can be a very useful CAS bird.
> 
> Given Pakistans terrain, air-refueling would be a minimum, and the jets could even go about without more than one drop tank and carry more ordinance instead, deciding to refuel at the nearest base instead of staying on station longer (that’s up to the PAF to decide what ratio of loiter time versus amount of ordinance works best).
> 
> I realize very little of this is in actual response or relation to your post, which really I have nothing to add to it, I agree with you, but I like to bring all of these possibilities up to remind us how many factors are being calculated for a single, seemingly simple, CAS run.
> 
> That being said, I feel like PAF is already converting older JF-17 blocks to A2G roles sort of “spiritually”, they know that once they have enough Block 3s and J-10Cs, they can give as many roles from the mirage to the JF-17 as they want.
> 
> It’s already carrying REKs, doing SEAD/DEAD with ARMs, now carrying Ra’ads and ASHMs etc, all of this once belonged to the mirage, which is now only unique in its SOW carrying capability (something I assume PAF is working on, getting new SOWs that work with the JF) and more importantly; it’s bomb-truck capability.
> 
> So if you’ve noticed, the more J-10Cs and Block 3s we get, the more precision strike roles the older JF-17 blocks take, I can’t say for certain how much this gives them a boost in CAS capabilities, but I can say that the more J-10Cs and Block 3s we get, the more free mirages we have that are no longer doing anything, and those are honestly perfect for basic CAS roles with large amounts of (unguided/cheaply guided) ordinance. That’s why I think the mirage still has a big role to play in the PAF, it’s been through countless roles already, now it could have another one. If anything I hope the PAF is looking into making them better CAS platforms and getting out the last bit of life from them this way instead of trying to put BVRs on them (I still don’t get the point behind that…).
> 
> 
> Block 1s are already upgraded to block 2 standard IIRC. Upgrading to block 3 would take rather massive changes, at this point they’d rather keep producing more fighters to increase numbers instead of taking block 1s and 2s off active duty to upgrade them, that would be both expensive and decrease available aircraft.
> 
> There is a better method to upgrade them if PAF wants to; wait until the airframes/engines run out of life and do a full rebuild of them into block 3s, but that depends on wether it’s cost effective, it could be cheaper to simply produce new block 3s.


The Indian ADGE over their core strike formations is not to be trifled with. Anything beyond stand off dispensers is going to be mauled which makes the case for smaller targets such as UCAVs to take that role.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
3


----------



## CivilianSupremacy

iLION12345_1 said:


> Let me give you a single example, February 2019, Pakistan army regiments were out of their cantonments and in forward positions at borders before the Pakistan Air Force had even responded the next morning, this includes armor and artillery.



Good to know that improvements are done. Mobility, quick reaction / deployment are most critical. More then the equipment itself.



iLION12345_1 said:


> I’ve often argued that the PA is too big for its own good and it needs to downsize, but I’m in the minority regarding that opinion



Totally agree. The resources we will save by reducing the numbers can go at better training, better equipment, better managed, quick assembly etc. Quality over quantity must be the goal.


----------



## akramishaqkhan

iLION12345_1 said:


> I’ve often argued that the PA is too big for its own good and it needs to downsize, but I’m in the minority regarding that opinion, I know how the situation is, it’s far worst across the border. No military is ever 100% ready to mobilize at any time, they bank on the fact that when and if a conflict starts, there will be an influx of funds to mobilize the corps that aren’t ready enough to mobilize as is. This is even more present in European militaries, who almost entirely rely on this system due to recent cuts (Germany being a big example, their logistical and readiness nightmares are pretty public). Only with the recent Ukraine conflict have they started increasing their readiness levels. By comparison Pakistani and Indian forces have much higher readiness levels due to the nature of their conflicts.
> 
> However it would be very inaccurate to compare PAs readiness levels now to Kargil, it was already proven inaccurate in the time leading up to the standoffs in the 2000s and more recently in 2019. A lot has changed, and wars aren’t fought with 100% mobilization anymore anyways, more like smaller skirmishes, hence quality over quantity must be the aim and not Vice versa. Pakistan and india are taking their time to understand that, whoever does it first will be in a better position.
> 
> and I’m not sure where you got access to actual readiness assessments to back up those claims either, true or not.


I haven't seen or heard of any improvement in the readiness. It is something that is out of mind so my knowledge might be dated. 
Not sure what the military did since Kargil to improve on their fighting unit readiness. Also how I found out is not important. 
The report on the weaknesses in some of the Corps was identified a few years prior to Kargil. The military did jack all - and then Kargil showed glaring weaknesses. When one of the Corp's was asked to move to battle positions and establish fighting formations, they had a very hard time to muster the appropriate complements. Gear was not working, not properly maintained, and unit mobility ground-down again and again. What was found was completely contradictory to earlier assessments versus reality on the ground. 

I hope things have improved. I sincerely do.


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1594705061057363969

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

akramishaqkhan said:


> I haven't seen or heard of any improvement in the readiness. It is something that is out of mind so my knowledge might be dated.
> Not sure what the military did since Kargil to improve on their fighting unit readiness. Also how I found out is not important.
> The report on the weaknesses in some of the Corps was identified a few years prior to Kargil. The military did jack all - and then Kargil showed glaring weaknesses. When one of the Corp's was asked to move to battle positions and establish fighting formations, they had a very hard time to muster the appropriate complements. Gear was not working, not properly maintained, and unit mobility ground-down again and again. What was found was completely contradictory to earlier assessments versus reality on the ground.
> 
> I hope things have improved. I sincerely do.


I mean no offense, but You haven’t seen or heard of it because you’re not supposed to. “How I found out is not important” to me means that maybe you have not found out at all (about recent developments that is, things during and before Kargil are rather public now, as I’m sure todays developments will be a decade down the line).
I only ask that question because the source of such information can change its nature a lot. I digress though, you could very well have your trusted sources, I’m not doubting that.

The military has fought a 15 year long constant war since Kargil ended, they were forced to increase readiness Wether they wanted to or not, by 2016 even artillery and armored units had done rounds in battlefields as infantry regiments, and I already gave you examples of the standoffs in 2000s and 2019.
Readiness Is directly proportional to experience, if a regiment has deployed before, it knows how to deploy again. But even more so, it is directly proportional to the economic state of the country, I already highlighted how in my precious post, it is not a static thing, right now, with our economic state, you can connect the dots…

That being said, the number of exercises, especially cross-force exercises (PAF-PA) went up substantially due to lessors learned from the failure at Kargil. Kargil to me was so much more than a readiness failure anyways, it was a geo strategic failure, we all know how United the civil-military admin was over it.

While I do agree that the shortcomings were obvious before Kargil, I don’t think they were (at least not entirely) ignored. while on the outside it may seem like the forces do not have a shortage of funds due to their seemingly constant weapon purchases, those funds are sourced through long term loans, the money needed for the military to maintain a readiness level is always, _*always*_ in short supply and will remain as such, and by extension some corps will never attain the same readiness level as others. Some regiments in the PA use modern trucks, others are still using trucks that are two, three, four decades old. Some regiments use modern tanks, others are still using tanks from the 60s. Even with perfect logistics, supply, movement and tactics, we can’t expect one to be as ready, mobile and capable as the other. That’s why I think some minor downsizing needs to be considered, or at least no expansion until everyone can achieve a near equal readiness level (yes, the PA has been constantly expanding, even in the last few years)

That’s a worldwide thing too, not just limited to Pakistan, even the US has its fair share of such issues with their seemingly endless budget. As I said, things are worst across the border, even during Kargil this was very apparent and Indian defense circles talk about it to this day. By no means is that justification for low readiness on our side, but it’s an indication of how problems like these are prevalent even with much larger budgets. A perfect war has never been fought, least of all by a nation as poor and divided (on the administrative level, civil-military leadership, where everyone has their own agenda) as Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Raja Porus

akramishaqkhan said:


> The battle readiness of all the Corps are not the same. Some fare better than others.
> Internal audit and readiness assessments have shown some major weaknesses. Many of which came to fore when PA had to mobilize during the Kargil episode. We had serious challenges with the 5th Corp. The picture is not as rosey as people like to portray.


