Next generation pakistan army tank to be unveiled in IDEAS2018

[帅的一匹]

Vt 4 main gun can penetrate 1050mm RHA at 2000m range.

T 90ms cant stand one blow.

 

[ziaulislam]

I hope the VT4(my personal choice) is ordered soon, it won't just plug the quite large gap Pakistan has v the Indian armoured corps but also give it an edge v the T-90S.

The rest can be filled with AK 2.

what ever it is i hope its fully built in pakistan..pakistan needs to maximuze its home operation

 

[Kompromat]

I can't understand why Pakistan and China don't jointly develop a true next gen MBT along the lines of Armata system. The VT-4 is good but not enough.

China doesn't face an armored warfare threat, Pakistan does and the answer is not just the VT-4.

 

[LKJ86]

I think you are talking about ZTZ-99G2(二期改).

Russian ex-forces dude put this up;

First of all, this answer is long and if you don’t want to read this big piece of information you can skip it to the last point and read my direct answer to your question.

Type-99 haven’t been tested in combat situation. And even combat is not a good indicator, because in many cases, poorly trained crew or absolute misuse of armored units can lead to devastating results.

Great example is Abrams tank. It showed itself great during Gulf War and Operation Freedom but not as great in Yemen Civil war, when Houthis were able to destroy these machines with old, soviet AT equipment, made almost 60 years ago.

However, I have to EMPHASIZE, that T-90 MS is an EXPORT version of T-90 AM tank, which has some limitations and “cuts” comparable to its original version. Since majority of T-90 MS were sold to India, I assume that you are asking to compare firepower in potential India-China conflict.

Let’s do some analysis.

First of all, let’s look at these tanks at glance:

T-90 MS:


Weight 48 t

Length (gun forward) : ~ 10 m

Hull length : 6.8 m

Width: 3.5 m

Height: 2.3 m

Type 99:


Weight 54 t

Length (gun forward): 11 m

Width: 3.4 m

Height 2.2 m

We can see, that dimensions are about the same, however, T-90 MS is much lighter, which is a plus, in my opinion.

Both Type-99 and T-90 have 125 mm smoothbore gun of the same production concept. Both of them can fire APFSDS, HE and HE-FRAG rounds and have auto-loader. T-90MS is armed with 2А46М-5 and 2А82 guns, while Chinese is armed with ZPT98.


While ZPT98 is superior to 2A46M and capable of firing ATGM missiles, it is much worse than 2A82 by many parameters. I don’t have information on how many T-90 MS tanks are armed with 2A46M-5 and how many with 2A82. From what I have read, India received tanks with 2A46M-5 which are not as good as Chinese ZPT-98.

Let’s compare ATGM missiles on T-90MS and Type-99.

T-90MS and Type-99 are armed with 9K119M ATGMs and therefore no need to be compared.

T-90 MS is armed with 2 x 7.62 mm machine guns, while Type-99 is armed with 1 x 7.62-mm and 1 x 12.7-mm machine guns.

Of course, no doubt that 12.7 has higher penetration power and generally more potentially dangerous than 7.62 mm. I am not sure why 12.7 was replaced on T-90MS with 7.62 Anti-Air machine gun, but I read an explanation that it’s better in urban combat since contains much larger amount of ammunition.

Aiming/Electronics:

T-90 MS is armed with “Kalina” fire control system and updated observation and aiming devices. This Russian tank has a hunter-killer engagement capability. Tank commander uses a panoramic sight with thermal vision to search for targets. Once the target is selected the gun is laid on the target automatically and the gunner completes all the aiming and firing process. During that time commander looks for the next target. Furthermore target acquisition system tracks selected targets automatically. It is claimed that the new tank is 15-20% more accurate than its predecessor.


Type-99: The tank is fitted with new computerized fire control system. It incorporates laser rangefinder and automatic target tracker. This MBT can engage moving targets accurately, while on the move. It has a high first round hit probability against stationary and moving targets, while the tank is firing on the move. The tank is fitted with advanced thermal imaging and panoramic sights, and has a hunter-killer capability. This fire control system might be better than fire control system in average T-90, but Kalina system is claimed to be one of the best in the world at current time and therefore it might be better than one in Type-99 (I don’t have enough independent data on electronic characteristics to judge correctly).

