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

[Dazzler]

From the video (13:24 - 18:40):
View attachment 490509 View attachment 490510 View attachment 490511 View attachment 490512 View attachment 490513 View attachment 490514 View attachment 490515 View attachment 490516

Yeah i saw the video but you guys are taking it the other way. The same video also shows the interior of a tank that is neither MBT 2000 not Al khalid. I keep hearing that Norinco somehow came with two similar mbt designs, with both featuring virtually identical turret, hull, glacis, roadwheels, and even sensors over the turret roof??? Do you seriously believe that??


This is the VT4

And thats MBT 2000?

Then we see the interior which does not match the current MBT 2000, Al khalid, or even VT-1A.

BUT, it looks a lot like the VT4's interior..

Sorry folks, the evidence suggests that the so called VT-4 is nothing but a further, evolutionary improvement of MBT 2000. The engine was the only significant change in the VT-4.

 

[blueazure]

Yes VT-4. EME should be able to do something about the engine if the deal is not struck without the engine.

@blueazure wake the hell up !!!!!!!! what is EME doing? There is a rail engine manufacturing factory in risalpur, any collaboration of EME with that?


Dazzler ,secondly, whats the engine option for AK-II.

cheaper and ready available engines in the mkt are there. why make from scratch . paisey bhi nahi hain bhai for RD

 

[serenity]

Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..

View attachment 490378 View attachment 490379 View attachment 490380

While you may be about engine failure, you assumed it is during field trials with the ambiguous suggestion of current field trials in Pakistan. This isn't the case. The photos you have posted are CCTV footage of a test of the ARV. You are taking some screenshots of video footage from years old Chinese tv program and using it to suggest VT-4 engine problem in Pakistan trials. Now CCTV does not show engine failure in a program. No country's TV program supported by its own government blatantly shows a tank engine failure even if they do occur (and of course they do, every single tank fails there are plenty of examples). So while VT-4 may not be a good tank or suitable for Pakistan, please be honest about stuff you post. You can get a Chinese person to translate the text on the screen next time.

Yeah i saw the video but you guys are taking it the other way. The same video also shows the interior of a tank that is neither MBT 2000 not Al khalid. I keep hearing that Norinco somehow came with two similar mbt designs, with both featuring virtually identical turret, hull, glacis, roadwheels, and even sensors over the turret roof??? Do you seriously believe that??


This is the VT4

And thats MBT 2000?

View attachment 490532

View attachment 490533

View attachment 490533

Then we see the interior which does not match the current MBT 2000, Al khalid, or even VT-1A.

View attachment 490534


BUT, it looks a lot like the VT4's interior..

Sorry folks, the evidence suggests that the so called VT-4 is nothing but a further, evolutionary improvement of MBT 2000. The engine was the only significant change in the VT-4.

Mostly true. VT-4 is certainly based off Type 96 but better than 96B because of updated interior, turret design, sights and optics (the PLA's type 96 at least the A versions are nowhere near as updated as least just from observation). VT-4 does have 1300 HP engine IIRC and can be modified for GL-5 APS (a watered down APS for export) and VT-4 does come with remote weapon system and far better commander optics. These are all substantial improvements to MBT-2000 which is basically a Type 96A.

@Dazzler I'm interested to know if you can disclose any information about VT-4 performance in Pakistan, in particular what was disappointing apart from VT-4 having very similar performance parameters to MBT-2000 (the current one not the AK one from a decade ago). Norinco is just rebranding a lot of the equipment although to me it seems VT-4 is measurably better than Type 96 in almost all key areas. Let's not forget that Type 96 was never a brilliant MBT to start with, just one that is perfectly suited to PLA's war preparations and doctrine. Would be nice to know if they did any destructive tests on armour samples and can compare VT-4 with AK and Oplot... maybe a chunk of armour from each tested and main guns of respective tanks tested against RHA and various armour types. General reliability, mobility, and electronics performance can be gauged and assessed without expensive and destructive testing. Interested to know what you have access to or even what you've heard.

 

[aliaselin]

For me, AK is pretty good.


氯率都这样

这及格都湿圣火再夕仿的啥霍。

这帮人致伤刊优啊。

猫不嫩较老胡上述，幺留意首。

Vt2 is more like type 96A.


Basically Vt4 is a under sized t99a2, overall it's inferior to T99A2. But in some aspects it excels.

It's originated from the technology tree of T99 tank.