There has been a great push to increase logistics especially in V corps. Moreover the quantity and quality of local roads and motorways has increased significantly. Also now the 25 mech is not in one place, in fact it is more or less where it will jump off from. 90s was a time when both PAF and PA were facing grave difficulties. Budget and direction were the problems. And most importantly the level of OA's staff officers has increased considerably, they are not the mullahs of the 90s who believed that everything would be done by heaven.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## akramishaqkhan

iLION12345_1 said:


> I mean no offense, but You haven’t seen or heard of it because you’re not supposed to. “How I found out is not important” to me means that maybe you have not found out at all (about recent developments that is, things during and before Kargil are rather public now, as I’m sure todays developments will be a decade down the line).
> I only ask that question because the source of such information can change its nature a lot. I digress though, you could very well have your trusted sources, I’m not doubting that.
> 
> The military has fought a 15 year long constant war since Kargil ended, they were forced to increase readiness Wether they wanted to or not, by 2016 even artillery and armored units had done rounds in battlefields as infantry regiments, and I already gave you examples of the standoffs in 2000s and 2019.
> Readiness Is directly proportional to experience, if a regiment has deployed before, it knows how to deploy again. But even more so, it is directly proportional to the economic state of the country, I already highlighted how in my precious post, it is not a static thing, right now, with our economic state, you can connect the dots…
> 
> That being said, the number of exercises, especially cross-force exercises (PAF-PA) went up substantially due to lessors learned from the failure at Kargil. Kargil to me was so much more than a readiness failure anyways, it was a geo strategic failure, we all know how United the civil-military admin was over it.
> 
> While I do agree that the shortcomings were obvious before Kargil, I don’t think they were (at least not entirely) ignored. while on the outside it may seem like the forces do not have a shortage of funds due to their seemingly constant weapon purchases, those funds are sourced through long term loans, the money needed for the military to maintain a readiness level is always, _*always*_ in short supply and will remain as such, and by extension some corps will never attain the same readiness level as others. Some regiments in the PA use modern trucks, others are still using trucks that are two, three, four decades old. Some regiments use modern tanks, others are still using tanks from the 60s. Even with perfect logistics, supply, movement and tactics, we can’t expect one to be as ready, mobile and capable as the other. That’s why I think some minor downsizing needs to be considered, or at least no expansion until everyone can achieve a near equal readiness level (yes, the PA has been constantly expanding, even in the last few years)
> 
> That’s a worldwide thing too, not just limited to Pakistan, even the US has its fair share of such issues with their seemingly endless budget. As I said, things are worst across the border, even during Kargil this was very apparent and Indian defense circles talk about it to this day. By no means is that justification for low readiness on our side, but it’s an indication of how problems like these are prevalent even with much larger budgets. A perfect war has never been fought, least of all by a nation as poor and divided (on the administrative level, civil-military leadership, where everyone has their own agenda) as Pakistan.


I said that I was not read into the latest and my information is old. But it was disheartening to see our state of affairs in the period when I did have access to this info. I am now stating something that occurred 20 years ago so feel it is not sensitive or has limited bearing on us today. Otherwise I would never bring this topic up for good prudence. My concern stems from a culture that exists then and certainly today, where upwards honesty is limited in order to protect career advancement. The culture in the institution does not take fondly to brutal upward honesty and the system of verification and audit is sparse, manual and laborious. Given the size of the armed forces it is subject to a lot of bureaucracy and even corruption. I don't think that culture has changed. In fact in some areas it might have gotten worse since then. Also with respect to this G2 - you and I know which group in the GHQ is responsible for this assessment. You can connect the dots from there.

Again I hope with sincerity that we have identified our issues and put in place fixes. Because my last view on this was not positive.

Shortage of funds is a variable issue, I agree. No two fighting arms or regiments are the same. There is a variability that brings poor consistency. Maintenance, fuel storages are a constant struggle. Also I think you have written earlier that reducing the size of the military might be a good idea. I agree a 100%. Even a 20% reduction and reallocation of funds on mobility, pays (improving quality of manpower), maintenance would do wonders for our fighting force.

BTW when exercises do happen, they are often not the full complement of the unit - and you'll be surprised to know of the creativity commanders employ in order to show spit and polish in these exercises for command.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## akramishaqkhan

Raja Porus said:


> There has been a great push to increase logistics especially in V corps. Moreover the quantity and quality of local roads and motorways has increased significantly. Also now the 25 mech is not in one place, in fact it is more or less where it will jump off from. 90s was a time when both PAF and PA were facing grave difficulties. Budget and direction were the problems. And most importantly the level of OA's staff officers has increased considerably, they are not the mullahs of the 90s who believed that everything would be done by heaven.



*And most importantly the level of OA's staff officers has increased considerably, they are not the mullahs of the 90s who believed that everything would be done by heaven.*
Totally accurate view in this sentence. Boards in the 90s were all about elevating Mullahs rather than soldiers.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

akramishaqkhan said:


> I haven't seen or heard of any improvement in the readiness. It is something that is out of mind so my knowledge might be dated.
> Not sure what the military did since Kargil to improve on their fighting unit readiness. Also how I found out is not important.
> The report on the weaknesses in some of the Corps was identified a few years prior to Kargil. The military did jack all - and then Kargil showed glaring weaknesses. When one of the Corp's was asked to move to battle positions and establish fighting formations, they had a very hard time to muster the appropriate complements. Gear was not working, not properly maintained, and unit mobility ground-down again and again. What was found was completely contradictory to earlier assessments versus reality on the ground.
> 
> I hope things have improved. I sincerely do.


The standing Army of 1999 is much different from the 2022 version in terms of equipment, weapons, ammunition, electronics, and command. Compare the MBTs, Arty SP Guns, formations and roles, helicopter influx and drone inculcation. CODs have been flowing in older ammunition rusting on shelves into war zones on western front, for all arms. POF has been busy producing newer variants. Transport situation for all formations has improved. Twice in past 20 years, two Corps HQ have been on rotation for COIN Ops. LOC and Siachen were the hot zones of the past, now units had to get deployed and see action from Swat till Gwadar.

Even I can go down from 1999 to 1989 and point out major drawbacks where improvements were needed and that's a difference of 10 years from Zarb-e-Momin to Kargil.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## akramishaqkhan

Signalian said:


> The standing Army of 1999 is much different from the 2022 version in terms of equipment, weapons, ammunition, electronics, and command. Compare the MBTs, Arty SP Guns, formations and roles, helicopter influx and drone inculcation. CODs have been flowing in older ammunition rusting on shelves into war zones on western front, for all arms. POF has been busy producing newer variants. Transport situation for all formations has improved. Twice in past 20 years, two Corps HQ have been on rotation for COIN Ops. LOC and Siachen were the hot zones of the past, now units had to get deployed and see action from Swat till Gwadar.
> 
> Even I can go down from 1999 to 1989 and point out major drawbacks where improvements were needed and that's a difference of 10 years from Zarb-e-Momin to Kargil.


