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

[Raja Porus]

They are used independently hence create flexibility and add complications for the enemy.
Armour component is same.

Any special role armoured used in them or general utility purpose

 

[monitor]

Pakistan's forward strike corps Mangala corps have inducted State of the art VT-4 Tank.

 

[Bilal.]

It seems it will remain VT-4, If there was to be a name they would have used it during induction, and why not, Type 85 remained Type 85 and T80UD remained T80UD, It could have been VT-4P due to it’s changes but it seems that’s not being used either since the tank wasn’t locally assembled (unlike Type 85-IIAP), though maybe a informal local name will start among the crews and the military

We now seem to be going for local manufacturing or towards a new tank based on VT4.

The HIT: More than just tanks

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-hit-more-than-just-tanks/?fbclid=IwAR2zgidzzaA2Fzi7XkjPSY3H9_rpzmcWGora0AU8iH6C9sE-TB3Sq55-5PM The HIT: More than just tanks Journey of a Thousand Miles begins with one single step! Following the advice of philosopher Lao Tzu, Pakistan and China initiated...

defence.pk

 

[iLION12345_1]

We now seem to be going for local manufacturing or towards a. New tank based on VT4.

The VT-4 design is just an evolution of the Al-Khalid/VT-1 design, which itself was an evolution of the Type 90II design, which was an evolution of the Type 85 design. You can see how they just build upon each other. The Al-Khalid-2, which is currently under development, will take a similar route, it will build upon the AK-1 design just like the VT-4 did.
Unlike the 90s Pakistan now has the capability to design a tank on their own based on this platform. So they might make one more specifically suited to their requirements and needs, something that can’t be perfectly accomplished with an off the shelf product like a VT-4. It will however use technologies from the VT-4, as well as from Ukraine and Europe, though most of the systems Pakistan has the capability to make on its own.

Powerpacks are obviously not going to be local, ToT at most, Chinese or newer Ukrainian ones (I made a detailed comparison in the Al-Khalid thread of both). Both would give a massive mobility boost. The Chinese one makes better power but Ukrainian ones mean less redesigning and maybe better reliability. VT-4P has extremely impressive mobility, it’s engine in the AK-2 would be great, so would the Ukrainian 6TD-3.

The biggest upgrade to the Al-Khalid-2 would be a CITV, it’s an absolute must for it, otherwise I refuse to call it a good upgrade. Even if it’s a second generation thermal.

Another thing that can be improved drastically is the armor and ERA, protection is not the VT4s strongest point, it’s good, but not good like the Oplot M or the T90MS, especially on the sides. Both AK and VT4 have no added side protection. On that note an Active protection system (GL-5 or Ukrainian Zaslon) are also going to be a must for both VT-4 and AK-2 in the future.
I believe Pakistan can make AK-2 much better Protected than VT-4 by using Ukrainian armor tech and ERA (Ukrainian Duplet ERA is some of the best in the world.) It would need a redesigned turret though.

BMS Software and C4I systems used in the AK can be improved, This is the strongest point of the VT-4. AK-2 absolutely needs a proper Laser warning receiver and detection suite like in the VT4, and maybe also camera suite like the VT-4. Auto-bore sight system is another good addition from the VT-4.

Ammo storage can also be improved, bustle or external storage with blast doors as adopted in the T90MS would be a big boost to survivability, but that isn’t absolutely necessary as the current storage is decently armored.

An RWS is also a possible addition, but wouldn’t be absolutely necessary considering the MG is already remote operated.

The FCS/GCS, Auto-loader, thermals, firepower, MRS and many other systems on the AK-1 are already very good and don’t need upgrades.
Maybe they can go for local thermal sights this time. Pakistan has the capability to make those, it remains to be seen Wether they can match the ones from SAGEM, which are made locally too. But AK has third gen thermals already, which is as good as they get, so they’re not a necessary upgrade.

 

[Bilal.]

The VT-4 design is just an evolution of the Al-Khalid/VT-1 design, which itself was an evolution of the Type 90II design, which was an evolution of the Type 85 design. You can see how they just build upon each other. The Al-Khalid-2, which is currently under development, will take a similar route, it will build upon the AK-1 design just like the VT-4 did.
Unlike the 90s Pakistan now has the capability to design a tank on their own based on this platform. So they might make one more specifically suited to their requirements and needs, something that can’t be perfectly accomplished with an off the shelf product like a VT-4. It will however use technologies from the VT-4, as well as from Ukraine and Europe, though most of the systems Pakistan has the capability to make on its own.