前段时间在北方工业的微信上看到北方工业的领导对霸及来访的人说：希望霸及提供公平的竞争机会。不知道是不是说这事

 

[Dazzler]

While you may be about engine failure, you assumed it is during field trials with the ambiguous suggestion of current field trials in Pakistan. This isn't the case. The photos you have posted are CCTV footage of a test of the ARV. You are taking some screenshots of video footage from years old Chinese tv program and using it to suggest VT-4 engine problem in Pakistan trials. Now CCTV does not show engine failure in a program. No country's TV program supported by its own government blatantly shows a tank engine failure even if they do occur (and of course they do, every single tank fails there are plenty of examples). So while VT-4 may not be a good tank or suitable for Pakistan, please be honest about stuff you post. You can get a Chinese person to translate the text on the screen next time.



Mostly true. VT-4 is certainly based off Type 96 but better than 96B because of updated interior, turret design, sights and optics (the PLA's type 96 at least the A versions are nowhere near as updated as least just from observation). VT-4 does have 1300 HP engine IIRC and can be modified for GL-5 APS (a watered down APS for export) and VT-4 does come with remote weapon system and far better commander optics. These are all substantial improvements to MBT-2000 which is basically a Type 96A.

@Dazzler I'm interested to know if you can disclose any information about VT-4 performance in Pakistan, in particular what was disappointing apart from VT-4 having very similar performance parameters to MBT-2000 (the current one not the AK one from a decade ago). Norinco is just rebranding a lot of the equipment although to me it seems VT-4 is measurably better than Type 96 in almost all key areas. Let's not forget that Type 96 was never a brilliant MBT to start with, just one that is perfectly suited to PLA's war preparations and doctrine. Would be nice to know if they did any destructive tests on armour samples and can compare VT-4 with AK and Oplot... maybe a chunk of armour from each tested and main guns of respective tanks tested against RHA and various armour types. General reliability, mobility, and electronics performance can be gauged and assessed without expensive and destructive testing. Interested to know what you have access to or even what you've heard.

VT-4 performed poorly during desert trials in Pakistan. There were several issues with engine, electronics reliability among others. Engine failed multiple times. Transmission needs improvements, the FCS and armour are decent so is the main gun and ammo so no issues here.

The Ukrainian oplot m suffered the similar fate but was overall considered a better option. The armour of oplot is miles ahead of VT-4. Keep in mind that these tanks are meant to replace obsolete fleet of 59s and 69s.

Also, type-96 and MBT 2000/ Al khalid/ VT-4 are different systems belonging to different class of mbts. Comparing both makes little sense.

 

[serenity]

VT-4 performed poorly during desert trials in Pakistan. There were several issues with engine, electronics reliability among others. Engine failed multiple times. Transmission needs improvements, the FCS and armour are decent so is the main gun and ammo so no issues here.

The Ukrainian oplot m suffered the similar fate but was overall considered a better option. The armour of oplot is miles ahead of VT-4. Keep in mind that these tanks are meant to replace obsolete fleet of 59s and 69s.

Also, type-96 and MBT 2000/ Al khalid/ VT-4 are different systems belonging to different class of mbts. Comparing both makes little sense.

I thought they are in the same class owing to their similar weights. Just upgraded to meet developing threats etc. But yes I understand your point as well. For the Oplot, am I to understand the engine and/or transmission also suffered in the heat? I know Chinese forums have been saying 96 and 99 series have experienced transmission woes for a very long time (although the latest is that these have been addressed, how well we'll not know) and transmission is one serious weakness in Chinese tanks at the moment, engines are pretty decent and point of failure usually lies with the transmission.

As for the armour, could you elaborate on VT-4 weaknesses? and Oplot's comparative strengths? Appreciate your responses. Both are roughly the same weight with VT-4 being slightly heavier while having very similar dimensions to Oplot. Materials and composition specifics aside, I cannot imagine why the Oplot (which is not renowned for its protection levels) can be miles ahead of VT-4 unless VT-4 is using armour from the 80s. I understand that Chinese used welded turrets and adopted western style turret design (read engineering) before the Soviets and composite armour with spacing, exotic materials, and optimised geometry is very simple easy stuff these days. Reactive armour is either directly purchased or license produced (maybe reverse engineered) from latest Russian ERA like Kontakt 5 and Relikt. Could they have watered down the armour for PA that much? Doubt it. Is it an issue of thickness (again VT-4 is heavier). You say that VT-4's armour is decent (I'm going to assume that's just acceptable and did not malfunction in tests (as expected for simple static components) but Oplot is miles ahead even though Oplot is not "well protected" compared to heavy weights. Heavy weights like M1 series, Leclerc, Leopard 2A5+ have all been knocked out in numbers by various primitive methods and weapons. Of course this is all a function of many complex factors but what I mean is, if Oplot's protection is miles ahead of VT-4 and at best overall equal to 53-70+Tonne tanks (actually pretty much so unrealistic it's impossible that a Ukrainian 80s based light tank can be equal in protection to something like a Leo2a5) just how bad is VT-4's armour hahahaha. They could have used mild steel at this point going by how you described it.