Good to hear and know.


----------



## Reichmarshal

Only two dedicated CAS fighter ac operational in the world today.....built from the ground up for nothing but a2g.
A10 n SU 25.....


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> Only two dedicated CAS fighter ac operational in the world today.....built from the ground up for nothing but a2g.
> A10 n SU 25.....


and neither of them are as good at CAS As F16s, F18s, JF17s, or literally any other fighter jet. Theyre both overrated and rather bad at their job.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

iLION12345_1 said:


> and neither of them are as good at CAS As F16s, F18s, JF17s, or literally any other fighter jet. Theyre both overrated and rather bad at their job.


Wt r u talking about....the ac uve mentioned they are capable of delivering a2g ordinance from a distance.
But we are talking about CAS ( close air support) for that u have to go in low constantly....in the process they take up punishment that is second to none but still remain air worthy most of the time n do their job n return to base.
The 16s n the 17s n the 18s that u mention above would be blown to bits at those altitudes n in those types of missions.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> PA VT4s have 1200HP engine like all VT-4s, 1500HP was a myth. 1200 is more than enough for it to carry side-ERA. Even if it’s FY4 and not FY2, but regardless, it will slow the tank down a bit, any weight will.
> 
> AK protection level has been the same since it was introduced in 2001, it has not seen any armor changes, at least none significant enough to mention. It used to carry side ERA once upon a time and was even seen with a somewhat decent side armor package, but it never saw widespread use. PA can still equip them with armor/ERA on the side if it wants to, it’s just a question of wether the mobility trade off is worth it for them. As for exact armor numbers, nobody can give you those for the AK, not even most of HIT, and what’s on the internet is nearly all false, I can tell you this much, it can withstand its own APFSDS followed by its own HEAT projectile (and the other way around, which is a much harder thing to do given how HEAT messes with composite armor) on the turret, without ERA.


1500hp is not a myth. The engine can reach 1300 or 1500 through torque converter similar to ARMATA but at the cost of MTBO, and engine life. PA chose the 1200 configuration for it's version whereas Thai versions are 1300hp.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Princeps Senatus

Reichmarshal said:


> Wt r u talking about....the ac uve mentioned they are capable of delivering a2g ordinance from a distance.
> But we are talking about CAS ( close air support) for that u have to go in low constantly....in the process they take up punishment that is second to none but still remain air worthy most of the time n do their job n return to base.
> The 16s n the 17s n the 18s that u mention above would be blown to bits at those altitudes n in those types of missions.


The 'close' in CAS refers to the distance b/w friendly and hostile ground troops i.e they are in contact. It has nothing to do with the distance the support is provided from. Before the advent of SOWs and PGMs, CAS had to rely on dive bombing and strafing. This is no longer the case.

Also for your information, A F-16 is much much faster than a A-10 making it much harder to hit by AAA or MANPADS/SHORADS. A-10 being more durable doesn't make it less vulnerable. It's still a sitting duck for AD.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> Wt r u talking about....the ac uve mentioned they are capable of delivering a2g ordinance from a distance.
> But we are talking about CAS ( close air support) for that u have to go in low constantly....in the process they take up punishment that is second to none but still remain air worthy most of the time n do their job n return to base.
> The 16s n the 17s n the 18s that u mention above would be blown to bits at those altitudes n in those types of missions.


It’s well proven that F-16s, FA-18s (that A means attack btw, just as in A-10) and the F35C (which FYI is specifically designed for this stuff) are much more potent at CAS than A-10s.
The A-10s performance is mostly a hyped up myth which has been disproven many times, especially after the campaigns in Iran and Iraq. It’s armor is nearly useless against missiles and there are little to no instances of it taking fire (The kind of fire it can survive is only taken at low speeds and altitudes (trust me, it can’t fly as slow and low as people think) and is so rare to come by that it might as well be non existent). It is definitely not as good of a counter to enemy fire as speed and agility, The A-10 is only useful in COIN maybe where SAM threats aren’t present, or when you have total air superiority as the USAF might, unlike Russia in Ukraine where SU-25s are getting shot down all the time, or in India-pak where air superiority will be hard to come by.

The proper fighters can carry all the stuff the A-10 can (and more), fly further and faster, and be more accurate at delivery while also being much safer/able to hold their own in A2A even in A2G roles. Gun strafing is not really a thing anymore, which is perhaps the only unique thing about the A10 due to its cannon. A bomb delivered from 50 feet up and 5000 feet up will have the same effect in this case, one is just safer. That’s modern CAS for you.



Dazzler said:


> 1500hp is not a myth. The engine can reach 1300 or 1500 through torque converter similar to ARMATA but at the cost of MTBO, and engine life. PA chose the 1200 configuration for it's version whereas Thai versions are 1300hp.


I’m aware, I’ve already mentioned it here and here https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/m1-trials-in-pakistan.409993/page-10#post-13984487

But in regards to PA, the 1500 HP is indeed a myth.


iLION12345_1 said:


> It has a 1200HP engine, this is confirmed news, there is no source to back up the claim that it has 1500HP. I too believed that at the start but I’ve personally confirmed it with HIT.
> You can technically tune the engine to make 1500HP if you want, or de-tune it to 1000, but the tuning is done so as to achieve the perfect combination of range, reliability and power output. This is true for all tank engines.
> 
> You can’t go on an offensive with speed alone, the sides of the VT-4, and all Pakistani tanks (and by extension Indian tanks too) are weak, mainly because none of them have been powerful enough so far to carry significant side armor without a mobility penalty, this is less of an issue on the VT-4. The main threat to MBTs is infantry, and infantry can flank a tank. Putting on side armor is much cheaper (and at times also lighter) than an APS system.
> 
> Can’t comment on the drone launching capability, that’s easy enough to add. But PA has other place to put funds right now.
> 
> 
> View attachment 896319
> View attachment 896320
> View attachment 896321
> View attachment 896322
> View attachment 896323
> View attachment 896324
> 
> Top to bottom: Al-Zarrar with side ERA package.
> UD with its 1/3rd side covered in extra armor (also seen in Indian T90S models, but with Kontakt 5 ERA instead). All PA UDs have it.
> AK with full side skirt, this is not armor, rather a anti-thermal signature measure.
> AK with Side armor similar to UD, used to be commonly seen, now not so much.
> AK with a full side armor kit, doesn’t cover all the way down, but is still a lot better than nothing, especially if they put ERA on top, was not seen outside some models at HIT.
> AK with Shtora APS. The IR dazzlers on the cheeks are obsolete stuff, PA didn’t buy the system (thankfully), but I wish they got the LWRs (nodes above the barrel) and the automatic smoke deployment and threat targeting systems that come with shtora. Some companies (ALTCOP and GIDS) made such systems locally too, but they were never employed in large numbers, only seen on a few AKs and AZs, they’re basically the most basic form of an APS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> It’s well proven that F-16s, FA-18s (that A means attack btw, just as in A-10) and the F35C (which FYI is specifically designed for this stuff) are much more potent at CAS than A-10s.
> The A-10s performance is mostly a hyped up myth which has been disproven many times, especially after the campaigns in Iran and Iraq. It’s armor is nearly useless against missiles and there are little to no instances of it taking fire (The kind of fire it can survive is only taken at low speeds and altitudes (trust me, it can’t fly as slow and low as people think) and is so rare to come by that it might as well be non existent). It is definitely not as good of a counter to enemy fire as speed and agility, The A-10 is only useful in COIN maybe where SAM threats aren’t present, or when you have total air superiority as the USAF might, unlike Russia in Ukraine where SU-25s are getting shot down all the time, or in India-pak where air superiority will be hard to come by.
> 
> The proper fighters can carry all the stuff the A-10 can (and more), fly further and faster, and be more accurate at delivery while also being much safer/able to hold their own in A2A even in A2G roles. Gun strafing is not really a thing anymore, which is perhaps the only unique thing about the A10 due to its cannon. A bomb delivered from 50 feet up and 5000 feet up will have the same effect in this case, one is just safer. That’s modern CAS for you.
> 
> 
> I’m aware, I’ve already mentioned it here and here https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/m1-trials-in-pakistan.409993/page-10#post-13984487
> 
> But in regards to PA, the 1500 HP is indeed a myth.