Powerpacks are obviously not going to be local, ToT at most, Chinese or newer Ukrainian ones (I made a detailed comparison in the Al-Khalid thread of both). Both would give a massive mobility boost. The Chinese one makes better power but Ukrainian ones mean less redesigning and maybe better reliability. VT-4P has extremely impressive mobility.

The biggest upgrade to the Al-Khalid-2 would be a CITV, it’s an absolute must for it, otherwise I refuse to call it a good upgrade. Even if it’s a second generation thermal.

Another thing that can be improved drastically is the armor and ERA, protection is not the VT4s strongest point, it’s good, but not good like the Oplot M or the T90MS, especially on the sides. Both AK and VT4 have no added side protection. On that note an Active protection system (GL-5 or Ukrainian Zaslon) are also going to be a must for both VT-4 and AK-2 in the future.
I believe Pakistan can make AK-2 much better Protected than VT-4 by using Ukrainian armor tech and ERA (Ukrainian Duplet ERA is some of the best in the world.) It would need a redesigned turret though.

BMS Software and C4I systems used in the AK can be improved, This is the strongest point of the VT-4. AK-2 absolutely needs a proper Laser warning receiver and detection suite like in the VT4, and maybe also camera suite like the VT-4. Auto-bore sight system is another good addition from the VT-4.

Ammo storage can also be improved, bustle or external storage with blast doors as adopted in the T90MS would be a big boost to survivability, but that isn’t absolutely necessary as the current storage is decently armored.

An RWS is also a possible addition, but wouldn’t be absolutely necessary considering the MG is already remote operated.

The FCS/GCS, Auto-loader, thermals, firepower, MRS and many other systems on the AK-1 are already very good and don’t need upgrades.
Maybe they can go for local thermal sights this time. Pakistan has the capability to make those, it remains to be seen Wether they can match the ones from SAGEM, which are made locally too. But AK has third gen thermals already, which is as good as they get, so they’re not a necessary upgrade.

Does VT4 have CITV. Also I was under the impression that Al Khalid had this right from the first model…. Same for laser warning receiver.

Also how does Duplet compare to
FY series.

 

[Tornado23]

The VT-4 design is just an evolution of the Al-Khalid/VT-1 design, which itself was an evolution of the Type 90II design, which was an evolution of the Type 85 design. You can see how they just build upon each other. The Al-Khalid-2, which is currently under development, will take a similar route, it will build upon the AK-1 design just like the VT-4 did.
Unlike the 90s Pakistan now has the capability to design a tank on their own based on this platform. So they might make one more specifically suited to their requirements and needs, something that can’t be perfectly accomplished with an off the shelf product like a VT-4. It will however use technologies from the VT-4, as well as from Ukraine and Europe, though most of the systems Pakistan has the capability to make on its own.

Powerpacks are obviously not going to be local, ToT at most, Chinese or newer Ukrainian ones (I made a detailed comparison in the Al-Khalid thread of both). Both would give a massive mobility boost. The Chinese one makes better power but Ukrainian ones mean less redesigning and maybe better reliability. VT-4P has extremely impressive mobility, it’s engine in the AK-2 would be great, so would the Ukrainian 6TD-3.

The biggest upgrade to the Al-Khalid-2 would be a CITV, it’s an absolute must for it, otherwise I refuse to call it a good upgrade. Even if it’s a second generation thermal.

Another thing that can be improved drastically is the armor and ERA, protection is not the VT4s strongest point, it’s good, but not good like the Oplot M or the T90MS, especially on the sides. Both AK and VT4 have no added side protection. On that note an Active protection system (GL-5 or Ukrainian Zaslon) are also going to be a must for both VT-4 and AK-2 in the future.
I believe Pakistan can make AK-2 much better Protected than VT-4 by using Ukrainian armor tech and ERA (Ukrainian Duplet ERA is some of the best in the world.) It would need a redesigned turret though.

BMS Software and C4I systems used in the AK can be improved, This is the strongest point of the VT-4. AK-2 absolutely needs a proper Laser warning receiver and detection suite like in the VT4, and maybe also camera suite like the VT-4. Auto-bore sight system is another good addition from the VT-4.

Ammo storage can also be improved, bustle or external storage with blast doors as adopted in the T90MS would be a big boost to survivability, but that isn’t absolutely necessary as the current storage is decently armored.

An RWS is also a possible addition, but wouldn’t be absolutely necessary considering the MG is already remote operated.