Engine and mobility.

Chinese engine allows Type-99 tank to move up to 82–88 kilometers per hour on highway, comparable to 66~72 on T-90 MS. Please note, that Chinese tank is much heavier!

T-90MS has В-92С2 with 1 130 hp (horse power, not health points). Engine is coupled with an automatic transmission with 7 forward and 1 reverse gear. It is fitted with a deep wading kit, that can be installed by tank's crew within 20 minutes. With a deep wading kit attached it can ford water obstacles up to 5 m deep. The tank is also fitted with a self-entrenching blade and can prepare itself an emplacement within 12-40 minutes, depending on the ground type.


Type-99 has 1 500 hp engine which is based on the German MTU 871 Ka-501 technology. The Type 99 has a high power to weight ratio and subsequently good mobility and cross-country performance. External fuel tanks can be carried at the rear of the hull for longer range.

The only part where T-90MS leads is mobility range. T-90 MS is capable of moving without refueling 550 km, while Type-99 only 400 km (which is still impressive, considering its engine capabilities).

Protection/Armor:

T-90 MS:

T-90 MS has new composite armor as well as built-in Relikt explosive reactive armor (ERA) in place of the previous Kontakt-5. It’s is fitted with side skirts with built-in Relikt ERA. It provides protection against tandem warheads and reduces penetration of APFSDS rounds by over 50%. There is also a countermeasures system, which triggers smoke grenade dischargers, once the tank is being illuminated by a laser beam. This system significantly reduces the chance of being hit by enemy anti-tank guided weapons with semi-automatic guidance. As usually this tank is fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems. Interior is lined with spall liner.


The Type 99 features improved armor protection over the Type 98. Turret of the Type 99 has a Leopard 2A5-style wedge-shaped modular add-on explosive reactive armor. Damaged sections to be replaced or upgraded when more advanced armor is available. It is claimed that the front protection of the Type 99 is equivalent to 1 000 - 1 200 mm of steel armor. Vehicle is equipped with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems. This main battle tank is fitted with unique active laser protection system, which uses a high-powered laser to disrupt missiles laser or infrared guidance signal, disable enemy observation optics and damage eyesight of enemy gunner. This active laser protection system can also be used against helicopters.


In my opinion, that indicates that Type-99 has better and more modern systems of protection than T-90 MS. However, it’s fair to notice that non-export versions of T-90 have superior complex of protection.

It’s important to mention, that T-90 (of various modification) was able to survive various RPG and TOW shots in Syria, in combat situation.
We have video evidences:

It’s hard to judge about damage done to T-90, but we can see that in first occasion, crew survived (I assumed they were shocked because tank hatch was open). While in second video T-90 didn’t have any visible damage, and according to reports it continued to operate.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) Type-99 wasn’t tested in battle yet.

To summarize (the most important part of this message):

1. Both T-90MS and Type-99 have different modifications and therefore have different systems of armor protection, fire control and even main gun. And I don’t have exact numbers about scale of modernization in one or another tank.
2. Type-99 in many aspects looks better on paper than T-90MS, but T-90 was proven to work well in combat situation and was tested by war. Which means that it is very likely that Russians will consider battle experience and modernize tanks accordingly. Unfortunately, China is not able to check their tanks in battle.
3. We don’t have enough data of how durable Chinese particles and how quick they are able to replace them on the battlefield.
4. Economics. When people talk about one tank vs another tank, “experts” fail to mention cost and economics behind mass production. Great example is Soviet T-34–85 which due to low cost, high efficiency and simplicity was able to defeat German tank genius. No doubts that German Tiger-II were superior to T-34–85, but what’s the point of that “superiority” if you have 492 of these tanks vs 22,559 of T-34–85? And I guess nobody would argue here, that Chinese industry is capable to outnumber any economics in terms of massive production. They are capable of switching their civil industry to military pretty quick.
5. This is “quick” and “at glance” overview and cannot be considered as serious military research. To have solid answer, you would need to make some serious expertise which would include various testings, compartment of transmission particles, quality of used metals, technology of welding etc. Such a “theoretical” research would cost you more than $12,000 and last for a while.
6. And last. To answer your question directly: Considering that
   - tanks have similar firepower;
   - both tanks have modern, high-tech fire-control systems;
   - Type-99 have better protection and higher mobility
   - T-90 MS has better firepower if has installed 2A82 on it
   Outcome of battle between T-90MS and Type-99 would HIGHLY depend on the crew training, terrain and defense positions, rather than solely on machine characteristics.

