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

[TheSolution]

You mean like pakistan produces Alkhalid (and JF-17) ? One shouldn't belittle the enemy. They are ahead of us in everything military production related. We are making efforts too but we really need to work a lot harder.

Facts, too many people caught up in delusion here

Exactly like their Indian counterparts but just less subtle.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Since we are going to talk about VT-4, let me bring some schooling for some members since I dont know what is wrong with PA for doing such bad PR which their citizens even has zero clue of what weapon they are buying. While some will acting as some pro giving casual passing remarks which definitely show the shallow knowledge they have .

Let me adress the first issue. Some claim VT-5 is average when comes to its light tank category. May I know which 33-36tons tank has a 1000hp full auto transmission gearbox diesel engine tank? Just a single factor alone will tell you VT-5 is not your average tank. Many countries until now still struggle to come out an automatic transmission gearbox for their diesel tank engine that included South Korea, Russia and Ukraine.

Not to mention the stabilizer of VT-5 is so good I dare Western tank dont even dare to challenge Chinese feat. These tank go thru very rough plank terrain while the high center of gravity slim shell didnt even fall during the whole process.

If somebody think VT-4 cant even match the best of what Russia build I guess some are insulting the wisdom of PA authority who make some decision. Why not build more Al Khalid tank since VT-4 is not gonna take out the Indian Russia T-90S?

VT-4 powerpack are very advance, in fact the handling experience is so good that anyone who knows how to drive an automatic car can starting driving this VT-4 in minutes. Is the same level as Leopard 2 or K2 panther. This is something which Al Khalid and T-90S still struggle semi - auto transmission.

The powerpack and trans mission gear box of VT-4 are integrated. Meaning they can be replaced quickly and revive easily while on battlefield if engine is knock out. Another thing which T-90S and Al Khalid struggle to match. Just the disassemble of both engine will take even up to half a day to complete.

VT-4 just like any western tank, they are network and can communicate with UCAV, or command control to have situation awareness. VT-4 gun control is also able to handle low flying helicopter threat with ATGM able to take out slow moving helicopter if approach.

As for VT-4 and Type99A, main different is not just on armour, protection. The laser dazzler system counter measure which is exclusive on Type99A only has never approved for export.

It’s not my fault you know literally next to nothing about the basics of tank design, tank gun design, or tank ammunition design, otherwise I’d tell you just how poor Chinese tanks are in all three regions when compared to any modern western or Russian tank, it’s literally like China made a design in the 50s (which they copied from what T55…) and then forgot to update it until they got a T72…Which they also copied and made the ZTZ-99…

You can put as much technology as you want on a tank, the basic design issues will remain.

 

[Warking]

Do Alkhalids use Jaam-e-sheerein for gun stabilizing test?

NGL we should make that video.

 

[iLION12345_1]

VT4 and Al Khalid 1 vs T90s?

I’ve made the comparison several times before on this thread and the Al-Khalid thread. Long story short, the (Indian army’s) T90S is half a generation behind the VT-4 and the AK-1.

 

[Beast]

It’s not my fault you know literally next to nothing about the basics of tank design, tank gun design, or tank ammunition design, otherwise I’d tell you just how poor Chinese tanks are in all three regions when compared to any modern western or Russian tank, it’s literally like China made a design in the 50s (which they copied from what T55…) and then forgot to update it until they got a T72…Which they also copied and made the ZTZ-99…

You can put as much technology as you want on a tank, the basic design issues will remain.

So another so called expert comment with zero backing and zero substance. Typical tactics by you to derail this thread.

 

[bananarepublic]

Do Alkhalids use Jaam-e-sheerein for gun stabilizing test?

NGL we should make that video.

Hahaha
@PanzerKiel jaam-e-sheerien sponsorship for Al-khalid

 

[Beast]

You were going good until this last one. This is such laughably poor way to compare stabilization on tanks that I almost had to make sure you didn’t post it in satire.

I know you’re comparing stabilization at the moment, but if I start bringing up the solely the issues with the M1A2C here, it’ll start looking like a joke compared to a T90MS or a T-14 too, it all depends on what you want to pick and chose to present.

I know you’re rather strongly biased towards the west, especially towards America, and sometimes that also makes your comparisons bad too, but you usually back up your opinions with actual sources and stay respectful, which often leads to you proving your opinion to be right too, but this beast dude is a literal payed Chinese bot that goes with the usual “China best so can do no wrong and makes the best of everything” argument, it’s a complete and utter waste of time to talk to him.