The FCS/GCS, Auto-loader, thermals, firepower, MRS and many other systems on the AK-1 are already very good and don’t need upgrades.
Maybe they can go for local thermal sights this time. Pakistan has the capability to make those, it remains to be seen Wether they can match the ones from SAGEM, which are made locally too. But AK has third gen thermals already, which is as good as they get, so they’re not a necessary upgrade.

I thought the AK/AK1 had CITV.

That's how it has the hunter killer capability. Is it that false info then?

 

[iLION12345_1]

Does VT4 have CITV. Also I was under the impression that Al Khalid had this right from the first model…. Same for laser warning receiver.

Also how does Duplet compare to
FY series.

VT-4 has CITV.

AK has a panoramic sight for commander with Night vision but not thermal sight. It’s basically the next best thing to CITV. Commander does have access to Gunners thermal sight through his display though.
People look at the Panoramic sight and assume it has CITV because most tanks without CITV don’t have a panoramic sight for commander.
I believe early prototypes of AK were tested with CITV, since old articles mentioned but it, but it didn’t get them, maybe due to cost reasons. It should be the first upgrade on their list due to the massive advantage it gives to a tank, they can simply integrate it into the current panoramic sight.

Al-Khalid is supposed to have Laser warning receivers yes, the one made by ALTCOP. But I’ve never actually seen an Al-Khalid equipped with it. The only time I’ve seen LWRs on AK is when it had Shtora equipped or when it’s been in service with other countries like BD (VT-1A). It could be that they are removed during peacetime to preserve them as they might not have a way to cover the system otherwise, like the VT-4 does, but it’s strange that there’s not a single picture of Al-Khalid with it, at least not to my knowledge.

Duplet is much better than FY-4. FY-4 gives similar protection to later models of Kontakt-5 ERA, but is better in other metrics than K-5. However it’s not as good as Ukrainian Duplet or Russian Relikt and Malachit.
Duplet and Malachit are basically the best ERA anywhere in service currently, they’re a generation ahead of FY4. AK series uses AORAK, which seems to fit somewhere between Kontakt-5 and FY-4

I thought the AK/AK1 had CITV.

That's how it has the hunter killer capability. Is it that false info then?

They do not, it is not a condition for Hunter-Killer capability. The Commanders Panoramic sight is. Hunter-killer is basically the commander searching and marking targets independently while the gunner engages them. This is only possible if the commanders sight is independent, I.e does not move with the tanks turret, something that is present in AK. So AK is fully hunter-killer capable.

CITV is important because it’s a massive boost to the commanders capabilities, he is the one finding targets, and a thermal sight makes it much much easier for him to spot targets than normal night vision. Without a thermal sight, the gunner can see the targets better than the commander, which at night time would mean the tanks Hunter-killer capabilities are somewhat limited.
Also In AK the commander can take over the turret or use the gunners thermals from his own screen or both, So he has access to thermals, they’re just not his own. His own sight is fully independent but lacks thermal.

 

[Bilal.]

VT-4 has CITV.

AK has a panoramic sight for commander with Night vision but not thermal sight. It’s basically the next best thing to CITV. Commander does have access to Gunners thermal sight through his display though.
People look at the Panoramic sight and assume it has CITV because most tanks without CITV don’t have a panoramic sight for commander.
I believe early prototypes of AK were tested with CITV, since old articles mentioned but it, but it didn’t get them, maybe due to cost reasons. It should be the first upgrade on their list due to the massive advantage it gives to a tank, they can simply integrate it into the current panoramic sight.

Al-Khalid is supposed to have Laser warning receivers yes, the one made by ALTCOP. But I’ve never actually seen an Al-Khalid equipped with it. The only time I’ve seen LWRs on AK is when it had Shtora equipped or when it’s been in service with other countries like BD (VT-1A). It could be that they are removed during peacetime to preserve them as they might not have a way to cover the system otherwise, like the VT-4 does, but it’s strange that there’s not a single picture of Al-Khalid with it, at least not to my knowledge.

Duplet is much better than FY-4. FY-4 gives similar protection to later models of Kontakt-5 ERA, but is better in other metrics than K-5. However it’s not as good as Ukrainian Duplet or Russian Relikt and Malachit.
Duplet and Malachit are basically the best ERA anywhere in service currently, they’re a generation ahead of FY4. AK series uses AORAK, which seems to fit somewhere between Kontakt-5 and FY-4

They do not, it is not a condition for Hunter-Killer capability. The Commanders Panoramic sight is. Hunter-killer is basically the commander searching and marking targets independently while the gunner engages them. This is only possible if the commanders sight is independent, I.e does not move with the tanks turret, something that is present in AK. So AK is fully hunter-killer capable.

