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

[serenity]

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

Russia's older tanks are not good for comparing with best ones anymore of course. But they are first to introduce new philosophy of tank design with Armata. So why forget? This is interesting. USA and Germany actually their tank philosophy with Leopard 2a1 to a4 is too bad and M1 as well. Same with Challenger. European best tank is 2A7 and Leclerc with smarter way of protecting tank. M1 and Challenger actually today is hopeless. Of course all the NATO tanks still have very excellent firepower. Definitely I suspect we are behind here along with Russians. Japan and Korea both go with 55 length barel guns from Germany and manufacture themselves. M1 may upgrade to take those in future but American shells are still the most dangerous.

USA and Germany start generation four design with Leopard and Abram and improved by English armor technology then keep upgrading everything but the basis is now outdated. Of course this doesn't mean I am saying they are bad tanks in fact still compete with best in the world.

 

[SD 10]

Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...

Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...

ok.

 

[kongn]

It's better than the T-90M proryv 3.
With all things being equal parts wise the VT-4 still outweighs the T-90MS, where do you think that extra weight comes, it's armour.
The VT-4 does have an active protection system with a demonstration video on this very thread!
The VT-4's mobility is far superior with a more powerful engine, and if it comes with the 1500HP engine then this already wide gap will be even wider.
Fire power is about the same yes.
Battle field management systems aren slightly better on the VT-4.

T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.

 

[IblinI]

Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...

Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...

Then why are you paying a visit here?

 

[LKJ86]

Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...

Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...

I thought you were talking about India...

 

[Tumba]

T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.

Arjun MK1 has time and over again shown its superiority over T-90 Bhishma...
T-90 MS will never be more superior to Arjun MK1A or Mk2

 

[maverick1977]

T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.

how did u reach a conclusion on chinese engine and fallback to 900HP engine ?? any anecdotal evidence or just a figurative speech..

lets be objective here

 

[kongn]

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.

Al khalid has better firepower than bhisma its true despite basically same gun and autoloader.But bhisma has much better armour than khalid which has incorrect turret shaping and horrible ERA coverage.Al khalid still has all the flaws of T-series such as limited carousel autoloader and ammo problem.T-90 bhisma is also cheap and thus allows us to induct thousands of them.Its missile firing ability is particularly important to take out targets at range.Given the hype,al khalid has done only slightly better than project arjun with its poor production numbers and high cost.

 

[serenity]

T-90MS has better turret geometry,better ERA with relikt,better distribution of ERA,and ammo is also sealed in armoured compartment .Laser warning recievers as well as optional active/passive defences.
Firepower is also better on Proryv-3 with its new gun able to fire the svinets round.Fire control and hunter killer aspects are same.Both have 3rd gen thermal viewer.Both are digitally connected with satellite navigation available.
Mobility largely equal.1300 HP engine.T-90 lighter.You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.

What? T90MS only has 1130hp engine. VT-4 will most likely have 1200hp to 1300hp not 1500hp yes this is right. But trust me the engine is fine and actually quite reliable. The real problem before more than 10 years ago was the transmission quality and now mostly fixed. Not sure if transmission is perfect for 1500hp engines and up but for 1300hp and 52 tonne VT-4 is no problem hahaha. power per tonne is actually slightly better on VT-4 when comparing theoretical performance specification.

Both tanks have similar equipment level but I think MS does have better armor arangement pattern and cover but 100% sure FY4 is much better than any Russian reaction armor today. Doesn't matter of course you will think it's not. From front, you will never penetrate VT-4. Please try with everything you have it will be so funny when sometime in future these tanks fight. I really hope they do.

Everything else you mention with MS is same on VT-4 including laser warning, automatic tracing, satellite, sealed compartment for shells.

 

[IblinI]

You speak of 1500 HP but you will be lucky to have 1300 hp chinese engine working reliably,if it fails you may have to go back to 900 hp engine.

It sounds like the Defense procurement is like grabbing a cabbage from the supermarket.

 

[kongn]

how did u reach a conclusion on chinese engine and fallback to 900HP engine ?? any anecdotal evidence or just a figurative speech..

lets be objective here

Chinese engine has failed in tests before and in other trials.Lets see how it works in the field with PA,especially in the desert.Chinese are new to engine making and are not known for their quality.Fingers crossed.

 

[maverick1977]

Al Khalid 1/2 are just name given to Chinese Tanks with some cosmetic or western engine/instrument add ons...

Pakistan doesnt have industry to support R&D to develop indigenous solutions in civilian or military sectors... this is well known to the world, dependent on china .. pakistan is deeply sub survient to chinese wishes...

lol, go to HIT industries, they have been working since 1960s..

i love indians claimants just out of thin air come up with assertions about pakistan.
a phenomenon of pakiatanis tum choti nation ho, kahan hamaray equal in what we do “
havent u learned the surprises yet?? rearing your heard out of covers to talk big ??

 

[serenity]

Al khalid has better firepower than bhisma its true despite basically same gun and autoloader.But bhisma has much better armour than khalid which has incorrect turret shaping and horrible ERA coverage.Al khalid still has all the flaws of T-series such as limited carousel autoloader and ammo problem.T-90 bhisma is also cheap and thus allows us to induct thousands of them.Its missile firing ability is particularly important to take out targets at range.Given the hype,al khalid has done only slightly better than project arjun with its poor production numbers and high cost.

AK1 is actually quite poorly designed for protection and carry over weakness of autoloader design too. Missile firing ability can be used for many other fighting vehicles too so Bhisma is not just for this. It's actually still highly dangerous tank in this region because it is not most advanced level. It is for numbers and can fight all the 1970s to 2000s tanks which still is majority in this region. So unless comparing with top tanks modern ones and versions it is still very good.

 

[kongn]

What? T90MS only has 1130hp engine. VT-4 will most likely have 1200hp to 1300hp not 1500hp yes this is right. But trust me the engine is fine and actually quite reliable. The real problem before more than 10 years ago was the transmission quality and now mostly fixed. Not sure if transmission is perfect for 1500hp engines and up but for 1300hp and 52 tonne VT-4 is no problem hahaha. power per tonne is actually slightly better on VT-4 when comparing theoretical performance specification.

Both tanks have similar equipment level but I think MS does have better armor arangement pattern and cover but 100% sure FY4 is much better than any Russian reaction armor today. Doesn't matter of course you will think it's not. From front, you will never penetrate VT-4. Please try with everything you have it will be so funny when sometime in future these tanks fight. I really hope they do.

Everything else you mention with MS is same on VT-4 including laser warning, automatic tracing, satellite, sealed compartment for shells.

I meant VT-4 has 1300 HP engine.But MS is lighter.Lets see how 1300 HP engine performs.Can't pass judgement now.The desert is a tough environment.FY4 better than relikt is a tall claim thats all i will say.
I hope they don't fight.But i'm interested in IA's response.

 

[serenity]

Chinese engine has failed in tests before and in other trials.Lets see how it works in the field with PA,especially in the desert.Chinese are new to engine making and are not known for their quality.Fingers crossed.

This stopped being accurate around 2008. It's already 12 years after. Even in 2008 the problems in Chinese own performance torture tests was mostly in transmission. The reports showed some engine troubles but you forgot important context where in these heat trial torture tests also American, European, Russian tanks always experienced some percentage of engine trouble. That is like saying rest of you can fail 20% of time in torture test but China must achieve 0% failure. In fact engine troubles didn't exist. Transmission however was different and had many issues. But this is 2008 reports and around that time. Then years later they keep saying they have improved transmission by wide margins.