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

[Figaro]

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.

 

[farooqbhai007]

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.

 

[Tipu7]

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...

 

[Tipu7]

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.

 

[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.

 

[kursed]

Importing VT-4, and still making those 110x AK1s. Once the first order finishes, I believe they'd order more of both?

 

[Arsalan]

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

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.

 

[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.

What you are suggesting is not a tank, but an anti tank vehicle. It's application is different from that of standard MBT.

 

[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.

 

[Tipu7]

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/

 

[Armchair]

You can have my thoughts here. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...anks-in-the-battlefield-a-perspective.666893/

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Signalian]

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.

 

[PAR 5]

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

 

[Signalian]

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.

 

[Signalian]

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.