What's new

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

Figaro

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2017
5,446
8
9,915
Country
United States
Location
United States
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 :crazy: :hitwall: .
 

Mrc

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 19, 2013
9,449
0
10,717
Country
Pakistan
Location
Qatar
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
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
346
2
573
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
346
2
573
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
"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?
 

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
6,731
219
17,817
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
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.

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.
 

maverick1977

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 8, 2009
2,140
0
2,647
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
 

Figaro

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2017
5,446
8
9,915
Country
United States
Location
United States
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.
 

IceCold

PDF VETERAN
May 1, 2007
16,151
7
18,689
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Nov 21, 2018
937
1
1,360
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
13,353
10
11,992
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
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
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top