Pakistan Army has 570 VT 4 on order and with TOT

[farooqbhai007]

It's already being done with our SP artillery. Tanks might be next, who knows.

With m109s as well? Afaik the PA SH15 package consisted of Sky Saker FX80 UAV but didnt know if M109 have any dedicated ones.

 

[arslank03]

IIRC they didn't launch those from the main gun, more like the smoke grenade launcher or some dedicated tube off from the side. I can be wrong tho as I wasn't in the tank game for a very long time, it was my passing MOS.....

Yes and no, depends on the application.

Horus can be launched from an additional container when there is no main gun, however, on ariete it is launched out of a shell down the main gun.


video:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/yj37zb

With m109s as well? Afaik the PA SH15 package consisted of Sky Saker FX80 UAV but didnt know if M109 have any dedicated ones.View attachment 926264

Did PA ever get the RQ-7s

 

[Jango]

That's what Abdul Qadeer Khan was so good at, right? Metallurgy? So we could invest the expertise in Nuclear field but not apply the same to other fields?

That's the thing, invest. We didn't invest in the same manner in other aspects of metallurgy. Nuclear metallurgy is different from making steel or Ti/Ni alloys.

Had we wanted to get our metallurgical industry up and running with the same fervor as the nuclear, then we could have done something.

AQ Khan nay jis institute ko banaya tha with such an emphasis on metallurgy, us ka haal hi dekh len.

And what about the ToT on Al-Khalid's during the 90's? Why couldn't we work with China/Turkey or some other country to overcome these technicalities and leapfrog generations for the next MBT?

We are investing a big chunk on Defense and the result should be an industry which could eventually sustain itself by exporting defense equipment (currently limited to around 500M USD of exports?). I think a big failure is the failure to invest in public-private ventures like the US does. Every equipment of the US military is produced by private contractors under guidance of the Military and in public-private partnerships; working with the US we could not figure this out and still our public-private partnership is limited to Drones.

Because metallurgy involves heavy research, and research needs money. Both of which we do not have or don't do.

And I COMPLETELY agree with you on the industry/academia synergy. In the US, corproations and companies sponsor PhD and Master's projects. I know guys who are in Bachelors and doing projects sponsored by P&W, Boeing, LM, among others. Then you have the usual tech companies, Meta, Google, Adobe and so on and so forth. They give millions in grants to professors so that the academia and bring out a viable methodology or concept, which the industry then productionizes.

In Pakistan, academia is kept far from such projects. The reasons are numerous, phir kuch boloon to fauji bahion ko masla ho jata hai. Idhr bas fauji idaron ka zyada zor 3 saal kay bond, aur jee huzoori par hota hai rather than investing in academia. But khair, we don't have the money either.

 

[jhungary]

Yes and no, depends on the application.

Horus can be launched from an additional container when there is no main gun, however, on ariete it is launched out of a shell down the main gun.


video:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/yj37zb

Did PA ever get the RQ-7s

Again, I don't know lol, it has been at least 17 years before I was inside a tank. I don't know if I can start one if you ask me now.

I don't know why people would quote me on this lol, yes, I do know what I learn from Basic and from Armour School, but I consider myself as an Military Intelligence person, I did that in most part of my military career I mean sure, I know a lot about combine arms warfare but these type of stuff are new and I was not really catching up on myb knowledge on tanks......

There used to be a tank guy I know here on PDF called @Davos he probably knows a lot more about tank than me.

 

[PanzerKiel]

With m109s as well? Afaik the PA SH15 package consisted of Sky Saker FX80 UAV but didnt know if M109 have any dedicated ones.View attachment 926264

Not with M109s..... Yet.

 

[Tomcats]

I know the reaction i'm going to get, but according to the former COAS we can't afford to fuel these tanks

Correction: You cannot fuel them in the long run, they may have sufficient fuel for x many weeks or months but beyond that it cannot be guaranteed because you do not have the resources for it. See the German Military during WW2, it's oil crisis which persisted from 1941, and how it gutted their military and forced them to make compromises.