 

[帅的一匹]

VT-4 performed poorly during desert trials in Pakistan. There were several issues with engine, electronics reliability among others. Engine failed multiple times. Transmission needs improvements, the FCS and armour are decent so is the main gun and ammo so no issues here.

The Ukrainian oplot m suffered the similar fate but was overall considered a better option. The armour of oplot is miles ahead of VT-4. Keep in mind that these tanks are meant to replace obsolete fleet of 59s and 69s.

Also, type-96 and MBT 2000/ Al khalid/ VT-4 are different systems belonging to different class of mbts. Comparing both makes little sense.

No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.

I thought they are in the same class owing to their similar weights. Just upgraded to meet developing threats etc. But yes I understand your point as well. For the Oplot, am I to understand the engine and/or transmission also suffered in the heat? I know Chinese forums have been saying 96 and 99 series have experienced transmission woes for a very long time (although the latest is that these have been addressed, how well we'll not know) and transmission is one serious weakness in Chinese tanks at the moment, engines are pretty decent and point of failure usually lies with the transmission.

As for the armour, could you elaborate on VT-4 weaknesses? and Oplot's comparative strengths? Appreciate your responses. Both are roughly the same weight with VT-4 being slightly heavier while having very similar dimensions to Oplot. Materials and composition specifics aside, I cannot imagine why the Oplot (which is not renowned for its protection levels) can be miles ahead of VT-4 unless VT-4 is using armour from the 80s. I understand that Chinese used welded turrets and adopted western style turret design (read engineering) before the Soviets and composite armour with spacing, exotic materials, and optimised geometry is very simple easy stuff these days. Reactive armour is either directly purchased or license produced (maybe reverse engineered) from latest Russian ERA like Kontakt 5 and Relikt. Could they have watered down the armour for PA that much? Doubt it. Is it an issue of thickness (again VT-4 is heavier). You say that VT-4's armour is decent (I'm going to assume that's just acceptable and did not malfunction in tests (as expected for simple static components) but Oplot is miles ahead even though Oplot is not "well protected" compared to heavy weights. Heavy weights like M1 series, Leclerc, Leopard 2A5+ have all been knocked out in numbers by various primitive methods and weapons. Of course this is all a function of many complex factors but what I mean is, if Oplot's protection is miles ahead of VT-4 and at best overall equal to 53-70+Tonne tanks (actually pretty much so unrealistic it's impossible that a Ukrainian 80s based light tank can be equal in protection to something like a Leo2a5) just how bad is VT-4's armour hahahaha. They could have used mild steel at this point going by how you described it.

He keep saying Oplot's armour is mile ahead of Vt4's. I don't know why....

 

[serenity]

No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.

Internet claims are worthless. Reality exists separate to internet claims. But Dazzler may have interesting stories to share. Whether or not one believes him and what they do with the knowledge is up to them. What some people say online and what observers think from reading it, it doesn't change actual reality, whether Chinese engines are unreliable junk or pretty much as decent as bargained for considering price and engineering compromises (assuming stereotypes hold true). PRC can defend sovereignty in any scale of actual war with zero tanks. Honestly all one needs is a good enough MAD deterrence and if they wish to play the conventional edge arms race game, they are welcomed to it. Just don't go broke. Some failed nations (most on Earth unfortunately) are destined for continued poverty in this century... at the VERY least.

He says it maybe because he actually knows worthwhile stuff which i'm genuinely interested in. Without proof or evidence, of course they are just worthless online claims out of the many billions that float around. But even then, you don't need to take personal offence. For example, PLA tanks aren't a priority and have received very little attention and investment compared to efforts made by CPC in modernising airforce, navy, and space assets, which are actually effective means of conducting warfare in the 21st century. Tanks are now just little toys... so easy to wreck and increasingly useless for modern warfare. Optimising funding is more important than fielding super complex halo tanks (think Nazi Mouse) that are not effective combat weapons just like how AK-47 variants are superior combat weapons to FN2000s even though the former is cheaper, less accurate, less effective range, less sophisticated, less impressive, more inconsistent, and overall less capable. I really doubt Chinese tanks are competitive with modern MBTs but 99A is an exception and seems to have the goodies the others have, whether it is well executed is anyone's guess. The 96s and older gen tanks are just numbers for show. Of course Soviet era tanks and their modernisations are also pretty substandard (probably even worse than second rate Chinese tanks) except for T-90MS and T-14 series of armoured vehicles. e.g. Tank biathlon led to the spreading of Type 96 wheel detachment but ignores the fact that in this admittedly short showing, that was the only failure and it was due to forceful collision with other tank and bad approach to the track that bounced the 40+tonne tank repeatedly until axle sheared off. T-72 meanwhile in same 3 years of biathlons have flipped, gun bounced, turret separated from hull in a landing, track fallen off, and broken down multiple times (but not widespread although the images are circulated on some tank forums and do make fun of "russian quality" in a similarly sinister manner. Anyway I would rather a single gunship or drone for multiple MBTs. If all else are equal, the former destroys the latter group with ease and the tanks can't even touch them.