The evolution of ZTZ-99 tank
1) 9910

2) ZTZ-99G1(一期改)

3)ZTZ-99G2(二期改)

4)ZTZ-99G3(三期大改)

5)ZTZ-99A

 

[Akasa]

The evolution of ZTZ-99 tank
1) 9910
View attachment 524029

2) ZTZ-99G1(一期改)
View attachment 524030

3)ZTZ-99G2(二期改)
View attachment 524031
View attachment 524032

4)ZTZ-99G3(三期大改)
View attachment 524036

5)ZTZ-99A
View attachment 524037
View attachment 524038

What do the credible rumor mills say about the notional next-generation PLA MBT, if anything?

 

[LKJ86]

I can't understand why Pakistan and China don't jointly develop a true next gen MBT along the lines of Armata system. The VT-4 is good but not enough.

China doesn't face an armored warfare threat, Pakistan does and the answer is not just the VT-4.

1) China doesn't take Armata seriously.
2) China's next generation tank has been in development.
3) What PLA Army needs is not the same as that of PA.

 

[Kompromat]

1) China doesn't take Armata seriously.
2) China's next generation tank has been in development.
3) What PLA Army needs is not the same as that of PA.

That's what I'm saying. We should develop a new Tank that meets PA's specific requirements. I care not if PLA doesn't buy it.

China virtually faces no armored warfare threat.
Pakistan does.

IMO, we ought to develop a Tank to meet the standards of Mitsubishi Type-10, with an unmanned turret system, 1500hp TD engine, composite armor, APS, EW, RCWS and a fully operational C4ISR network.

 

[Akasa]

China virtually faces no armored warfare threat.

Western China is tank country, so much so that large-scale armor exercises are conducted there.

 

[Signalian]

I think the Indian decision to go for 1000+ T-90s is a folly. On the modern battlefield, no amount of armor is enough armor. Everything and its grand daddy is out for armor:

1. UCAVs in anti-armor role.
2. Attack helis in anti-armor role.
3. CAS in anti-armor role.
4. Artillery in anti-armor role.
5. MBRLs in anti-armor role.
6. ATGMs in anti-armor role.
7. Mines in anti-armor role.

Bringing forth lumbering columns of armor will cause only destruction. Hence, new tactics need to be developed for use of armor in widely dispersed formations and keeping agility and maneuverability in mind.

Instead of trying to match India 1 on 1, we should be thinking laterally about taking out Indian armor effectively.

IA/IAF has a few strong points.
IAF has more and heavier aircrafts which can challenge PAF, as well as PA UCAV's, Gunships, CAS aircrafts. IA also has better AD systems than PA. IA has IFV's like BMP's which give added fire power (double the fire power) to assist MBT"s with cannons and ATGM's. M-113/Talha are battle taxis only. IA can put more tanks and has 3-4 times the reserve tanks to replace losses.
IA AH-64 is deadly against armored targets and AH-1F cannot match it. Z-10 or T-129 are needed for equally deadly response.

Rest of the points are comparable.

 

[LKJ86]

Western China is tank country, so much so that large-scale armor exercises are conducted there.

I cannot agree with you.

That's what I'm saying. We should develop a new Tank that meets PA's specific requirements. I care not if PLA doesn't buy it.

China virtually faces no armored warfare threat.
Pakistan does.