CITV is important because it’s a massive boost to the commanders capabilities, he is the one finding targets, and a thermal sight makes it much much easier for him to spot targets than normal night vision. Without a thermal sight, the gunner can see the targets better than the commander, which at night time would mean the tanks Hunter-killer capabilities are somewhat limited.
Also In AK the commander can take over the turret or use the gunners thermals from his own screen or both, So he has access to thermals, they’re just not his own. His own sight is fully independent but lacks thermal.

There is at least one pic:

Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool

Better to use ERA like Ukrainian Duplex. Pakistan has reportedly built ERA based on NOZH reactive armour. Nozh is effective against tandem warhead missiles and kinect rounds. Nozh is Ukrainian of origin, hence could get more advanced duplex. AK already uses indigenous Aorak MK.2 which is...

defence.pk

Courtesy @HRK

 

[Tornado23]

VT-4 has CITV.

AK has a panoramic sight for commander with Night vision but not thermal sight. It’s basically the next best thing to CITV. Commander does have access to Gunners thermal sight through his display though.
People look at the Panoramic sight and assume it has CITV because most tanks without CITV don’t have a panoramic sight for commander.
I believe early prototypes of AK were tested with CITV, since old articles mentioned but it, but it didn’t get them, maybe due to cost reasons. It should be the first upgrade on their list due to the massive advantage it gives to a tank, they can simply integrate it into the current panoramic sight.

Al-Khalid is supposed to have Laser warning receivers yes, the one made by ALTCOP. But I’ve never actually seen an Al-Khalid equipped with it. The only time I’ve seen LWRs on AK is when it had Shtora equipped or when it’s been in service with other countries like BD (VT-1A). It could be that they are removed during peacetime to preserve them as they might not have a way to cover the system otherwise, like the VT-4 does, but it’s strange that there’s not a single picture of Al-Khalid with it, at least not to my knowledge.

Duplet is much better than FY-4. FY-4 gives similar protection to later models of Kontakt-5 ERA, but is better in other metrics than K-5. However it’s not as good as Ukrainian Duplet or Russian Relikt and Malachit.
Duplet and Malachit are basically the best ERA anywhere in service currently, they’re a generation ahead of FY4. AK series uses AORAK, which seems to fit somewhere between Kontakt-5 and FY-4

They do not, it is not a condition for Hunter-Killer capability. The Commanders Panoramic sight is. Hunter-killer is basically the commander searching and marking targets independently while the gunner engages them. This is only possible if the commanders sight is independent, I.e does not move with the tanks turret, something that is present in AK. So AK is fully hunter-killer capable.

CITV is important because it’s a massive boost to the commanders capabilities, he is the one finding targets, and a thermal sight makes it much much easier for him to spot targets than normal night vision. Without a thermal sight, the gunner can see the targets better than the commander, which at night time would mean the tanks Hunter-killer capabilities are somewhat limited.
Also In AK the commander can take over the turret or use the gunners thermals from his own screen or both, So he has access to thermals, they’re just not his own. His own sight is fully independent but lacks thermal.

Ah ok thanks dude O7

 

[iLION12345_1]

There is at least one pic:

Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool

Better to use ERA like Ukrainian Duplex. Pakistan has reportedly built ERA based on NOZH reactive armour. Nozh is effective against tandem warhead missiles and kinect rounds. Nozh is Ukrainian of origin, hence could get more advanced duplex. AK already uses indigenous Aorak MK.2 which is...

defence.pk

Courtesy @HRK

I was the one who asked for those pictures in the first place, but those are not LWRs, if they are then they’re very strange ones. Firstly they’re blocked from the front when the commanders hatch is open. They’re not on all sides of the tank, rather at the rear corner, the least likely place the tank will get lased from, they’re also not big enough to be LWR sensors. And the convoy light hanging off it is a big no, that would really mess up with the receivers capabilities. Look at the LWRs on AK when it has Shtora equipped, or the ones on VT-4, that’s how big they are, and they need to be on all sides and unobstructed.

That round object could be an LWR, this is a Bangladeshi VT-1A. It’s positioning is still a little strange but it looks a lot more like a possible laser sensor. There are no pictures of AK with such a sensor.
Those two diamond shaped sensors, front and center. Those are LWRs.

 

[iLION12345_1]

I’m still confused to what that sensor at the back really is though. Its present on both Al-Khalid and Al-Zarrar and I’ve seen it in different lengths, sometimes it’s really tall and sometimes really short. Sometimes it seems to have multiple smaller sensors on it, sometimes one large one. I’ve not been able to figure it out. Maybe @Dazzler can help.

but here, check out the difference. It’s appeared as both tall and short on Al-Khalid, Al-Khalid-1, Al-Zarrar and the T80UD. When it’s tall then it’s possible it could be an LWR as it’s not blocked, but I don’t see the sensors on it.