 

[serenity]

I should add this though because I was unfairly one dimensional in judgment re tanks. MBTs are obviously still useful in certain situations and are still worth developing if only to develop the talents and the industry. Modern warfare is no longer the same as WW1 or 2 where tanks were highly effective. Even cold war era conflicts saw a gradual reduction in this effectiveness which only eroded further as history showed in Chechnya, Merkavas being destroyed by various groups, Leclercs ditto, Leopards ditto, Abrams ditto. Sure we can say it was because of bad strategy, bad users, bad export quality variants (somewhat bullshit). Yes latest and greatest like T-14, K2, M1A3, Merkava 4 upgraded with APS do address many threats while still maintaining that old fashioned tank advantage, anti-tank weapons will continue to evolve and developing those are cheaper than developing and modifying tanks that specifically counter those and then there's the fielding and training costs. Tanks are still vitally important but peer vs peer fights will see huge losses of tank fleets. Not every future conflict will be like US military level strength with supports vs some original T-72s and Polish T-72Ms with second rate ammo with no supports.

 

[Dazzler]

No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.


He keep saying Oplot's armour is mile ahead of Vt4's. I don't know why....

Ukrainians know how to build tank armour near impenetrable. Add Duplet layers to the turret front and even M829A3 will struggle against it. Thats what Oplot has.

 

[帅的一匹]

Ukrainians know how to build tank armour near impenetrable. Add Duplet layers to the turret front and even M829A3 will struggle against it. Thats what Oplot has.

That's little bit exaggeration.

 

[帅的一匹]

t84 ranks last in the tank competition held in German.

Its auto loader get jammed and FCS shorted out

 

[Signalian]

No engine can survive the test in your desert, even Abram failed as well.
....

It was the gun that couldn't perform as required.

 

[SQ8]

I should add this though because I was unfairly one dimensional in judgment re tanks. MBTs are obviously still useful in certain situations and are still worth developing if only to develop the talents and the industry. Modern warfare is no longer the same as WW1 or 2 where tanks were highly effective. Even cold war era conflicts saw a gradual reduction in this effectiveness which only eroded further as history showed in Chechnya, Merkavas being destroyed by various groups, Leclercs ditto, Leopards ditto, Abrams ditto. Sure we can say it was because of bad strategy, bad users, bad export quality variants (somewhat bullshit). Yes latest and greatest like T-14, K2, M1A3, Merkava 4 upgraded with APS do address many threats while still maintaining that old fashioned tank advantage, anti-tank weapons will continue to evolve and developing those are cheaper than developing and modifying tanks that specifically counter those and then there's the fielding and training costs. Tanks are still vitally important but peer vs peer fights will see huge losses of tank fleets. Not every future conflict will be like US military level strength with supports vs some original T-72s and Polish T-72Ms with second rate ammo with no supports.

The issue here isnt just electronics and armor but the environment meant for the tanks to operate in. The mean temperature that the desert gets to during summertime operations is around 55 degree centigrade. The severe dust gets into the air cooling inlets and only worsens the stress on engines, electronics and components. Fluids meant for systems heat up and rubber starts to melt; these are real conditions faced in the Thar.

 

[serenity]

The issue here isnt just electronics and armor but the environment meant for the tanks to operate in. The mean temperature that the desert gets to during summertime operations is around 55 degree centigrade. The severe dust gets into the air cooling inlets and only worsens the stress on engines, electronics and components. Fluids meant for systems heat up and rubber starts to melt; these are real conditions faced in the Thar.

It was the gun that couldn't perform as required.

Desert conditions are difficult on tanks. M1's issue in gulf wars was more the dust disrupting the turbine's performance. Not so much the gun. They can wrap seals around the muzzle.

Ukrainians know how to build tank armour near impenetrable. Add Duplet layers to the turret front and even M829A3 will struggle against it. Thats what Oplot has.

This is indeed impressive for Oplot if true but I've a very hard time believing a sub 50 tonne Soviet cast armour based tank can withstand even 90s ammunition. Okay add modifications, modernisation of armour, and some of the best ERA in the world, it should be quite a well protected tank. But that sabot round is designed to penetrate 60+ tonne 21st century armour. Maybe the new ERAs are highly effective though. Maybe Norinco can purchase Duplet for export options if any buyers are unhappy with existing Chinese ERA. Maybe even get them on PLA 96s and 99s (I always assumed they just purchased or copied the latest available Russian ERA so they are at least competitive with those from Ukraine). BTW Dazzler could you supply any sources of information or if you can disclose any specifics?