IMO, we ought to develop a Tank to meet the standards of Mitsubishi Type-10, with an unmanned turret system, 1500hp TD engine, composite armor, APS, EW, RCWS and a fully operational C4ISR network.

Maybe VT-4 can be upgraded according to the needs of PA. VT-4 and ZTZ-99A all use 150HB engines.

 

[Goku-kun]

That's what I'm saying. We should develop a new Tank that meets PA's specific requirements. I care not if PLA doesn't buy it.

China virtually faces no armored warfare threat.
Pakistan does.

IMO, we ought to develop a Tank to meet the standards of Mitsubishi Type-10, with an unmanned turret system, 1500hp TD engine, composite armor, APS, EW, RCWS and a fully operational C4ISR network.

well, you are talking about Al-Khalid 2 in indirect words aren't you?
It will be having a 1500hp 6td-3 engine.The Turkish defence electronics giant Aselsan was also offering its next-generation electronics site, which comprises a fire control system, electro-optical sensor, and communications system, for the al-Khalid 2.

 

[Kompromat]

And who'll attack them?

Western China is tank country, so much so that large-scale armor exercises are conducted there.

We want Altay's T-3 unmanned, sensor integration turret and Altay's electronics, Akkor APS for AK-2.

Otherwise Indian armor will slice through the border and we'd have to nuke them.

well, you are talking about Al-Khalid 2 in indirect words aren't you?
It will be having a 1500hp 6td-3 engine.The Turkish defence electronics giant Aselsan was also offering its next-generation electronics site, which comprises a fire control system, electro-optical sensor, and communications system, for the al-Khalid 2.

 

[Akasa]

And who'll attack them?

In the unlikely event of a large-scale regional conflict, large armored thrusts from the western regions through neutral countries cannot be ruled out.

 

[CriticalThought]

IA/IAF has a few strong points.
IAF has more and heavier aircrafts which can challenge PAF, as well as PA UCAV's, Gunships, CAS aircrafts. IA also has better AD systems than PA. IA has IFV's like BMP's which give added fire power (double the fire power) to assist MBT"s with cannons and ATGM's. M-113/Talha are battle taxis only. IA can put more tanks and has 3-4 times the reserve tanks to replace losses.
IA AH-64 is deadly against armored targets and AH-1F cannot match it. Z-10 or T-129 are needed for equally deadly response.

Rest of the points are comparable.

Well, when I look at the larger picture, I go back to a few years go when Raheel Shareef supervised a training exercise along with Nawaz Shareef. The highlight was attack helis, Mobile Sams, and MLRS. Also at that time, the program for new service rifles was also started. Now all of a sudden, there has been no further advancement in SAMS and MLRS, and the rifle initiative has been dropped. Instead, we are seeing this sudden focus on armor.

I feel there is a discontinuity of policies here. If Raheel Shareef's policy of SAMS is continued, we would have to be less concerned about Indian helis, UCAVs, and CAS (Jaguar). If the army can hold its own against these, then PAF should be able to take care of Flankers + Mirages and Migs. In order to defeat Indian SAMs, we should be thinking supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles. And there is a good reason to do so. Why do we think that the initial thrust will come in the form of armor? The initial volley will be saturation attacks with Brahmos. We need defence against that for our installations and formations, and we need something to strike back - hard.

I really fear that whoever is overseeing this armor initiative is living in the previous century.

 

[帅的一匹]

And who'll attack them?



We want Altay's T-3 unmanned, sensor integration turret and Altay's electronics, Akkor APS for AK-2.

Otherwise Indian armor will slice through the border and we'd have to nuke them.

India cant do jackshit as long as China support Pakistan, not to mention Pak has nuclear weapon. Vt4 is enough to deal with the threat from IA.
if its not enough, put T99A on that list.

all Chinese military fans dont take T90s seriosuly, even T90ms.

the integrated power package and transmission system of VT4 is lot more adcanced than T90ms. Pakistan can get lots of know.how.by studying it.

you dont need to be so anxious brother, get loose.