Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions
- Thread starter SBUS-CXK
- Start date
Dazzler
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
- Location
i have seen the video several times and have done forensics on it as well. There is nothing remarkable i found about this mbt.
i have seen the video several times and have done forensics on it as well. There is nothing remarkable i found about this mbt.
帅的一匹
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 12,820
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
China has third gen thermal imagers, thats how it is. its not some alien technology. we hsve been get used to be isolated, we have many ways to get those technology we are interested.
Dazzler
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
- Location
Do you understand English??
All i asked for was the data on the damn thing and you keep ranting the same BS that China has this and that and it is operational. Where is the data??
What is the search range, detection range, laser spectrum coverage, and tracking range?
帅的一匹
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 12,820
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
China has third gen thermal imagers, thats how it is. its not some alien technology. we hsve been get used to be isolated, we have many ways to get those technology we are interested.
if i.can have the data, i wont be here. do you understand?
Dazzler
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
- Location
No i dont, you said it is not some alien technology right? Then share the data as they are selling the thing in export tanks. Why such secrecy?
LKJ86
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2018
- Messages
- 24,704
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
帅的一匹
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 12,820
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
The customer is PA, not you and me. they have no practice of make information public. Cause we are not concerned.
Dazzler
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
- Location
Who said the customer is PA? You claimed it it has cooled thermal imager now prove it. Stop twisting things.
GriffinsRule
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 3,394
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
First off, Pakistan's Al-Khalid also uses an automatic transmission, SESM ESM500, same found on the French Lecric. So I don't see how that is an advantage for the VT-4 if at all, given that we don't even know what the transmission is called.
Even if given the benefit of the doubt that the VT-4 is incrementally ahead of Al-Khalid in certain aspects, my argument is that we are better off following the route the PAF is taking with the JF-17. It is not the best aircraft in PAF neither the best China is capable of producing. However, the basic design is advanced enough to go toe to toe with 4th gen fighters that are the mainstay of IAF, and it can be gradually upgraded to keep up with the enemy it will face, and as it is needed in large numbers, it is also economical to purchase and produce.
Similarly, VT-4 is not a drastically new and improved design over AK and most of the innards such as sights/optics, FCS can be introduced in newer built AK-IIs etc which are needed in large numbers to replace T-59s and T-69s. The threat perception from Indian armor must not be as great though as the time crunch is seemingly not that big a concern from the way Pakistan Army is taking its time with the procurement and the trials have taken years and had the urgency been there, the production at HIT would have been ramped-up.
The benefits of increasing the production at HIT, even if half of the parts are to be imported still is a much better alternative then an outright purchase of a marginally better tank in the hundreds. If the facilities there are indeed being upgraded with newer machinery, then it makes sense for PA to trial new equipment in the market, such as upgraded T-84s and VT-4s, as to see what systems work well and could be outsourced for the next upgrade of AK at home.
If we find our MBTs wanting in some aspects and we have to procure something bigger and better, I would prefer it to be something much more technologically advanced then what Pakistan is already producing in-house. As those numbers are going to be between 200-300 at most, a heavier and better armored tank in the 55 ton range makes most sense as anything in the 45-50 range can be produced at home already
Even if given the benefit of the doubt that the VT-4 is incrementally ahead of Al-Khalid in certain aspects, my argument is that we are better off following the route the PAF is taking with the JF-17. It is not the best aircraft in PAF neither the best China is capable of producing. However, the basic design is advanced enough to go toe to toe with 4th gen fighters that are the mainstay of IAF, and it can be gradually upgraded to keep up with the enemy it will face, and as it is needed in large numbers, it is also economical to purchase and produce.
Similarly, VT-4 is not a drastically new and improved design over AK and most of the innards such as sights/optics, FCS can be introduced in newer built AK-IIs etc which are needed in large numbers to replace T-59s and T-69s. The threat perception from Indian armor must not be as great though as the time crunch is seemingly not that big a concern from the way Pakistan Army is taking its time with the procurement and the trials have taken years and had the urgency been there, the production at HIT would have been ramped-up.