Another putting your words into my mouth. Never did I say Chinese is best and can never do wrong but at least I pointed out area where obvious advantage is put forward which so far I see zero substance or fact to discredit the point I put forwards. You are merely using your emotion to back your statement. I am waiting for your fantastic facts or data presented to back your point.

 

[LeGenD]

You were going good until this last one. This is such laughably poor way to compare stabilization on tanks that I almost had to make sure you didn’t post it in satire.

I know you’re comparing stabilization at the moment, but if I start bringing up the solely the issues with the M1A2C here, it’ll start looking like a joke compared to a T90MS or a T-14 too, it all depends on what you want to pick and chose to present.

I know you’re rather strongly biased towards the west, especially towards America, and sometimes that also makes your comparisons bad too, but you usually back up your opinions with actual sources and stay respectful, which often leads to you proving your opinion to be right too, but this beast dude is a literal payed Chinese bot that goes with the usual “China best so can do no wrong and makes the best of everything” argument, it’s a complete and utter waste of time to talk to him.

Thanks for your feedback but the comparison does show which MBT designs are more stable as a whole.

M1 Abrams is a well-tested and combat-proven PLATFORM, and M1A2C is the most advanced and capable variant to be approved for mass-production yet. Extensive deployments in different environments and conditions around the world since 1990 provided much-needed insight to Americans to develop and improve M1 Abrams on so many levels through the years. This is a lengthy discussion in itself.

M1A2C is the outcome of multiple M1A2 SEPv3 prototypes which underwent extensive testing in different environments and conditions before it could be finalized and approved for mass production with a new set of onboard technologies.

M1A2C tanks have been tested in the harsh climate of Alaska

Upgraded M1A2C in Alaska In 2017, the US Army ordered a serial upgrade of existing Abrams tanks according to the latest project M1A2 SEP v. 3 or M1A2C. In May last year, the first tanks in the new configuration entered service with the combat unit. At the same time, the process of checking and...

en.topwar.ru

Even Russian sources have acknowledged the obvious by now.

But YOU are trying to make it sound like as if M1A2C have so many problems that it is a failure; Facepalm moment.

I am not really interested in discussing those problems that materialized in the development phase. No MBT is picture-perfect; there will be always room for further development and improvements. Every MBT has mechanical (and digital) complexity and corresponding 'maintenance requirements' in any case.

T-90 is extrapolation of the T-72 platform which is well-tested (I give you this) but T-14 Armata is something new and much more digitalized in comparison. More importantly, T-14 is not even remotely close to approaching maturity level of the M1 Abrams as a PLATFORM on any level. How many T-14 variants have been produced and combat-tested by now? T-14 is just another Russian propaganda machine in the present.

Please stop taking games like War Thunder seriously.

Being facts-oriented makes me strongly biased towards the West? Maybe you need to wake-up and see that to what extent countries such as USA, UK, Germany, South Korea and even Japan have contributed to global advances in modern times? Or ground realities are too difficult to digest? Please spare me these kind of premature judgement calls - you do not sound sincere anymore.

 

[Beast]

Thanks for your feedback but the comparison does show which MBT designs are more stable as a whole.

M1 Abrams is a well-tested and combat-proven PLATFORM, and M1A2C is the most advanced and capable variant to be approved for mass-production yet. Extensive deployments in different environments and conditions around the world since 1990 provided much-needed insight to Americans to develop and improve M1 Abrams on so many levels through the years. This is a lengthy discussion in itself.

M1A2C is the outcome of multiple M1A2 SEPv3 prototypes which underwent extensive testing in different environments and conditions before it could be finalized and approved for mass production with a new set of onboard technologies.

M1A2C tanks have been tested in the harsh climate of Alaska

Upgraded M1A2C in Alaska In 2017, the US Army ordered a serial upgrade of existing Abrams tanks according to the latest project M1A2 SEP v. 3 or M1A2C. In May last year, the first tanks in the new configuration entered service with the combat unit. At the same time, the process of checking and...

en.topwar.ru

Even Russian sources have acknowledged the obvious by now.

But YOU are trying to make it sound like as if M1A2C have so many problems that it is a failure; Facepalm moment.

I am not really interested in discussing those problems that materialized in the development phase. No MBT is picture-perfect; there will be always room for further development and improvements. Every MBT has mechanical (and digital) complexity and corresponding 'maintenance requirements' in any case.

T-90 is extrapolation of the T-72 platform which is well-tested (I give you this) but T-14 Armata is something new and much more digitalized in comparison. More importantly, T-14 is not even remotely close to approaching maturity level of the M1 Abrams as a PLATFORM on any level. How many T-14 variants have been produced and combat-tested by now? T-14 is just another Russian propaganda machine in the present.

Please stop taking games like War Thunder seriously.