 

[313ghazi]

Correction: You cannot fuel them in the long run, they may have sufficient fuel for x many weeks or months but beyond that it cannot be guaranteed because you do not have the resources for it. See the German Military during WW2, it's oil crisis which persisted from 1941, and how it gutted their military and forced them to make compromises.

I wonder if hybrid tanks are viable. Diesel and electric. Get greater range.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Dont believe that. Chinese tanks actually have made some issues resolved regarding turret pop off and have made these improvements after series of tests.

Chinese tanks only disadvantage is the side armour. The side armour still is in 280mm to 350mm category but ak probably has around 280 to 300mm. Its too thin from sides for modern era.

Have you seen type 59 upgraded alzarrar sustaining so many rpg hits yet crew survived its a prime example of how well it performed than russian ones.

New alkhalid-is are getting same configuration in future batches to incorporate same vt4 style design of turret as seen pic shared from HIT facility in pdf forum.

If t90s is well protected than ak or vt4 as per you which is debatable then our apfsds are in full range to penetrate t90s front armour too.

T80ud came during ak time and both perform well and some cases ak performed well.

You need to understand ak is different from chinese origin general tanks. Pakistani input is there you know if we had so dumb experts why didnt we just blindly go for abrams during zia era. Which explains we have very different requirements.

Chinese are so rapidly improving I am shocked by behavior of people they still think its 70s or 80s where they had mediocre quality. Its different time. The optics have been performing well then ukrainian t80 ud tanks etc.

Secondly we are not targetting russia we are targetting India they dont have tanks that are better protected and have better armaments.

One more thing if shermans in israel with new gun can decimate tanks that were generation ahead so I can say ak with good armament is devastating for enemy.

There are plenty of disadvantages with Chinese tanks, not just “side armor”, I already mentioned a few (design). I can think of plenty others. And the side armor figures are wrong anyways.…

You say Chinese made improvements after tests, what such tests or improvements can you quote or provide a source for?

The Story about AZ surviving “so many RPG rounds” is a myth. One got hit with an SPG-7 and it went straight through the turret and out the back, killing half the crew. The other got hit by several Vehicle borne VBIEDS but the crew survived, but those are not penetrating hits, they’re just fragmentation explosives, that does not speak to the protection of the crew against APFSDS or HEAT penetration, the AZ doesn’t even have improved armor over the Type 59 on the turret, nor does it have a carousel or similar ammo arrangement to Any other PA MBT, so it’s a moot point.

Al-Khalid is not getting a new turret. Only new ERA, the coverage will still not be as good as a T90 because the inherent design is still flawed, unless changed. Same goes for the hull.

I mean no offense, but I think I’m the last person you need to tell how the AK differs or does not differ from Chinese tanks.

I really don’t understand the rest of the hyper-emotional statements about chinese development, American tanks and Russian threats. I only don’t understand why people are so unwilling to see weakness in their own ranks as they are willing to look for strengths…sorry to say.

Are we gonna make parts of vt4 or just gonna assemble from imported ones

I think it’s been clarified multiple times already. The amount of VT4 that will be produced locally is higher than the amount of AK and AK-1 we produced locally. I don’t know why people don’t read the initial pages of threads they open for such basic questions.

I wonder if hybrid tanks are viable. Diesel and electric. Get greater range.

Certainly viable technologically, checkout the AbramsX. But not yet viable economically for everyone. Especially due to the logistical and technical changes that come with it. I believe me and Quwa had a small conversation about such a topic in another tank thread.

 

[alimobin memon]

There are plenty of disadvantages with Chinese tanks, not just “side armor”, I already mentioned a few (design). I can think of plenty others. And the side armor figures are wrong anyways.…

You say Chinese made improvements after tests, what such tests or improvements can you quote or provide a source for?

I could say the same. But the point is chinese tanks have better protected ammo to protect from turret pop.

The Story about AZ surviving “so many RPG rounds” is a myth. One got hit with an SPG-7 and it went straight through the turret and out the back, killing half the crew. The other got hit by several Vehicle borne VBIEDS but the crew survived, but those are not penetrating hits, they’re just fragmentation explosives, that does not speak to the protection of the crew against APFSDS or HEAT penetration, the AZ doesn’t even have improved armor over the Type 59 on the turret, nor does it have a carousel or similar ammo arrangement to Any other PA MBT, so it’s a moot point.