The benefits of increasing the production at HIT, even if half of the parts are to be imported still is a much better alternative then an outright purchase of a marginally better tank in the hundreds. If the facilities there are indeed being upgraded with newer machinery, then it makes sense for PA to trial new equipment in the market, such as upgraded T-84s and VT-4s, as to see what systems work well and could be outsourced for the next upgrade of AK at home.
If we find our MBTs wanting in some aspects and we have to procure something bigger and better, I would prefer it to be something much more technologically advanced then what Pakistan is already producing in-house. As those numbers are going to be between 200-300 at most, a heavier and better armored tank in the 55 ton range makes most sense as anything in the 45-50 range can be produced at home already
帅的一匹
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 12,820
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Please prove it doesn't have cooled thermal imagers. Don't talk me with a tone like that Yankees.
LKJ86
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2018
- Messages
- 24,704
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
China Is Selling a New Tank. Could It Beat the M1 Abrams in a Fight?
Or Russia's best?
by Charlie Gao
While China’s primary tank is the ZTZ-99, its military industry (in the Western tradition) has also developed completely original designs for export. One of the designs that’s achieved considerable success is the VT-4, which has been recently adopted in significant numbers by the Royal Thai Army. The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine. But how does the VT-4’s technology stack up against Russia’s T-90S, America’s M1 Abrams export models or the Leopard 2?
The VT-4’s roots are in the Al-Khalid tank developed in the 1990s. The Al-Khalid tank was largely built with mostly Chinese and Pakistani technology, but a sore spot for the Chinese designers was their lack of ability to provide a power plant for the tank. The engines for the tank had to be sourced from Germany or Ukraine. Ukraine ended up providing the production run for the Al-Khalid tank. As a result, the VT-4 program’s primary objective when it began in 2009 was to build an indigenous power plant for future domestic and export tanks. Due to the success of this engine development program, many VT-4 marketing materials tout the reliability and performance of its engine.
The Thai decision to acquire the VT-4 was a result of Ukraine’s failure to deliver T-84 Oplots on schedule. Originally, the decision was between the T-90S and the T-84 Oplot, but American diplomatic pressure resulted in the selection of the T-84 over the T-90S. However, due to various problems and the war in Ukraine, Ukraine has delivered the ordered T-84s at a slow rate. Thus, a program was initiated in 2016 to select another modern tank to take the place of the T-84. The new contenders were the Chinese VT-4 and the Russian T-90MS. Again, the post-coup Thai government’s pivot towards China and waning Russian influence in the region resulted in the selection of the VT-4 over the T-90, despite the T-90’s greater export success and the VT-4 being an unproven design. The Thai contract is the first adoption of the VT-4.
The VT-4 uses 125-millimeter Chinese BT-4 ammunition. BT-4 is the export designation for the DTW125 round, a last-generation Chinese APFSDS round with a tungsten penetrator, which is rated at seven hundred millimeters of RHA penetration at two kilometers. A new round is also in development for the export market based on technology from the current generation DTC125 round (which is rumored to penetrate 750 millimeters at the same range). While 125 millimeters is the standard caliber, the VT-4 may also be exported with a 120-millimeter gun upon a customer’s request. A 140-millimeter cannon was once considered for the VT-4 and future Chinese domestic tanks, but it is currently shelved in favor of research into better ammunition or ETC technology. The VT-4’s autoloader is also practically identical to those found in the T-72 series of tanks, with horizontal ammo stowage around the turret floor (this can be seen as the autoloader uses a hoist system in the picture, similar to the hoist system of the T-72, illustrated here). The VT-4 in Thai service is also compatible with Ukrainian ammunition, including the gun-launched ATGMs. While the original designer of the VT-4 didn’t see the need for GLATGM on the VT-4, stating that the capability given by kinetic penetrators is enough for developing countries, the feature was added to Thai VT-4s in order to make use of delivered GLATGMs that came with the T-84s. The hull armor of the VT-4 is estimated to be around five to six hundred millimeters’ RHA protection without ERA, and seven to eight hundred with the ERA package. Turret armor statistics remain restricted to potential clients. Other features on the VT-4 include laser warning receivers and a fully stabilized, independent, thermal commander sight (a feature still lacking on some modern Russian tanks).