Being facts-oriented makes me strongly biased towards the West? Maybe you need to wake-up and see that to what extent countries such as USA, UK, Germany, South Korea and even Japan have contributed to global advances in modern times? Or ground realities are too difficult to digest? Please spare me these kind of premature judgement calls - you do not sound sincere anymore.

M1A2 is overweight at 72tons. Not many bridges can support it. And limited to certain terrain. Power to weight ratio not that impressive. The gas engine is criticize as power guzzler.

And bear in mind, as a manual loading tank, it's require additional internal space available for manned loader which translate to additional surface area needed to be armour. That means it's heavy weight doesn't necessarily translate to thick and better armour.

Usually you see auto loader tank are much smaller and lighter weight ( with exception of Leclerc and Type99A ) but that doesn't neccesary means they are under armour compare to manual loading tank.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Thanks for your feedback but the comparison does show which MBT designs are more stable as a whole.

M1 Abrams is a well-tested and combat-proven PLATFORM, and M1A2C is the most advanced and capable variant to be approved for mass-production yet. Extensive deployments in different environments and conditions around the world since 1990 provided much-needed insight to Americans to develop and improve M1 Abrams on so many levels through the years. This is a lengthy discussion in itself.

M1A2C is the outcome of multiple M1A2 SEPv3 prototypes which underwent extensive testing in different environments and conditions before it could be finalized and approved for mass production with a new set of onboard technologies.

M1A2C tanks have been tested in the harsh climate of Alaska

Upgraded M1A2C in Alaska In 2017, the US Army ordered a serial upgrade of existing Abrams tanks according to the latest project M1A2 SEP v. 3 or M1A2C. In May last year, the first tanks in the new configuration entered service with the combat unit. At the same time, the process of checking and...

en.topwar.ru

Even Russian sources have acknowledged the obvious by now.

But YOU are trying to make it sound like as if M1A2C have so many problems that it is a failure; Facepalm moment.

I am not really interested in discussing those problems that materialized in the development phase. No MBT is picture-perfect; there will be always room for further development and improvements. Every MBT has mechanical (and digital) complexity and corresponding 'maintenance requirements' in any case.

T-90 is extrapolation of the T-72 platform which is well-tested (I give you this) but T-14 Armata is something new and much more digitalized in comparison. More importantly, T-14 is not even remotely close to approaching maturity level of the M1 Abrams as a PLATFORM on any level. How many T-14 variants have been produced and combat-tested by now? T-14 is just another Russian propaganda machine in the present.

Please stop taking games like War Thunder seriously.

Being facts-oriented makes me strongly biased towards the West? Maybe you need to wake-up and see that to what extent countries such as USA, UK, Germany, South Korea and even Japan have contributed to global advances in modern times? Or ground realities are too difficult to digest? Please spare me these kind of premature judgement calls - you do not sound sincere anymore.

I really, really mean no offense (or maybe I do, not sure anymore) but using large buzzwords, laughable sources, personal insults and having a lack of knowledge on the problems of the systems you vehemently defend is not expertise, it’s bias. It’s honestly sad how many people do last minute research to become experts and then tell me I learned form war Thunder. (Never played that game tbh, did play WoT professionally for a while, good times). Please. Grow up already. You both are two sides of the same dirty coin.

You both have another similar problem too, finding a problem where there is absolutely none to be found. You take criticism of a certain aspect or pointing out an issue of a machine as a near personal insult where I’ve labeled the entire country utterly useless and you rush to defend and tell me how you opinion is totally perfect, and then you also say “oh but I understand that all countries and machines have this problem! See im totally fair!”. I swear to god they’ll laugh at you if you ever joined a real group of armored vehicle experts (and I’m certainly not one).

I don’t even know where you dragged in the “technological advancements of the west have revolutionized the world” BS from, what did I do? Call them backwards countries? How is that related to the conversation at hand? I merely told you that the Abrams has issues too, just like the T90MS, the T14, and so on, whichever you think is better is opinion and not fact, you are allowed to express your opinion and I conceded that you often do so with good sources, but then you go too far by literally trying to apply said opinion on others through insults.

So what happens when I start bringing up the side and upper front plate armor issues of the Abrams (i know it’s got trophy now, but what about the last two decades?) Or what if I told you the thing is still running a second Gen thermal (albeit a good one, but still a second Gen) in 2021? And what of the time when it had significant engine issues due to poor filters and bad fuel consumption (again, solved now, they improved it), what if I told you to take a minute and talk to a real Abrams tanker to find out the on-ground realities of how poor the quality of their systems are due to improper maintenance before you bring up the T-14s production issues? (See I went to the trouble of doing that because that’s how research is done, not through a 40 second YouTube video with red lines drawn over tank barrels). What if I told you that alls not as it seems on paper? See the issue with you people is that you start feeling called out whenever someone throws in some criticism. You don’t seem to realize that other nations progress too, when you’re typing your emotionally fueled responses, only the nations you’re biased towards seem to have the ability to progress and not the others.