Alzarrar did survive multiple rpg hits cause of the new spaced armour on turret you can see the images the new space armour totally torned off but main turret unscathed. Clearly shows it was not like that. You cannot have same effect in all the scenarios. Once it penetrated once it didnt it shows the tanks robustness that not always is 100% penetration. I know enough to tell you the way armour is shaped can cause ricochet even at tight angles.

Al-Khalid is not getting a new turret. Only new ERA, the coverage will still not be as good as a T90 because the inherent design is still flawed, unless changed. Same goes for the hull.

Apologies on misunderstanding I didnt mean new turret.

Its not flawed its different uses mix of russian and chinese own research Incorporated from type 96 research.

Alkhalid has adequate protection enough to help with reasonable probability against neighbouring t90 tank rounds India lacks good apfsds rounds. AK has good to very good anti tank rounds so that balances the weaknesses.

You cannot say its flawed until or unless its battle proven so there is chance its better.

Chinese tanks in tests have survived multiple tests of getting hit in front from even the latest post 2010s russian rounds.

I mean no offense, but I think I’m the last person you need to tell how the AK differs or does not differ from Chinese tanks.

I really don’t understand the rest of the hyper-emotional statements about chinese development, American tanks and Russian threats. I only don’t understand why people are so unwilling to see weakness in their own ranks as they are willing to look for strengths…sorry to say.

Its ok on disrespecting point of view or hyper emotional stuff you speak of.

Pakistan was offered at the time, type 96, ukrainian t84 after t80ud and tests showed ak was good enough against t84 variant of that time m. Hence, they went ahead after first testing batch.

There are images of ak-i with new thermal protection camo that helps it in night so that it is not easily detected by thermal sights.

Protection is not always about thickness of armour but variety of methods against variety of arsenal. Enemy optics is also an arsenal if it cannot see adequate amount of heat of tank it will be difficult to find the ak then.

Im gonna repeat once again that ak is good and balanced tank and can go toe to toe in many scenarios against western tanks too. But there is no need as indians do not field the best apfsds round or heat round.

So not being over optimistic but good chance we are fine.

 

[iLION12345_1]

There are plenty of disadvantages with Chinese tanks, not just “side armor”, I already mentioned a few (design). I can think of plenty others. And the side armor figures are wrong anyways.…

You say Chinese made improvements after tests, what such tests or improvements can you quote or provide a source for?

I could say the same. But the point is chinese tanks have better protected ammo to protect from turret pop.

The Story about AZ surviving “so many RPG rounds” is a myth. One got hit with an SPG-7 and it went straight through the turret and out the back, killing half the crew. The other got hit by several Vehicle borne VBIEDS but the crew survived, but those are not penetrating hits, they’re just fragmentation explosives, that does not speak to the protection of the crew against APFSDS or HEAT penetration, the AZ doesn’t even have improved armor over the Type 59 on the turret, nor does it have a carousel or similar ammo arrangement to Any other PA MBT, so it’s a moot point.

Alzarrar did survive multiple rpg hits cause of the new spaced armour on turret you can see the images the new space armour totally torned off but main turret unscathed. Clearly shows it was not like that. You cannot have same effect in all the scenarios. Once it penetrated once it didnt it shows the tanks robustness that not always is 100% penetration. I know enough to tell you the way armour is shaped can cause ricochet even at tight angles.

Al-Khalid is not getting a new turret. Only new ERA, the coverage will still not be as good as a T90 because the inherent design is still flawed, unless changed. Same goes for the hull.

Apologies on misunderstanding I didnt mean new turret.

Its not flawed its different uses mix of russian and chinese own research Incorporated from type 96 research.

Alkhalid has adequate protection enough to help with reasonable probability against neighbouring t90 tank rounds India lacks good apfsds rounds. AK has good to very good anti tank rounds so that balances the weaknesses.

You cannot say its flawed until or unless its battle proven so there is chance its better.

Chinese tanks in tests have survived multiple tests of getting hit in front from even the latest post 2010s russian rounds.