In this particular picture, there do seem to be tiny sensors on the mast, but they don’t seem to be LWR sensors.

And lastly, to stay on topic, one of the VT-4s advanced LWRs along with one of its cameras for 360 degree viewing.

 

[Bilal.]

I’m still confused to what that sensor at the back really is though. Its present on both Al-Khalid and Al-Zarrar and I’ve seen it in different lengths, sometimes it’s really tall and sometimes really short. Sometimes it seems to have multiple smaller sensors on it, sometimes one large one. I’ve not been able to figure it out. Maybe @Dazzler can help.

but here, check out the difference. It’s appeared as both tall and short on Al-Khalid, Al-Khalid-1, Al-Zarrar and the T80UD. When it’s tall then it’s possible it could be an LWR as it’s not blocked, but I don’t see the sensors on it.View attachment 759950View attachment 759951View attachment 759952View attachment 759953View attachment 759954View attachment 759955
In this particular picture, there do seem to be tiny sensors on the mast, but they don’t seem to be LWR sensors.
View attachment 759956
View attachment 759957
And lastly, to stay on topic, one of the VT-4s advanced LWRs along with one of its cameras for 360 degree viewing.

Also what is this?

 

[iLION12345_1]

Also what is this?

View attachment 759958

Meteorological sensor, to feed weather information into the FCS of the tank for accurate shooting.

 

[Reichmarshal]

VT-4 has CITV.

AK has a panoramic sight for commander with Night vision but not thermal sight. It’s basically the next best thing to CITV. Commander does have access to Gunners thermal sight through his display though.
People look at the Panoramic sight and assume it has CITV because most tanks without CITV don’t have a panoramic sight for commander.
I believe early prototypes of AK were tested with CITV, since old articles mentioned but it, but it didn’t get them, maybe due to cost reasons. It should be the first upgrade on their list due to the massive advantage it gives to a tank, they can simply integrate it into the current panoramic sight.

Al-Khalid is supposed to have Laser warning receivers yes, the one made by ALTCOP. But I’ve never actually seen an Al-Khalid equipped with it. The only time I’ve seen LWRs on AK is when it had Shtora equipped or when it’s been in service with other countries like BD (VT-1A). It could be that they are removed during peacetime to preserve them as they might not have a way to cover the system otherwise, like the VT-4 does, but it’s strange that there’s not a single picture of Al-Khalid with it, at least not to my knowledge.

Duplet is much better than FY-4. FY-4 gives similar protection to later models of Kontakt-5 ERA, but is better in other metrics than K-5. However it’s not as good as Ukrainian Duplet or Russian Relikt and Malachit.
Duplet and Malachit are basically the best ERA anywhere in service currently, they’re a generation ahead of FY4. AK series uses AORAK, which seems to fit somewhere between Kontakt-5 and FY-4

They do not, it is not a condition for Hunter-Killer capability. The Commanders Panoramic sight is. Hunter-killer is basically the commander searching and marking targets independently while the gunner engages them. This is only possible if the commanders sight is independent, I.e does not move with the tanks turret, something that is present in AK. So AK is fully hunter-killer capable.

CITV is important because it’s a massive boost to the commanders capabilities, he is the one finding targets, and a thermal sight makes it much much easier for him to spot targets than normal night vision. Without a thermal sight, the gunner can see the targets better than the commander, which at night time would mean the tanks Hunter-killer capabilities are somewhat limited.
Also In AK the commander can take over the turret or use the gunners thermals from his own screen or both, So he has access to thermals, they’re just not his own. His own sight is fully independent but lacks thermal.

Ak has a thermal sight even alzarrar has a thermal sight.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Ak has a thermal sight even alzarrar has a thermal sight.

I am aware, but they are both for gunner. There are currently no tanks serving in the PA (apart from Type 69/59) without at least a second generation thermal sight (same can’t be said for our neighbor who until recently didn’t even have them on all of its T90S…).
In All these tanks, the Gunners thermals can be accessed by the commander as well through his display, but he cannot use them independently for target spotting.
In Al-Khalid the advantage is that the commander at least has his own independent panoramic sight with night vision, and a good one at that, But it doesn’t have thermals like on the VT-4.

We were discussing commanders independent thermals, which only Vt-4 has so far. But AK-2 will likely get.