When we talk technology, the Americans and the Chinese jump to the “oh but the Russians have production issues so the technology doesn’t matter!!” Even though they were clearly having a discussion about technology a second ago. So why do the production issues matter at that moment if it’s a technological discussion?
When you mention numbers the opposite happens (China doesn’t have the upper hand in both at the moment, and now I’ll be labeled anti-Chinese, because I’m clearly saying China is a poor, undeveloped shithole that doesn’t make some of the best technology in the world, and not that Chinese tanks aren’t on par with western ones yet.)


I’m done though, you two are equal wastes of time.

 

[iLION12345_1]

M1A2 is overweight at 72tons. Not many bridges can support it. And limited to certain terrain. Power to weight ratio not that impressive. The gas engine is criticize as power guzzler.

And bear in mind, as a manual loading tank, it's require additional internal space available for manned loader which translate to additional surface area needed to be armour. That means it's heavy weight doesn't necessarily translate to thick and better armour.

Usually you see auto loader tank are much smaller and lighter weight ( with exception of Leclerc and Type99A ) but that doesn't neccesary means they are under armour compare to manual loading tank.

Another putting your words into my mouth. Never did I say Chinese is best and can never do wrong but at least I pointed out area where obvious advantage is put forward which so far I see zero substance or fact to discredit the point I put forwards. You are merely using your emotion to back your statement. I am waiting for your fantastic facts or data presented to back your point.

Come back when you know the first thing about frontal-arc designs, long rod penetrators, cooled thermals, The importance of side armor and smaller lower front plates. Maybe then you’ll realize the issues I keep trying to highlight with the entire list of Chinese tanks (and since you’re both so sensitive, I’ll make it absolutely clear this time; this does not mean I’m insulting the entire country, it’s technological prowess, the machine it has created or your tiny egos, I’m saying it has problems that you two fail to accept because of bias, just like it has strengths that you two already highlighted, It’s called a fair discussion. Keep it to that).

 

[LeGenD]

M1A2 is overweight at 72tons. Not many bridges can support it. And limited to certain terrain. Power to weight ratio not that impressive. The gas engine is criticize as power guzzler.

And bear in mind, as a manual loading tank, it's require additional internal space available for manned loader which translate to additional surface area needed to be armour. That means it's heavy weight doesn't necessarily translate to thick and better armour.

Usually you see auto loader tank are much smaller and lighter weight ( with exception of Leclerc and Type99A ) but that doesn't neccesary means they are under armour compare to manual loading tank.

M1A2 variants have performed well in a large number of environments around the world including in Afghanistan.

I agree with your view about not many man-made bridges being strong enough to support M1A2 class moving through them due to its gross weight. This is where Logistics comes into play to make sure that M1A2 can be brought to locations where it is needed.

The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine can be dubbed 'gas guzzler' but it also multi-fuel capable. It will operate on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. Some countries can afford this type of technology in numbers; others cannot.

General Dynamics is willing to offer more efficient engine to interested customers but potential replacements are not in demand. Therefore.

Well stated, but I have to disagree with you on the armor part. M1 Abrams is designed with SAFETY in mind on many counts including separation of the compartment for munitions from the crew. The M1A2 class is also extensively armored as a whole - this is one of the factors which contributed to its extreme gross weight.

These figures are authentic (declassified information). Baseline protection level(s) of the M1 Abrams variants are documented. Please keep in mind that protection level(s) of any MBT will vary subject to the type of munition in use against them in combat situations. These figures indicate protection level(s) of different MBT against Tandem (or another) vs. HEAT charges from a respectable distance.

The latest M1A2C is even more heavily armored than ever before but much about it is classified in the present.

M1A2 class can also be equipped with ERA and the sort for added protection:

Link: https://warhead.su/2018/03/09/t90-vs-abrams-u-kogo-kruche-bronya-i-chyotche-monitory

American-operated M1A2 units feature Depleted Uranium Armor treatments as well; this feature was not approved for EXPORTS to various customers. Australia might be the only customer which was obliged in this capacity but I am not sure.

Chinese Type-99 class is granted impressive levels of armor as well. Not exactly on the level of M1A2 class due to limited space but good enough for battles in neighboring environments.

 

[iLION12345_1]

M1A2 variants have performed well in a large number of environments around the world including in Afghanistan.