I mean no offense, but I think I’m the last person you need to tell how the AK differs or does not differ from Chinese tanks.

I really don’t understand the rest of the hyper-emotional statements about chinese development, American tanks and Russian threats. I only don’t understand why people are so unwilling to see weakness in their own ranks as they are willing to look for strengths…sorry to say.

Its ok on disrespecting point of view or hyper emotional stuff you speak of.

Pakistan was offered at the time, type 96, ukrainian t84 after t80ud and tests showed ak was good enough against t84 variant of that time m. Hence, they went ahead after first testing batch.

There are images of ak-i with new thermal protection camo that helps it in night so that it is not easily detected by thermal sights.

Protection is not always about thickness of armour but variety of methods against variety of arsenal. Enemy optics is also an arsenal if it cannot see adequate amount of heat of tank it will be difficult to find the ak then.

Im gonna repeat once again that ak is good and balanced tank and can go toe to toe in many scenarios against western tanks too. But there is no need as indians do not field the best apfsds round or heat round.

So not being over optimistic but good chance we are fine.

“you could say the Same”, no you couldn’t. Whatever I said is backed up by what we know, what you said has no source or proof. I won’t hear arguments that can’t be backed up.

Al Zarrar has no spaced armor, that’s not how spaced armor works, that’s another myth. It did not survive multiple RPG hits, that’s a made up story. I’m well aware of the pictures you’re referring to, I suggest you go take another look at them, this time look at the back of the tank as well and you’d see that the SPG7 round that hit it has gone straight through the turret. No offense, but please stop spreading lies.

It is a flawed design, most people with more knowledge than you or me agree, if you have anything other than your personal opinion to prove us wrong please present it, because I’ve already told you why it’s flawed. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have adequate protection or that the T90S cannot be penetrated by our ammunition, I already said both those things before you, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s design is inherently flawed, I doubt you understand enough about armor arcs to understand that. I’ve seen the penetration tests of Al khalid armor first hand, I don’t know what Chinese tests you keep talking about and how you witnessed them or got information about them that nobody else on the internet has. Probably because you’re making it up, if you’re not, then present proof.

I know what Pakistan was offered and what it picked, I don’t know where you dragged on T84 into Type 85-III (not 96) and T80UD tests.

I know about the thermal camo. Its been present since AK, not AK1.
I was the one of the first to post about it in the Al khalid thread anyways.

I know what “protection” means beyond armor, but if the discussion is about armor objectively why bring in other things?

What I mean to say is, tell me something new to actually back up your claims instead of random facts that everyone already knows. Until then I’m sorry but all of this is just irrelevant and inaccurate stuff that I’ll no longer be replying to.

I just don’t understand why some people are so reluctant to admit to flaws in their own designs but not in the enemies, that’s a sure way to lose a war, so once again I’m glad PA planners are not arrogant like this.

I also don’t understand why after 9 posts of praising something when I write one post to also mention the flaws of something, I become anti-Pakistan or anti-China, it’s hilarious to me how unwilling many from both nations are to even hear a shred of criticism even after you ensure them you’re on their side.

 

[alimobin memon]

“you could say the Same”, no you couldn’t. Whatever I said is backed up by what we know, what you said has no source or proof. I won’t hear arguments that can’t be backed up.

Al Zarrar has no spaced armor, that’s not how spaced armor works, that’s another myth. It did not survive multiple RPG hits, that’s a made up story. I’m well aware of the pictures you’re referring to, I suggest you go take another look at them, this time look at the back of the tank as well and you’d see that the SPG7 round that hit it has gone straight through the turret. No offense, but please stop spreading lies.

It is a flawed design, most people with more knowledge than you or me agree, if you have anything other than your personal opinion to prove us wrong please present it, because I’ve already told you why it’s flawed. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have adequate protection or that the T90S cannot be penetrated by our ammunition, I already said both those things before you, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s design is inherently flawed, I doubt you understand enough about armor arcs to understand that. I’ve seen the penetration tests of Al khalid armor first hand, I don’t know what Chinese tests you keep talking about and how you witnessed them or got information about them that nobody else on the internet has. Probably because you’re making it up, if you’re not, then present proof.

