What's new

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

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
2,854
17
3,419
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
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?
 
Last edited:

Tipu7

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 8, 2014
4,807
82
11,979
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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) :(
 

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
6,682
219
17,656
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
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.
 

Tipu7

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 8, 2014
4,807
82
11,979
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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.
 
Last edited:

HRK

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Sep 24, 2010
11,471
85
28,469
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If it ever arrive, perhaps our armor will fight over contaminated battlefield and the nuke things had gone all lose till then;
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.
 
Last edited:

Vapour

FULL MEMBER
Jul 2, 2020
296
0
295
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom

Ark_Angel

PROFESSIONAL
Mar 8, 2016
158
18
1,292
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
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.
 

HRK

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Sep 24, 2010
11,471
85
28,469
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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 .... ???
 

Tipu7

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 8, 2014
4,807
82
11,979
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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.
 

IblinI

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 21, 2016
2,661
1
5,154
Country
China
Location
New Zealand
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?
 

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

Top