Factually incorrect. It's NOT a myth. These engines can be tweaked if PA wants which is still an option PA can exercise if the need arises.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## SQ8

iLION12345_1 said:


> and neither of them are as good at CAS As F16s, F18s, JF17s, or literally any other fighter jet. Theyre both overrated and rather bad at their job.


They were great for the battlefield of the 70s and early 80s.. and required air cover to accomplish their tasks as proven in GW1.
Both the A-10 and Su-25 rose to fame because of the COIN environment they were most useful for and excelled. The Taliban have no ADGE as such so you needed an asset able to drop a tom and cut them into pieces with a 30mm - the same goes for the frogfoot.. the Chechens had no ADGE so it gained fame.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dazzler said:


> Factually incorrect. It's NOT a myth. These engines can be tweaked if PA wants which is still an option PA can exercise if the need arises.


Do PAs VT-4s have 1500 HP currently? No. Does PA plan to use them that way anytime soon? No. When I asked HIT if it was economically and reliably feasible to run the VT4s engine at 1500 HP with the current setup, y’know what they said? No.

PA has no need to ruin perfectly good engines by running them entirely out of spec. It’s rated for 1200-1300HP in the VT4s configuration. That’s like saying a corolla engine can make 300 HP if I slap a turbocharger on it, so it’s a 300 HP engine, even if in the Corolla it’s making 140HP.

Maybe PA will make those modifications someday to make it feasible. People were claiming that PAs VT4s were already running at 1500HP while they weren’t, that’s “factually incorrect”

I never said they couldn’t make that power, quite the contrary, just that they don’t currently. Don’t grasp at straws to prove a point that I didn’t even question.​

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Dazzler

iLION12345_1 said:


> Do PAs VT-4s have 1500 HP currently? No. Does PA plan to use them that way anytime soon? No. When I asked HIT if it was economically and reliably feasible to run the VT4s engine at 1500 HP with the current setup, y’know what they said? No.
> 
> PA has no need to ruin perfectly good engines by running them entirely out of spec. It’s rated for 1200-1300HP in the VT4s configuration. That’s like saying a corolla engine can make 300 HP if I slap a turbocharger on it, so it’s a 300 HP engine, even if in the Corolla it’s making 140HP.
> 
> Maybe PA will make those modifications someday to make it feasible. People were claiming that PAs VT4s were already running at 1500HP while they weren’t, that’s “factually incorrect”
> 
> I never said they couldn’t make that power, quite the contrary, just that they don’t currently. Don’t grasp at straws to prove a point that I didn’t even question.​


Calm down. Keep it civil. Don't push it

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## akramishaqkhan

In the famous words of Rodney King: "Why can't we all just get along."

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SQ8 said:


> They were great for the battlefield of the 70s and early 80s.. and required air cover to accomplish their tasks as proven in GW1.
> Both the A-10 and Su-25 rose to fame because of the COIN environment they were most useful for and excelled. The Taliban have no ADGE as such so you needed an asset able to drop a tom and cut them into pieces with a 30mm - the same goes for the frogfoot.. the Chechens had no ADGE so it gained fame.


I said it before, but the Italian-Brazilian AMX came both 10 years too late and 10 years too early.

It was 10 years too late because it missed the PAF's first dedicated attack aircraft requirement in the 1970s, i.e., the program that led to the PAF's request for 110 A-7 Corsairs from the U.S. 

The AMX came 10 years too early because around a decade after its production ended (1999), the PAF may have sought this type of aircraft for its COIN and CT requirements (2009-). Moreover, the neat thing about the AMX was that while it could be a good COIN/CT platform, it had the specifications to serve as a conventional CAS asset too (albeit with guided SOWs).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

iLION12345_1 said:


> I’ve often argued that the PA is too big for its own good and it needs to downsize, but I’m in the minority regarding that opinion, I know how the situation is, it’s far worst across the border. No military is ever 100% ready to mobilize at any time, they bank on the fact that when and if a conflict starts, there will be an influx of funds to mobilize the corps that aren’t ready enough to mobilize as is. This is even more present in European militaries, who almost entirely rely on this system due to recent cuts (Germany being a big example, their logistical and readiness nightmares are pretty public). Only with the recent Ukraine conflict have they started increasing their readiness levels. By comparison Pakistani and Indian forces have much higher readiness levels due to the nature of their conflicts.
> 
> However it would be very inaccurate to compare PAs readiness levels now to Kargil, it was already proven inaccurate in the time leading up to the standoffs in the 2000s and more recently in 2019. A lot has changed, and wars aren’t fought with 100% mobilization anymore anyways, more like smaller skirmishes, hence quality over quantity must be the aim and not Vice versa. Pakistan and india are taking their time to understand that, whoever does it first will be in a better position.
> 
> and I’m not sure where you got access to actual readiness assessments to back up those claims either, true or not.


Thats why most formations are present in cantts near the border. PA has lesser MBTs, lesser APCs, lesser mountain troops, lesser helis and gunships, lesser towed guns but more SPG, comparable in drones and missiles to India. 

PA doesn't throw a Corps level force in battlefield straightaway, it usually starts with a Brigade or Division level Ops. Out of 9 Corps HQ, only 4 x Corps HQ can be thrown into combat with full compliment of all units under that Corps HQ and even then only 2 x Corps HQ (I & II Strike Corps) maybe ordered to cross the border and both of those corps HQs will be putting ahead 2 x Divs most probably in combat ( 1 x Armor Div, 1 x Infantry Div), while the third Infantry division will be in reserve. 

X-Corps cannot simultaneously start an offensive with all its formations, some of the divisions will be on defensive straightaway. This is where PA lacks the punch to liberate Indian occupied Kashmir. FCNA may use a brigade level force for an offensive along the LOC, but elsewhere it will be on defensive throughout the war. 19th ID will be covering 23rd ID and 12th ID, protecting their flanks, so it may have a brigade prepared to launch an offensive. 

XI and XII Corps will send one division each to X-Corps and V-Corps, so it gets diluted straightaway. V-Corps HQ cannot be sent armored reinforcements from anywhere so the Corps Comd will know that before committing 25th Mech Div against India. There is no armor reserve for XII Corps to assist V-Corps where as XXXI Corps has a duty to defend a long stretch of land (semi desert/desert) , therefore 26th Mechanized will play a pivotal role. 