I know what Pakistan was offered and what it picked, I don’t know where you dragged on T84 into Type 85-III (not 96) and T80UD tests.

I know about the thermal camo. Its been present since AK, not AK1.
I was the one of the first to post about it in the Al khalid thread anyways.

I know what “protection” means beyond armor, but if the discussion is about armor objectively why bring in other things?

What I mean to say is, tell me something new to actually back up your claims instead of random facts that everyone already knows. Until then I’m sorry but all of this is just irrelevant and inaccurate stuff that I’ll no longer be replying to.

I just don’t understand why some people are so reluctant to admit to flaws in their own designs but not in the enemies, that’s a sure way to lose a war, so once again I’m glad PA planners are not arrogant like this.

I also don’t understand why after 9 posts of praising something when I write one post to also mention the flaws of something, I become anti-Pakistan or anti-China, it’s hilarious to me how unwilling many from both nations are to even hear a shred of criticism even after you ensure them you’re on their side.

I also don’t understand why after 9 posts of praising something when I write one post to also mention the flaws of something, I become anti-Pakistan or anti-China, it’s hilarious to me how unwilling many from both nations are to even hear a shred of criticism even after you ensure them you’re on their side.

OK respected member, You are no anti Pakistan or china you are stating your opinion with facts that you know with resource you are provided with. I am saying what I know. You are also not providing any facts from resource but I am not going to say you are wrong your way of looking at things is different then mine.

Can you state with references only once ? whatever you have said has no backing by references. Explain properly once this time I request humbly. Dont mean no disrespect if you are right then it will become clear.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I wonder if hybrid tanks are viable. Diesel and electric. Get greater range.

Once higher power density on batteries is available...
...it would actually be quite useful on tanks to make them hybrid like that. The electric motor would provide instant torque to get the tank moving from slow speeds.
...and the diesel engine can be used so the range doesn't sacrificed.

 

[iLION12345_1]

I also don’t understand why after 9 posts of praising something when I write one post to also mention the flaws of something, I become anti-Pakistan or anti-China, it’s hilarious to me how unwilling many from both nations are to even hear a shred of criticism even after you ensure them you’re on their side.

OK respected member, You are no anti Pakistan or china you are stating your opinion with facts that you know with resource you are provided with. I am saying what I know. You are also not providing any facts from resource but I am not going to say you are wrong your way of looking at things is different then mine.

Can you state with references only once ? whatever you have said has no backing by references. Explain properly once this time I request humbly. Dont mean no disrespect if you are right then it will become clear.

All of the things I’ve said have several references already posted by me and other members in the AK information pool threads.

But if you’re not convinced, tell me what exactly you need a source for?

The Autolaoder in both the VT4 and AK is of the exact same carousel design as in T90 and T72, that is a well known fact.

The Ammo in VT4 and AK is stored in armored ammo bins at the rear and gunner side of the hull, it is also lined with Kevlar and has its own explosion and fire suppression system, but it is not covered or isolated, it is still within the crew compartment and does not have any blast panels, that means that while it is less likely for there to be a catastrophic explosion of this ammo in these tanks, it is not impossible, and if said explosion does occur, the tank will pop its turret much like a T90S. And if a round hits the carousel owing to its poor side armor, then the same thing happens as well, because the carousel has no additional protection in AK over T72 or T90S, might be some extra armor in AK1 and VT4, but definitely not in AK, and what about the UD, who’s interior is identical to Russian T80Us that suffer from similar problems? And what about Al Zarrar, which has its ammo all around the cabin like any Russian tank?

I don’t know what sources you want me to provide for things that are well known and well established facts, but I still suggest you to check in the information pool threads as all of this is already present there.

Now for the Design issues with the Al Khalid platform (this applies to every tank of the ZTZ 80, 96 and Type 90 family, including VT4 and Al-Khalid), all of their frontal armor arcs are less less than 30 degrees. This means that the thickest part of their armor is concentrated at a very small area in the front, and even a threat which is present at the front of the tank, can hit its weak sides, because the armor does not extend around the sides, meanwhile in ZTZ99, or T90, the frontal armor arc extends around to nearly 45 degrees on either side, which means the thickest part of the armor is the only part that can be engaged from the front of the tank. Again, what source do you want me to provide for this other than the fact that it is clearly visible in every single photo of these tanks? Like have you actually looked at the armor layouts of the two tanks side by side?