In practice, Thai tankers have complained about the ERA on the VT-4 being thinner than that of the Oplot. The Oplot’s soft-kill active-protection system design has been proven in combat (as the Ukrainian Varta system is a close clone of the Shtora system, which has proven effective in Syria), whereas the VT4’s system has not been tested at all. However, in firing drills, the VT-4’s fire control system has proven to be more accurate than the Oplot’s.
While the capabilities of the VT-4 are not revolutionary in any way (unlike some claims from Norinco), it is a solid tank for its price, that will likely have good support from the manufacturing base in China. Survivability wise, it has the same potential issues of the T-72 and T-90 series due to the same ammo layout. While the gun performance is unlikely to be on the same level as the latest American, Chinese or Russian guns, due to being based on last-generation round technology, it should be enough to counter most armored threats that aren’t top tier. As such, the VT-4 is likely to be a popular export to nations without the budget or political connections to Russia, Europe or the United States, as a “good enough” tank. Then again, similar things were said about the Stingray light tank, for which the Royal Thai Army is also the only user.
Source:http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...nk-all-over-the-world-could-it-beat-the-24428
Or Russia's best?
by Charlie Gao
While China’s primary tank is the ZTZ-99, its military industry (in the Western tradition) has also developed completely original designs for export. One of the designs that’s achieved considerable success is the VT-4, which has been recently adopted in significant numbers by the Royal Thai Army. The VT-4 is China’s premier export tank, built on technology and designs behind the earlier Al-Khalid tank that was built with cooperation from Pakistan and Ukraine. But how does the VT-4’s technology stack up against Russia’s T-90S, America’s M1 Abrams export models or the Leopard 2?
The VT-4’s roots are in the Al-Khalid tank developed in the 1990s. The Al-Khalid tank was largely built with mostly Chinese and Pakistani technology, but a sore spot for the Chinese designers was their lack of ability to provide a power plant for the tank. The engines for the tank had to be sourced from Germany or Ukraine. Ukraine ended up providing the production run for the Al-Khalid tank. As a result, the VT-4 program’s primary objective when it began in 2009 was to build an indigenous power plant for future domestic and export tanks. Due to the success of this engine development program, many VT-4 marketing materials tout the reliability and performance of its engine.
The Thai decision to acquire the VT-4 was a result of Ukraine’s failure to deliver T-84 Oplots on schedule. Originally, the decision was between the T-90S and the T-84 Oplot, but American diplomatic pressure resulted in the selection of the T-84 over the T-90S. However, due to various problems and the war in Ukraine, Ukraine has delivered the ordered T-84s at a slow rate. Thus, a program was initiated in 2016 to select another modern tank to take the place of the T-84. The new contenders were the Chinese VT-4 and the Russian T-90MS. Again, the post-coup Thai government’s pivot towards China and waning Russian influence in the region resulted in the selection of the VT-4 over the T-90, despite the T-90’s greater export success and the VT-4 being an unproven design. The Thai contract is the first adoption of the VT-4.