Up in north, XXX-Corps may form a bridgehead for I-Corps, but by itself XXX-Corps cannot launch a full offensive owing to terrain and Indian forces it is facing. That leaves II-Corps to jump off between or from IV-Corps and XXXI-Corps assigned areas into Indian territory. IV-Corps would be defending all entrances into Lahore and Northern Punjab. 

This is not a rosy picture for an Army with 500,000+ standing army.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

Signalian said:


> Thats why most formations are present in cantts near the border. PA has lesser MBTs, lesser APCs, lesser mountain troops, lesser helis and gunships, lesser towed guns but more SPG, comparable in drones and missiles to India.
> 
> PA doesn't throw a Corps level force in battlefield straightaway, it usually starts with a Brigade or Division level Ops. Out of 9 Corps HQ, only 4 x Corps HQ can be thrown into combat with full compliment of all units under that Corps HQ and even then only 2 x Corps HQ (I & II Strike Corps) maybe ordered to cross the border and both of those corps HQs will be putting ahead 2 x Divs most probably in combat ( 1 x Armor Div, 1 x Infantry Div), while the third Infantry division will be in reserve.
> 
> X-Corps cannot simultaneously start an offensive with all its formations, some of the divisions will be on defensive straightaway. This is where PA lacks the punch to liberate Indian occupied Kashmir. FCNA may use a brigade level force for an offensive along the LOC, but elsewhere it will be on defensive throughout the war. 19th ID will be covering 23rd ID and 12th ID, protecting their flanks, so it may have a brigade prepared to launch an offensive.
> 
> XI and XII Corps will send one division each to X-Corps and V-Corps, so it gets diluted straightaway. V-Corps HQ cannot be sent armored reinforcements from anywhere so the Corps Comd will know that before committing 25th Mech Div against India. There is no armor reserve for XII Corps to assist V-Corps where as XXXI Corps has a duty to defend a long stretch of land (semi desert/desert) , therefore 26th Mechanized will play a pivotal role.
> 
> Up in north, XXX-Corps may form a bridgehead for I-Corps, but by itself XXX-Corps cannot launch a full offensive owing to terrain and Indian forces it is facing. That leaves II-Corps to jump off between or from IV-Corps and XXXI-Corps assigned areas into Indian territory. IV-Corps would be defending all entrances into Lahore and Northern Punjab.
> 
> This is not a rosy picture for an Army with 500,000+ standing army.


More APCs compared to Indians no ? Recent developments point towards PA filling out the Gap b/w Sukkur and Karachi sector which has long been neglected I would say.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

I’m just mildly tired of some people having rock hard egos just because of a blue or red tint on their names. Not the first time I’ve seen it around the forum and I’m not afraid to call it out. It’s almost as if people feel threatened when someone else is correct about something. But I digress, my post was in poor taste.


akramishaqkhan said:


> In the famous words of Rodney King: "Why can't we all just get along."

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Signalian said:


> Thats why most formations are present in cantts near the border. PA has lesser MBTs, lesser APCs, lesser mountain troops, lesser helis and gunships, lesser towed guns but more SPG, comparable in drones and missiles to India.
> 
> PA doesn't throw a Corps level force in battlefield straightaway, it usually starts with a Brigade or Division level Ops. Out of 9 Corps HQ, only 4 x Corps HQ can be thrown into combat with full compliment of all units under that Corps HQ and even then only 2 x Corps HQ (I & II Strike Corps) maybe ordered to cross the border and both of those corps HQs will be putting ahead 2 x Divs most probably in combat ( 1 x Armor Div, 1 x Infantry Div), while the third Infantry division will be in reserve.
> 
> X-Corps cannot simultaneously start an offensive with all its formations, some of the divisions will be on defensive straightaway. This is where PA lacks the punch to liberate Indian occupied Kashmir. FCNA may use a brigade level force for an offensive along the LOC, but elsewhere it will be on defensive throughout the war. 19th ID will be covering 23rd ID and 12th ID, protecting their flanks, so it may have a brigade prepared to launch an offensive.
> 
> XI and XII Corps will send one division each to X-Corps and V-Corps, so it gets diluted straightaway. V-Corps HQ cannot be sent armored reinforcements from anywhere so the Corps Comd will know that before committing 25th Mech Div against India. There is no armor reserve for XII Corps to assist V-Corps where as XXXI Corps has a duty to defend a long stretch of land (semi desert/desert) , therefore 26th Mechanized will play a pivotal role.
> 
> Up in north, XXX-Corps may form a bridgehead for I-Corps, but by itself XXX-Corps cannot launch a full offensive owing to terrain and Indian forces it is facing. That leaves II-Corps to jump off between or from IV-Corps and XXXI-Corps assigned areas into Indian territory. IV-Corps would be defending all entrances into Lahore and Northern Punjab.
> 
> This is not a rosy picture for an Army with 500,000+ standing army.


The Indian army has been downsizing, slowly, but it is. While the PA is never going to face the entirety of the IA, regardless of the size of the two forces, when it comes to mass mobilization, Pakistan will always fall behind. So I understand why PA needs to be rather large.

My point is that small-scale skirmishes seem to be not only more common but also more possible between the two nations than all out war, so maybe quality over quantity can be helpful there, especially when funds are this short. It’s still a miracle PA manages to keep a balance despite the shortages, but for how long? The economy doesn’t seem to be getting better any time soon.

Plus I don’t think PA should start reducing the amount of regiments or active troops it has, my point about downsizing is more specifically related to a sort of curse that many Pakistani organizations suffer from, they’re bloated, they have more people to do a certain thing than required, or certain people for no task at all, and often times this leads to said thing being done worst than it would with just one person responsible for it. I think with some reorganization PA can downsize efficiently by assigning more tasks to lesser people, there might be some workplace complaints though.

To add to that, With better equipment, the same 500K troops might be able to achieve more and cover more area, reduce casualty rates and increase mobility, than maybe 600K troops with lesser equipment? There’s definitely a balance to be had, I’m not sure if we’re at said balance right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

iLION12345_1 said:


> The Indian army has been downsizing, slowly, but it is. While the PA is never going to face the entirety of the IA, regardless of the size of the two forces, when it comes to mass mobilization, Pakistan will always fall behind. So I understand why PA needs to be rather large.
> 
> My point is that small-scale skirmishes seem to be not only more common but also more possible between the two nations than all out war, so maybe quality over quantity can be helpful there, especially when funds are this short. It’s still a miracle PA manages to keep a balance despite the shortages, but for how long? The economy doesn’t seem to be getting better any time soon.
> 
> Plus I don’t think PA should start reducing the amount of regiments or active troops it has, my point about downsizing is more specifically related to a sort of curse that many Pakistani organizations suffer from, they’re bloated, they have more people to do a certain thing than required, or certain people for no task at all, and often times this leads to said thing being done worst than it would with just one person responsible for it. I think with some reorganization PA can downsize efficiently by assigning more tasks to lesser people, there might be some workplace complaints though.
> 
> To add to that, With better equipment, the same 500K troops might be able to achieve more and cover more area, reduce casualty rates and increase mobility, than maybe 600K troops with lesser equipment? There’s definitely a balance to be had, I’m not sure if we’re at said balance right now.


