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

[LKJ86]

Yes it’s noted for that.

In the past, the only weakness of VT-4 was just its armor protection.
And that is why we are interested in FY-4 and GL-5 now.

VT-4 is a digital tank.

 

[Beast]

Either spreading propaganda or you are not aware of the improvements in the proryv-3.It fixes almost all of the problems of the T-series.I would love to see that tank in IA.

You are the one spreading misinfo and doing the self bragging. Russian technology is inferior to Chinese currently. Their tank stabiliser is one of the worst in the market. Even the thermal imaging system need to source from China as France had block sales to Russia.

 

[serenity]

Sorry LKJ I forgot to comment on gun stabilizer. VT-4's is similar mechanism to 99 and has excellent one. Not sure about anything to do with MS. I looked at MS again and it is heavier than I thought with 48 tonnes. 1130 hp engine in MS. The horsepower per tonne is about the same here and depends on transmission and gearing. Otherwise imagining sensors I thought MS uses french Thales. VT-4 is pretty good in every department except for side armor. Like 96B, VT-4 side armor still too weak even with FY4 plates. GL5 maybe defend against rockets and missile but cannot save VT-4 from penetration rods.

 

[LKJ86]

Sorry LKJ I forgot to comment on gun stabilizer. VT-4's is similar mechanism to 99 and has excellent one. Not sure about anything to do with MS. I looked at MS again and it is heavier than I thought with 48 tonnes. 1130 hp engine in MS. The horsepower per tonne is about the same here and depends on transmission and gearing. Otherwise imagining sensors I thought MS uses french Thales. VT-4 is pretty good in every department except for side armor. Like 96B, VT-4 side armor still too weak even with FY4 plates. GL5 maybe defend against rockets and missile but cannot save VT-4 from penetration rods.

In the past, the only weakness of VT-4 was just its armor protection.
And that is why we are interested in FY-4 and GL-5 now.

VT-4 is a digital tank.

 

[serenity]

In the past, the only weakness of VT-4 was just its armor protection.
And that is why we are interested in FY-4 and GL-5 now.

VT-4 is a digital tank.

In the past, the only weakness of VT-4 was just its armor protection.
And that is why we are interested in FY-4 and GL-5 now.

VT-4 is a digital tank.

From some reading material it seems to me convinced the VT-4 and 99 front armor is impossible to penetrate today until new rods are invented. The wedge frame holding first layer of FY armor can defeat most energy. They can add another layer below wedge modular frame and after this second layer is laminar ceramic plating and welded frame of main top. Equal to ridiculous amount of steel armor like 2m or more. Unfortunately all this is used in front and required to protect against best NATO shells which means side gets nothing because to equip side with enough armor to stop best shells means tank will be 80tonnes + and impossible with this size and engines. But 90% of hit is in front and PLA uses thousands from every direction. In Pakistan and India the tank against tank war will be similar and also mostly front against front. VT-4 armor now has no problem at all. Russian guns and shells very unlikely to damage it from front and Arjun using rifle gun is strange choice because they want to use English style HESH? Better accuracy but less energy.

The new FY series developed for VT-5 or tank 15 is much better and infantry vehicle. I think they can pack the frontal wedge with plate ceramics if necessary but engine needs 1500hp and up. The modular design was smart choice and everyone now prefer it over older armor style like M1 and Challenger series. Leclerc, Leopard, Arjun, T series and Chinese types all go with total modular design. Can repair damage much cheaper and easier too. Oplot is not competitive anymore unfortunately due to situations in Ukraine recently but basis is still very fine tank and very good systems and excellent front armor. Also think it's impossible to penetrate. In fact the older M1 and Challengers are much easier to kill from front than any of these guys because more than one shot already completely ruin the ceramic plating. Like kevlar can defend only one or two bullets and useless after. Then expensive and very difficult to replace whole plating and front section. This is why Chinese design prefers the two layer method and hopefully rarely need to replace the final layer of ceramic plates. Anyway NATO doesn't rely on tanks nowadays. Also not important like aircraft development to update pretty good tanks. Japanese tank 10 and Korean K2 are similar modular and use very advanced material their steel is so expensive although.

 

[LKJ86]

From some reading material it seems to me convinced the VT-4 and 99 front armor is impossible to penetrate today until new rods are invented. The wedge frame holding first layer of FY armor can defeat most energy. They can add another layer below wedge modular frame and after this second layer is laminar ceramic plating and welded frame of main top. Equal to ridiculous amount of steel armor like 2m or more. Unfortunately all this is used in front and required to protect against best NATO shells which means side gets nothing because to equip side with enough armor to stop best shells means tank will be 80tonnes + and impossible with this size and engines. But 90% of hit is in front and PLA uses thousands from every direction. In Pakistan and India the tank against tank war will be similar and also mostly front against front. VT-4 armor now has no problem at all. Russian guns and shells very unlikely to damage it from front and Arjun using rifle gun is strange choice because they want to use English style HESH? Better accuracy but less energy.

One thing you must know is that VT-4 is China's first high-end tank for export.

 

[serenity]

One thing you must know is that VT-4 is China's first high-end tank for export.

Yes so we offered pretty expensive equipment even PLA cannot really afford to buy in thousands. Unless we need it for fighting someone skilled with good equipment I don't think PLA will update own 96B to higher standards because really is no need. Anyone come fight land war with China will die horrible death they cannot imagine. Against India there is no way to really fight tank war in Himalaya and neither us can fly many heavy tanks over to each other. For Thailand and Pakistan we will send better tanks against Vietnam and India tanks to counter them there. If they want to prove VT-4, we happily prove its ability.