Now for your Al-Zarrar queries. How do you think spaced armor works?
The steel plates on the Al-Zarrar turret are thin reshaping plates meant to allow installation of ERA, they are not spaced armor, they are too thin to act as such and do not have enough space between the actual turret behind them to act as armor. Even HIT calls them only as “Reshaping plates” as evident by several pictures from HIT, again, have you ever looked at those?
The story about the AL-Zarrar being hit by multiple RPGs is false, you can find the original story on this very forum in the Al-Zarrar thread, half the crew died in that engagement and there are photos of the tank with its turret-back blown open. I’ll post those here;

I hope the giant hole in the turret is clear enough. And so is the thickness of the nonexistent “spaced armor”

Now if you want me to prove every little detail from the ground up I can do that too, but I’d have to explain to you the basics of tank armor and design and that’s not my job. I suggest you do your own research, there’s more than enough available online to draw correct conclusions.

And I’d once again like to clarify that none of this means I’m calling PAs armor bad or weaker than it’s adversaries, I’ve always claimed the contrary, what we have is better, but that doesn’t mean I won’t point out its flaws or correct wrong information.



For those interested in the AZ story, from what I’ve been able to gather, Two separate AZs were attacked, one with multiple IEDs and grenades, that’s the one we often hear about that survived the attacks and so did it’s crew, because it was not attacked with piercing explosives. The one we often see in pictures however was hit by an SPG7 and penetrated, with half its crew being martyred.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

By employing resident armed mini-UAVs (with AI controlled image processing capabilities thanks to ultra-fast detectors), boron carbide based armored and active 360 degrees covering protection can make VT4s more potent. By the by, Altay tanks have checked marked all these specs...

 

[alimobin memon]

I am not asking you to tell me everything. Again you forget what is spaced Armour. Sending me pic where it says Old Type 59 cast turret with reshaping plates and vice versa. That is because there actual purpose was to install plates in such way that era can be installed on them. But that does not negate my claim it is an spaced armor that is protecting the actually turret bubble canopy. Hence, it is spaced armor too.

The hollow space between the plates increases the shell's travel time, thus reducing the charge's penetrating power.

This is definition of space Armour. Hence, it benefits Al-ZARRAR due to installation of plates it creates an hollow space between the actually turret and new cast plates over turret.

Check the definition of spaced Armour anywhere and you will get examples like above tank.

And I’d once again like to clarify that none of this means I’m calling PAs armor bad or weaker than it’s adversaries, I’ve always claimed the contrary, what we have is better, but that doesn’t mean I won’t point out its flaws or correct wrong information.

I am trying to tell you the same that its better than what Indians currently have fielded specially AK and VT4. Dont care about Russian tanks military operational tanks.

Alzarrar's turret didn't pop off that according to you was penetrated by spg9 that means its ammunition was stored properly than t72. During WOT in Waziristan how many tanks of Pakistan army were disabled or destroyed ? that tells you the quality of the tanks and tactics used by Pak Fauj. Alhamdulillah they performed well.

Agreed with the chinese turret frontal arc issue.

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

A problem of the Chinese tank design is the armor layout. Most tanks are designed with full armor protection along the frontal 60° arc (±30° from the turret centerline), because statistically between 60 and 80% of all hits (depending on conflict and measurement methodology) occur in this arc. Tanks like the Challenger 1/2, Leopard 2, the Leclerc and the M1 Abrams not only have thick frontal armor, but also turret side armor designed to provide the equivalent thickness when attacked from a 30° angle. Tanks following the Soviet tank design philosophy, such as the T-72, T-90, T-84 and the PT-91 don't feature composite armor at the turret sides, but the overlapping frontal armor and the turret geometry make sure, that the weak side armor is not exposed when being attacked along the frontal 60° arc.