I agree with your view about not many man-made bridges being strong enough to support M1A2 class moving through them due to its gross weight. This is where Logistics comes into play to make sure that M1A2 can be brought to locations where it is needed.

The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine can be dubbed 'gas guzzler' but it also multi-fuel capable. It will operate on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. Some countries can afford this type of technology in numbers; others cannot.

General Dynamics is willing to offer more efficient engine to interested customers but potential replacements are not in demand. Therefore.

Well stated, but I have to disagree with you on the armor part. M1 Abrams is designed with SAFETY in mind on many counts including separation of the compartment housing the crew from ammo-storage. The M1A2 class is also extensively armored.

These figures are authentic (declassified information). Baseline protection level(s) of the M1 Abrams variants are documented. Please keep in mind that protection level(s) of any MBT will vary subject to the type of munition in use against them in combat situations. These figures indicate protection level(s) of different MBT against Tandem vs. HEAT charges from a respectable distance (if I recall correctly).

The latest M1A2C is even more heavily armored than ever before but much about it is classified in the present. M1A2C can also be equipped with ERA and the sort for added protection.

M1A2 class can also be equipped with ERA and the sort for added protection:

Link: https://warhead.su/2018/03/09/t90-vs-abrams-u-kogo-kruche-bronya-i-chyotche-monitory

American-operated M1A2 units feature Depleted Uranium Armor treatments as well; this feature was not approved for EXPORTS to various customers. Australia might be the only customer which was obliged in this capacity but I am not sure.

Chinese Type-99 class is granted impressive levels of protection as well. Not exactly on the level of M1A2 class due to limited space but good enough for battles in neighboring environments.

The upper front plate armor of the Abrams has been a topic of discussion among tank circles for ages because it’s never been upgraded since the tanks inception despite some sources stating otherwise, it’s considered quite a large weak-spot.

The Abrams’ engine being multi fuel is not unique, most tanks engines have that capability, many with similar power outputs despite having better fuel consumption. However the engine definitely has impressive power figures.

OTOH:

Chinese tanks have a major design flaw, their armor cannot even begin to compare to that of the Abrams or a modern Russian tank; they have poor (very poor) frontal arcs. While Russian and western tanks have thick armor on 45 degrees (or greater) on either side of the front of the tank, Chinese tanks have 15 degrees (sometimes even less), this combined with the fact that China has payed almost zero emphasis to side armor means that Chinese tanks are literally like putting a bulletproof plate in front of an elephant, maybe a small part is well defended, what about everything else? It’s very poor design, especially in the VT-1 series and VT-4. The other issue with them are the massive lower front plates, even on a tank in a hull-down position, they make big targets, they only fixed this with the ZTZ-99 (that too by copy pasting a T72 in AUTOCAD). They keep throwing more armor on to the front 30 degrees of the tank, while the rest of the 70% receives nothing. Meanwhile in western and Russian tanks, the front 90 degrees are covered with the same armor.

China doesn’t make any long-rod penetrators for its tanks (because none of them have modern auto-loaders to fire them apart from the ZTZ-99A………did I mention how easily those auto-loaders are damaged which caused a catastrophic explosion because there has been zero emphasis payed to crew safety by isolating ammo?). The best Chinese ammo is comparable to 90s Western and 2000s Russian ammo.

Need I go on?

 

[arjunk]

Now let us have a look at the level of gun stabilization demonstrated by different MBTs when engaging designated targets with live munitions.

The comparison is self-explanatory. Even T-14 Armata is a joke in comparison to M1A2 class.

The Chinese tanks are moving, while the others are standing still. Not really a fair comparison.

 

[iLION12345_1]

The Chinese tanks are moving, while the others are standing still. Not really a fair comparison.

Arguably the best Chinese stabilization system (in a tank) is present in the Pakistan specific VT-4s (not sure if it’s used anywhere else, maybe ZTZ-99A). The tank initially had a different system, but PA did not like it as it didn’t perform as well as the one in the T84 Oplot. China replaced the entire system for Pakistan. How it compares to western ones I cannot say, but Russian/eastern tanks in general tend to move a lot more after firing, more (perceived) recoil effects, actual effect of it on accuracy is unknown, so the comparison is useless anyways. Just because it looks more stable doesn’t mean it actually is. A 72 Ton tank will obviously experience less recoil from a 120MM calibre gun than a 50 ton tank will from a 125MM gun, that’s where the stabilization systems come into play, how well do they counter said recoil on the actual barrel, sights and aiming systems? The body can shake all it wants. Unfortunately too many people think just because the hull is moving the stabilization is bad.