To be more specific, I remember an officer had once come up with a report in the PA regarding initiative given to NCOs and younger officers and noticed a downward trend in how many individual tasks and initiatives were being given to this part of the forces and how this was effecting their decision making prowess. It has led to a trend in recent times where even senior NCOs, JCOs and younger officers are having to consult more senior officers over the most minor of things. 

I’ve also heard this same thing from friends and classmates who ended up enlisting as officers, that they are responsible for tasks that ideally an NCO or JCO should be accomplishing on their own power of decision. This was apparently much less of an issue 15-20 years ago than it has become now.

The most dangerous downsides to it are the fact that these same NCOs, JCOs and YOs are then less willing to take important decisions during actual combat or combat exercises, leading to a need for an officer to be present where he ideally shouldn’t be. 

So maybe we need an efficient downsizing where more tasks and initiatives are given to lower ranks in the hopes of getting them better accustomed to decision making. It’s always been clear that PA unlike more developed nations armies’ has a much higher ratio of officer to soldiers because of the Education gap, but I think now is about the right time to stare closing that gap for good. I remember just 15 years back, there were NCOs in the PA that hadnt even completed primary education. Now you need to have completed your FSC, that’s a major improvement, this can be taken a step further now, and I’m sure it will naturally as the literacy rate rises.

I also feel like there is a need to somewhat slow down the promotions from 2LT-LT-Captain. By the time someone is passing out from the PMA, they should already be an officer in command, of course experience comes with time, but having been among foreign forces as well, I feel like there is more of this trend of 2LTs and LTs feeling like “trainees” in the PA because of their young ages and quick promotions (which coincidentally are also a result of PA having a lot of officers)

Now I’m definitely not qualified to comment on how to actually fix these issues or If they are even issues at all, maybe they’re a better way to go about things than other forces do. But it’s just what I’ve observed. 

And this downsizing, if any, might have the side effect of opening up more funds and hence pointing back towards better equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## DeusExAstra

As an outside observer, don't see any problems with 1200-1300hp engine for VT4 instead of 1500hp. It will be good enough in terms of speed stiil. Judging by my experience of communicating with people in the zone of the special operation in Ukraine, in operations with a high degree of intensity, it doesn't really matter how fast your tanks are. Meanwhile, main point is protection and situational awareness. In my opinion, what really need for AK/VT4 is ERA complex for sides, which will provide more safety in terms of angle protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> As an outside observer, don't see any problems with 1200-1300hp engine for VT4 instead of 1500hp. It will be good enough in terms of speed stiil. Judging by my experience of communicating with people in the zone of the special operation in Ukraine, in operations with a high degree of intensity, it doesn't really matter how fast your tanks are. Meanwhile, main point is protection and situational awareness. In my opinion, what really need for AK/VT4 is ERA complex for sides, which will provide more safety in terms of angle protection.


Nobody really said the power wasn’t enough, I’ve said before that the 1200HP setup in Vt-4 is more than enough because of the good torque output of the engine. 

That being said, it’s also been said before that the Ukraine situation just simply cannot apply to the Pakistan-india theatre. The Ukraine conflict for Russia has been Ukraine picking off isolated Russian tanks operating with little to no tactics and infantry support, also one of the main reasons Russian tanks are getting blown up (apart from fuel starvation, isolation and poor crews) is because they have extremely slow reverse speeds. Once an attack starts they can’t go anywhere but forward. 

Meanwhile in the Pak-Ind conflict, there are large, open plains and deserts for these MBTs to fight in, and less so urban areas like Ukraine. Speed and mobility will definitely be an important component of tanks in this theatre, both sides have always stuck to lighter, higher mobility and smaller tanks, apart from the Arjun, but that things a meme anyways.

Still, the thing about situational awareness and ERA, Side armor and better armor arcs is also absolutely correct and has been emphasized by many here before about the AK and VT4, they absolutely need that (and just to be clear, they _*have*_ that. Equipping ERA to the sides isn’t rocket science, I doubt PA tanks would operate without them if an actual conflict starts, it would be one of the first modifications to take place, much like installation of cage armor during WoT), however the poor base armor on the side and frontal arc being small remains an issue, along with unavailability of APS systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SQ8

iLION12345_1 said:


> To be more specific, I remember an officer had once come up with a report in the PA regarding initiative given to NCOs and younger officers and noticed a downward trend in how many individual tasks and initiatives were being given to this part of the forces and how this was effecting their decision making prowess. It has led to a trend in recent times where even senior NCOs, JCOs and younger officers are having to consult more senior officers over the most minor of things.
> 
> I’ve also heard this same thing from friends and classmates who ended up enlisting as officers, that they are responsible for tasks that ideally an NCO or JCO should be accomplishing on their own power of decision. This was apparently much less of an issue 15-20 years ago than it has become now.
> 
> The most dangerous downsides to it are the fact that these same NCOs, JCOs and YOs are then less willing to take important decisions during actual combat or combat exercises, leading to a need for an officer to be present where he ideally shouldn’t be.
> 
> So maybe we need an efficient downsizing where more tasks and initiatives are given to lower ranks in the hopes of getting them better accustomed to decision making. It’s always been clear that PA unlike more developed nations armies’ has a much higher ratio of officer to soldiers because of the Education gap, but I think now is about the right time to stare closing that gap for good. I remember just 15 years back, there were NCOs in the PA that hadnt even completed primary education. Now you need to have completed your FSC, that’s a major improvement, this can be taken a step further now, and I’m sure it will naturally as the literacy rate rises.
> 
> I also feel like there is a need to somewhat slow down the promotions from 2LT-LT-Captain. By the time someone is passing out from the PMA, they should already be an officer in command, of course experience comes with time, but having been among foreign forces as well, I feel like there is more of this trend of 2LTs and LTs feeling like “trainees” in the PA because of their young ages and quick promotions (which coincidentally are also a result of PA having a lot of officers)
> 
> Now I’m definitely not qualified to comment on how to actually fix these issues or If they are even issues at all, maybe they’re a better way to go about things than other forces do. But it’s just what I’ve observed.
> 
> And this downsizing, if any, might have the side effect of opening up more funds and hence pointing back towards better equipment.


The downside of that highly controlled decision making is visible in the Ukrainian conflict. Anything not part of standard doctrine and your troops freeze or dither like deer in headlights

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## peagle

iLION12345_1 said:


> The Indian army has been downsizing, slowly, but it is. While the PA is never going to face the entirety of the IA, regardless of the size of the two forces, when it comes to mass mobilization, Pakistan will always fall behind. So I understand why PA needs to be rather large.
> 
> My point is that small-scale skirmishes seem to be not only more common but also more possible between the two nations than all out war, so maybe quality over quantity can be helpful there, especially when funds are this short. It’s still a miracle PA manages to keep a balance despite the shortages, but for how long? The economy doesn’t seem to be getting better any time soon.
> 
> Plus I don’t think PA should start reducing the amount of regiments or active troops it has, my point about downsizing is more specifically related to a sort of curse that many Pakistani organizations suffer from, they’re bloated, they have more people to do a certain thing than required, or certain people for no task at all, and often times this leads to said thing being done worst than it would with just one person responsible for it. I think with some reorganization PA can downsize efficiently by assigning more tasks to lesser people, there might be some workplace complaints though.
> 
> To add to that, With better equipment, the same 500K troops might be able to achieve more and cover more area, reduce casualty rates and increase mobility, than maybe 600K troops with lesser equipment? There’s definitely a balance to be had, I’m not sure if we’re at said balance right now.