However I think T90MS is very good. Russians upgraded every department and provide very fine tank. Also has better frontal armor angle which help from 20 degrees + where VT-4 start to pay no attention. I think strategy here is very different. It's very important for Chinese tank operators to make sure front engagement only and potentially this is a serious flaw for customers or if fighting in city areas. However city fighting means missiles from difficult angles only instead of penetrator. For desert or plain it is easy to keep everything front only.

 

[Beast]

Yes so we offered pretty expensive equipment even PLA cannot really afford to buy in thousands. Unless we need it for fighting someone skilled with good equipment I don't think PLA will update own 96B to higher standards because really is no need. Anyone come fight land war with China will die horrible death they cannot imagine. Against India there is no way to really fight tank war in Himalaya and neither us can fly many heavy tanks over to each other. For Thailand and Pakistan we will send better tanks against Vietnam and India tanks to counter them there. If they want to prove VT-4, we happily prove its ability.

However I think T90MS is very good. Russians upgraded every department and provide very fine tank. Also has better frontal armor angle which help from 20 degrees + where VT-4 start to pay no attention. I think strategy here is very different. It's very important for Chinese tank operators to make sure front engagement only and potentially this is a serious flaw for customers or if fighting in city areas. However city fighting means missiles from difficult angles only instead of penetrator. For desert or plain it is easy to keep everything front only.

any MBT will not work well in highly dense urban warfare.

 

[Dazzler]

Either spreading propaganda or you are not aware of the improvements in the proryv-3.It fixes almost all of the problems of the T-series.I would love to see that tank in IA.

You answered your own question. All t-90s prior to MS had fundamental flaws. They had good armor, but bad electronics, FCS was basic, little if any situation awareness, non existent ECS, not even a sufficiently powerful APU. No hunter killer mode, no auto tracking, no panoramic sight and worst, lack of independent sights and sensors for commander and gunner.

1A45 FCS of your 90S and M version is just a basic FCS. It is at least a generaton behind Alkhalid's ISFCS-212B multi mode FCS.

 

[LKJ86]

Unless we need it for fighting someone skilled with good equipment I don't think PLA will update own 96B to higher standards because really is no need.

In the future, there would be only ZTZ-99A and ZTQ-15 in PLA Army.

However I think T90MS is very good. Russians upgraded every department and provide very fine tank. Also has better frontal armor angle which help from 20 degrees + where VT-4 start to pay no attention. I think strategy here is very different. It's very important for Chinese tank operators to make sure front engagement only and potentially this is a serious flaw for customers or if fighting in city areas. However city fighting means missiles from difficult angles only instead of penetrator. For desert or plain it is easy to keep everything front only.

China's tank industry doesn't take Russia's tanks seriously.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

You answered your own question. All t-90s prior to MS had fundamental flaws. They had good armor, but bad electronics, FCS was basic, little if any situation awareness, non existent ECS, not even a sufficiently powerful APU. No hunter killer mode, no auto tracking, no panoramic sight and worst, lack of independent sights and sensors for commander and gunner.

1A45 FCS of your 90S and M version is just a basic FCS. It is at least a generaton behind Alkhalid's ISFCS-212B multi mode FCS.

Does VT-4 lacks side armour?

 

[Dazzler]

Does VT-4 lacks side armour?

On the contrary, side armor is thickened.

 

[serenity]

In the future, there would be only ZTZ-99A and ZTQ-15 in PLA Army.

China's tank industry doesn't take Russia's tanks seriously.

We will still have 96B until fifth generation or Chinese fourth generation come out. Because we learned from the Russian philosophy then realized western tank philosophy has advantage in protection and is important. Also 99A still come from Russian philosophy even if every part is more modern and has more modern equipment. Russian still want T34 victory strategy and have thousands of tanks go into battle. We still use their idea of choosing automatic loader and smaller lighter tank to travel in different surface and run faster and more distance. They now plan to go into Armata which is new philosophy and can be called the fifth generation. Chinese will probably also follow because unmanned is smart idea and their design is actually very good. Can equip easily with high caliber gun and have excellent space for balance machinery.

On the contrary, side armor is thickened.

VT-4 has better side armor compared to 96B but still very weak. Cannot stand any hits from tanks or missiles. For penetrator round, definitely no any benefit to make it thicker because it is going to go through anyway. So Chinese tank philosophy for side armor is just enough to stop heavy rifle and some smaller caliber fighting vehicle guns. For penetrator round unless you want to have 80 tonne tank forget about side protection, and for missiles you use something like GL5 or Russian and Israeli defense systems. Korean K2 also has one.

 

[LKJ86]

We will still have 96B until fifth generation or Chinese fourth generation come out. Because we learned from the Russian philosophy then realized western tank philosophy has advantage in protection and is important. Also 99A still come from Russian philosophy even if every part is more modern and has more modern equipment. Russian still want T34 and have thousands of tanks go into battle.



VT-4 has better side armor compared to 96B but still very weak. Cannot stand any hits from tanks or missiles. For penetrator round, definitely no any benefit to make it thicker because it is going to go through anyway. So Chinese tank philosophy for side armor is just enough to stop heavy rifle and some smaller caliber fighting vehicle guns. For penetrator round unless you want to have 80 tonne tank forget about side protection, and for missiles you use something like GL5 or Russian and Israeli defense systems. Korean K2 also has one.

Just forget Russia's tanks, and pay more attention to those of USA and Germany.

 

[Inception-06]

Mate, seriously, if you don't know. Don't throw arrows in the air. MS is what Al-khalid was 15 years ago. Do some reading before commenting.

Is true that Alkhalid is more expensive then VT-4 and Ukraine can't deliver the engine?