The VT-4 uses 125-millimeter Chinese BT-4 ammunition. BT-4 is the export designation for the DTW125 round, a last-generation Chinese APFSDS round with a tungsten penetrator, which is rated at seven hundred millimeters of RHA penetration at two kilometers. A new round is also in development for the export market based on technology from the current generation DTC125 round (which is rumored to penetrate 750 millimeters at the same range). While 125 millimeters is the standard caliber, the VT-4 may also be exported with a 120-millimeter gun upon a customer’s request. A 140-millimeter cannon was once considered for the VT-4 and future Chinese domestic tanks, but it is currently shelved in favor of research into better ammunition or ETC technology. The VT-4’s autoloader is also practically identical to those found in the T-72 series of tanks, with horizontal ammo stowage around the turret floor (this can be seen as the autoloader uses a hoist system in the picture, similar to the hoist system of the T-72, illustrated here). The VT-4 in Thai service is also compatible with Ukrainian ammunition, including the gun-launched ATGMs. While the original designer of the VT-4 didn’t see the need for GLATGM on the VT-4, stating that the capability given by kinetic penetrators is enough for developing countries, the feature was added to Thai VT-4s in order to make use of delivered GLATGMs that came with the T-84s. The hull armor of the VT-4 is estimated to be around five to six hundred millimeters’ RHA protection without ERA, and seven to eight hundred with the ERA package. Turret armor statistics remain restricted to potential clients. Other features on the VT-4 include laser warning receivers and a fully stabilized, independent, thermal commander sight (a feature still lacking on some modern Russian tanks).
In practice, Thai tankers have complained about the ERA on the VT-4 being thinner than that of the Oplot. The Oplot’s soft-kill active-protection system design has been proven in combat (as the Ukrainian Varta system is a close clone of the Shtora system, which has proven effective in Syria), whereas the VT4’s system has not been tested at all. However, in firing drills, the VT-4’s fire control system has proven to be more accurate than the Oplot’s.
While the capabilities of the VT-4 are not revolutionary in any way (unlike some claims from Norinco), it is a solid tank for its price, that will likely have good support from the manufacturing base in China. Survivability wise, it has the same potential issues of the T-72 and T-90 series due to the same ammo layout. While the gun performance is unlikely to be on the same level as the latest American, Chinese or Russian guns, due to being based on last-generation round technology, it should be enough to counter most armored threats that aren’t top tier. As such, the VT-4 is likely to be a popular export to nations without the budget or political connections to Russia, Europe or the United States, as a “good enough” tank. Then again, similar things were said about the Stingray light tank, for which the Royal Thai Army is also the only user.
Source:http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...nk-all-over-the-world-could-it-beat-the-24428
Last edited:
Pakistan can technically field both the Oplot and VT-4.
Since VT-4 shares Al-Khalid origins, why can't Pakistan acquire VT-4 input and fast track Al-Khalid 2 production. So we can get the VT-4 in the form of a customized Al-Khalid-2.
Similarly we are upgrading our T-80UDs and seems logical to upgrade them with some technology from the Oplot where possible. Oplot according to Thai Army has better protection so we can induct new build Oplot-Ps as our new heavy tank Haider. Ukraine has production issues which was the reason Thai Army had to go for VT-4s, Pakistan can leverage to move production capabilities to Pakistan for it's own needs.
Ukranian 6TD-2 1200HP and it's 1500HP variant will be standard engines for T-80UD, Al-Khalid, Al-Khalid-2 and Haider (likely for any VT-4 or Oplot induction). So seems logical if HIT acquires license production facility.
Win-Win for all.
Since VT-4 shares Al-Khalid origins, why can't Pakistan acquire VT-4 input and fast track Al-Khalid 2 production. So we can get the VT-4 in the form of a customized Al-Khalid-2.
Similarly we are upgrading our T-80UDs and seems logical to upgrade them with some technology from the Oplot where possible. Oplot according to Thai Army has better protection so we can induct new build Oplot-Ps as our new heavy tank Haider. Ukraine has production issues which was the reason Thai Army had to go for VT-4s, Pakistan can leverage to move production capabilities to Pakistan for it's own needs.
Ukranian 6TD-2 1200HP and it's 1500HP variant will be standard engines for T-80UD, Al-Khalid, Al-Khalid-2 and Haider (likely for any VT-4 or Oplot induction). So seems logical if HIT acquires license production facility.
Win-Win for all.
LKJ86
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2018
- Messages
- 24,704
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
The introductory video of VT-4 from RTA:
https://www.bilibili.com/video/av18798139?from=search&seid=15420179380436087950
https://www.bilibili.com/video/av18798139?from=search&seid=15420179380436087950
cabatli_53
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,808
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