What are your views on having a professional reserve force?
So rather then having a traditional reserve where young men a drafted whether they want to or not, but something akin to the old territorial army in Britain. A fully volunteer force but trained to high standards, perhaps we could adjust it's operational requirements to meet our needs, and limit a person to a fixed one year training period. Thereafter, they would remain available for duty as and when war broke out.
Fix a number, let's say 300,000 available personal, and design the training and availability period around maintaining that force.

I suppose the quality of personal would change with each passing year from the initial year of training, but that could be factored into the whole setup.
Establish a Reserve Bureau department, under the JCSC, leaving the professional branch to do their thing, but the Reserve Bureau would exclusively look after the training of the reserve personal, and deployment mechanism can be worked out depending on how such a force would fit in with Pakistan's defence requirements.

What are your thoughts, if I have not been clear, I could try and expand a little more.


----------



## Signalian

farooqbhai007 said:


> More APCs compared to Indians no ? Recent developments point towards PA filling out the Gap b/w Sukkur and Karachi sector which has long been neglected I would say.


I said lesser not more.

Comparable would be good, through complete mechanization of Infantry Divs sister to Armored Divisions.



peagle said:


> What are your views on having a professional reserve force?


Pakistan's reserve force are retired professionals.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Strategy&Tactics

Signalian said:


> Pakistan's reserve force are retired professionals.


Conscription would do good.


----------



## Signalian

iLION12345_1 said:


> The Indian army has been downsizing, slowly, but it is. While the PA is never going to face the entirety of the IA, regardless of the size of the two forces, when it comes to mass mobilization, Pakistan will always fall behind. So I understand why PA needs to be rather large.
> 
> My point is that small-scale skirmishes seem to be not only more common but also more possible between the two nations than all out war, so maybe quality over quantity can be helpful there, especially when funds are this short. It’s still a miracle PA manages to keep a balance despite the shortages, but for how long? The economy doesn’t seem to be getting better any time soon.
> 
> Plus I don’t think PA should start reducing the amount of regiments or active troops it has, my point about downsizing is more specifically related to a sort of curse that many Pakistani organizations suffer from, they’re bloated, they have more people to do a certain thing than required, or certain people for no task at all, and often times this leads to said thing being done worst than it would with just one person responsible for it. I think with some reorganization PA can downsize efficiently by assigning more tasks to lesser people, there might be some workplace complaints though.
> 
> To add to that, With better equipment, the same 500K troops might be able to achieve more and cover more area, reduce casualty rates and increase mobility, than maybe 600K troops with lesser equipment? There’s definitely a balance to be had, I’m not sure if we’re at said balance right now.



Lets look at a smaller skirmish. Bring the best weapons forward, keep time frame in mind which will always be a small window closing within minutes or hour, produce best results without loss. This is what is expected. Filter out the best eqpt that PA has.

The quality is lacking in current gunships, towed guns of diversified calibers and how far can an old MBT and M-113 APC get upgraded. 

The proposition of lower casualty comes through use of machines - the UCAVs. It doesn't come through sending lesser men in combat since the enemy will put its best strength forward. The maths will be 500 own troops facing 1000 troops or 500 own troops + 12 UCAVs facing 1000 troops. The latter has better chances of reducing enemy from 1000 to 900 or 800 troops before enemy makes contact with 500 own troops. The equation tilts slightly in favor.

Another factor is 3:1 superiority for capturing an area through a successful offensive operation. Go into mountains, the requirement might be 7:1 or 10:1, which is next to impossible for PA strictly through conventional methods of war.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## PDF

peagle said:


> What are your views on having a professional reserve force?
> So rather then having a traditional reserve where young men a drafted whether they want to or not, but something akin to the old territorial army in Britain. A fully volunteer force but trained to high standards, perhaps we could adjust it's operational requirements to meet our needs, and limit a person to a fixed one year training period. Thereafter, they would remain available for duty as and when war broke out.
> Fix a number, let's say 300,000 available personal, and design the training and availability period around maintaining that force.
> 
> I suppose the quality of personal would change with each passing year from the initial year of training, but that could be factored into the whole setup.
> Establish a Reserve Bureau department, under the JCSC, leaving the professional branch to do their thing, but the Reserve Bureau would exclusively look after the training of the reserve personal, and deployment mechanism can be worked out depending on how such a force would fit in with Pakistan's defence requirements.
> 
> What are your thoughts, if I have not been clear, I could try and expand a little more.


umm something like agniveer or our mujahid force?

Most retirees are on reserve force until a specific time.


----------



## peagle

PDF said:


> umm something like agniveer or our mujahid force?
> 
> Most retirees are on reserve force until a specific time.



No, something entirely different.
I had asked the question because repeatedly it was being mentioned that Pak army should be downsized in order to increase its effectiveness.
My idea was that it could be downsized whilst raising a professional reserve, that would not carry the same level of costs, pensions, family allocations and so on, but still provide Pak army with properly trained manpower, which likely would be used as infantry or non mechanised aspects of warfare, in terms of tanks and artillery, which are more effective if used purely by a fulltime professional soldiers.

It goes deeper, I assume he has not answered because it's not strictly related to the thread, but other people have raised silly topics that still are responded to, but never mind. I might start a thread raising this question, for that I need to compile my thoughts first, and decide if it's really worth while raising such a thread. Thank you for your response.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

PDF said:


> umm something like agniveer or our mujahid force?
> 
> Most retirees are on reserve force until a specific time.


Maybe send in more robots (UCAVs) instead of humans. Back those UCAVs with fighter sorties which means PAF gets the onus of all operations while Army capitalizes on PAF's gains to capture an area.

Expand PAF and give PAF the primary role for all future conflicts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Signalian said:


> Maybe send in more robots (UCAVs) instead of humans. Back those UCAVs with fighter sorties which means PAF gets the onus of all operations while Army capitalizes on PAF's gains to capture an area.
> 
> Expand PAF and give PAF the primary role for all future conflicts.


So long as the ownership is synergetic - not the ownership fiasco next door

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DeusExAstra

Sorry if it was posted before, does this statement have any point? I guess, if it's true, that APFSDS could be made on BTA-4 base?


Spoiler: Screenshot


----------



## Bilal.

DeusExAstra said:


> Sorry if it was posted before, does this statement have any point? I guess, if it's true, that APFSDS could be made on BTA-4 base?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Screenshot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 901909


In the interview the POF personnel quoted 650mm penetration. You can skip to 5:15:


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> Sorry if it was posted before, does this statement have any point? I guess, if it's true, that APFSDS could be made on BTA-4 base?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Screenshot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 901909


That’s me. So yes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ghazi52

,..,,


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602685444189294592

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## CSAW

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602825755943108610

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bossman

A few months ago, I posted about the indigenous manufacturing of VT4 but one of the so called informed and well connected experts on the forum was quick to contradict me. I don’t even remember who it was.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Cool_Soldier

In house manufacturing of VT-4 is appreciated. It is good machine and meets PA requirements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S.Y.A

iLION12345_1 said:


> To be more specific, I remember an officer had once come up with a report in the PA regarding initiative given to NCOs and younger officers and noticed a downward trend in how many individual tasks and initiatives were being given to this part of the forces and how this was effecting their decision making prowess. It has led to a trend in recent times where even senior NCOs, JCOs and younger officers are having to consult more senior officers over the most minor of things.
> 
> I’ve also heard this same thing from friends and classmates who ended up enlisting as officers, that they are responsible for tasks that ideally an NCO or JCO should be accomplishing on their own power of decision. This was apparently much less of an issue 15-20 years ago than it has become now.
> 
> The most dangerous downsides to it are the fact that these same NCOs, JCOs and YOs are then less willing to take important decisions during actual combat or combat exercises, leading to a need for an officer to be present where he ideally shouldn’t be.


so the PA is turning into the soviet army?

Reactions: Sad Sad:
1


----------



## Beast

Bossman said:


> A few months ago, I posted about the indigenous manufacturing of VT4 but one of the so called informed and well connected experts on the forum was quick to contradict me. I don’t even remember who it was.


Becareful, they are many slayer here, flying the Pakistan flag but actually living overseas who will not stop at smearing any progress of Pakistan military especially with Chinese. And you know who is the biggest enemy of China? Not India.



Cool_Soldier said:


> In house manufacturing of VT-4 is appreciated. It is good machine and meets PA requirements.


I think now it justify PA purchasing up to 400 VT-4 from Norinco. With Norinco TOT assembly line to Pakistan. But I believe engine and certain sensitive components are still non transferable and need to be imported from China for assembly.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dreamer.

ghazi52 said:


> ,..,,
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602685444189294592
> 
> View attachment 905871
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 905873


How can we tell that these are VT-4? Couldn't these be Alkhalid-1? Wasn't HIT still to complete the last order of those? Can someone point out how to identify if it's a VT-4 hull or not?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dreamer. said:


> How can we tell that these are VT-4? Couldn't these be Alkhalid-1? Wasn't HIT still to complete the last order of those? Can someone point out how to identify if it's a VT-4 hull or not?


Very easy to tell AK1 and VT-4 Hulls apart, notice how much taller the side profile is in the photo. The Hull that reads 120 is the last AK-1 hull. The original order of 220 was reduced to 120 to start Haider production instead, right now the last few AK-1s and VT4s are being worked on in tandem at the assembly line. 

This news was already posted on this thread and several others over a month ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dreamer.

iLION12345_1 said:


> Very easy to tell AK1 and VT-4 Hulls apart, notice how much taller the side profile is in the photo. The Hull that reads 120 is the last AK-1 hull. The original order of 220 was reduced to 120 to start Haider production instead, right now the last few AK-1s and VT4s are being worked on in tandem at the assembly line.
> 
> This news was already posted on this thread and several others over a month ago.


Thanks for your reply. So I was right that not all those pictures show VT-4 and the last of the Alkhalid-1 are still being produced. The posts before implied that the picture (including the hull with no. 120) were all VT-4 whereas you have clarified that that is actually an Alkhalid-1. Though the 'easy to tell' part may be for experts like you only. 

Where does this batch of 120 tanks once completed take the total number of Ak/Ak1?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Dreamer. said:


> Thanks for your reply. So I was right that not all those pictures show VT-4 and the last of the Alkhalid-1 are still being produced. The posts before implied that the picture (including the hull with no. 120) were all VT-4 whereas you have clarified that that is actually an Alkhalid-1. Though the 'easy to tell' part may be for experts like you only.
> 
> Where does this batch of 120 tanks once completed take the total number of Ak/Ak1?


441 total produced at HIT. (excluding prototypes and other variants made in China). Around 433-435 should still be in service (that’s including the currently 30 or so at HIT waiting delivery) given the two display models at HIT and the training vehicles with the EME corp, unless any AKs have been put out of service over the years (might be the case with some of the very first ones if they got involved in any accidents etc, but I doubt it, 20 years is not a lot of time for a tank).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## syed_yusuf

Where is that number of 679 put up few months ago of total Haider tanks to be produced in Pakistan, has that number changed









Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions


PAKISTAN EXPANDS VT-4 DEAL BY HUNDREDS MORE TANKS, TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY I think it makes sense. If PA buys in certain large number. There is no reason China will refuse TOT since the huge amount from the deal will be enough to cover the R&D for this tank.



defence.pk






Data shared earlier was
1 - 175 initial order made in China
2 - 284 to be produced from kits
3 - 110 first order fully build AT HIT
4 - 110 2nd order fully build at HIT

does fully build also include some level of engine and transmission manufacturing or assembly?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

iLION12345_1 said:


> 441 total produced at HIT. (excluding prototypes and other variants made in China). Around 433-435 should still be in service (that’s including the currently 30 or so at HIT waiting delivery) given the two display models at HIT and the training vehicles with the EME corp, unless any AKs have been put out of service over the years (might be the case with some of the very first ones if they got involved in any accidents etc, but I doubt it, 20 years is not a lot of time for a tank).


Those are roughly 9 to 10 regiments. An armored/Mech Division plus accompanying IABG.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DeusExAstra

Do I understand correctly that the mass production of VT4 has already begun? Or is it just the preparation phase? Are there any required dates for the delivery of all tanks (and, as far as I understand, they are ordered, far from one hundred pieces)?


----------



## Iron Shrappenel

DeusExAstra said:


> Do I understand correctly that the mass production of VT4 has already begun? Or is it just the preparation phase? Are there any required dates for the delivery of all tanks (and, as far as I understand, they are ordered, far from one hundred pieces)?


It has begun by the looks of it....


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> Do I understand correctly that the mass production of VT4 has already begun? Or is it just the preparation phase? Are there any required dates for the delivery of all tanks (and, as far as I understand, they are ordered, far from one hundred pieces)?


Mass production where? In Pakistan? Has started but not at full capacity yet, many more parts will be localized slowly. Currently there are more VT4s being assembled in CKD form at HIT. 

required dates exist, but they are flexible, depends on economic situation. If the money keeps coming, HIT can make VT4s at 50+ tanks per year, hence completing all current orders before 2030 (as nearly half the tanks are/were Direct imports or CKDs). 

Exact numbers for both already ordered and future plans were posted here before.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DeusExAstra

iLION12345_1 said:


> Mass production where? In Pakistan? Has started but not at full capacity yet, many more parts will be localized slowly. Currently there are more VT4s being assembled in CKD form at HIT.
> 
> required dates exist, but they are flexible, depends on economic situation. If the money keeps coming, HIT can make VT4s at 50+ tanks per year, hence completing all current orders before 2030 (as nearly half the tanks are/were Direct imports or CKDs).
> 
> Exact numbers for both already ordered and future plans were posted here before.


Ah, so 680 VT-4's planned. But what about the future? I mean, something has to be done with 6TD's engines in service on AK or T-80UD, for obvious reasons


----------



## Princeps Senatus

New batch of VT-4s in China (?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliaselin

Princeps Senatus said:


> New batch of VT-4s in China (?)


It is said for BD


----------



## iLION12345_1

DeusExAstra said:


> Ah, so 680 VT-4's planned. But what about the future? I mean, something has to be done with 6TD's engines in service on AK or T-80UD, for obvious reasons


Currently Pakistan has enough spares to run the AK and UD fleets for a good amount of time. Especially since 110 AK1 orders were canceled and their power plants might already be delivered (though don’t take that as fact, I’ve yet to confirm it).

However HIT is actively working on trying to integrate VT4 power plant with AK for future replacement, remains to be seen if they’ll be successful or not. If so then UDs might get the AK engines, or they might be retired early altogether, because I’m not sure if VT4s powertrain could work with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

aliaselin said:


> It is said for BD


I thought BD order VT-5? 

VT-4 seems a little overweight for soft soil of BD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------

