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

[aliaselin]

We really don't care which one PA will induct, just buy the one Suitable for you when you need it

爬及事谭就是签烧蚀多，哎麦不埋。而且签我们签的带宽都那么多了，少放电带宽是好诗

 

[royalharris]

爬及事谭就是签烧蚀多，哎麦不埋。而且签我们签的带宽都那么多了，少放电带宽是好诗

事得, 蚁后朵铐屡以下还晚郭嘉时常
吧唧私谈美签，懂不懂要球憎松，无锡带宽勇者，还总低回种过缠拼，拍欧美郭嘉麻皮

 

[HRK]

plz use English....

 

[Leclan]

china has 1500hp engine, 99A with it. but vt4 with 1300 one.

china now are more focused on 30ton light tanks and new tanks ，which adapts more terrain, easy to deploy, or more powerful. heavy tank has its limits.

事得, 蚁后朵铐屡以下还晚郭嘉时常
吧唧私谈美签，懂不懂要球憎松，无锡带宽勇者，还总低回种过缠拼，拍欧美郭嘉麻皮

yep.and china military equips now becoming with more techs and more for china's special needs. vt4 should be more suitable foe pa than 99a. or we can say china can not provide a tank better than vt4 for pa needs for now ，considering all of the costs

 

[Danish saleem]

We are simply not able to think out of box, which is requirement for inovative solutions.. we are always trying to copy and "indigenously" built what have already been built elsewhere..
It's due to our "education", to the respect due to the ego of the old minded "elders", to our slave/master syndrome. And I forgot many others things.

And if i may push to the extrem, look at our bodies movements, they seems limited due to our mind limitation...

exactly!
we will keep producing Al khalid I, II, III, IV, V ,VI.
and JF 17 Block I, II,III,IV,V

we produced K-8 in 90, and nothing Else.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Nothing will be handed to you on silver platter.

True but Pakistan wouldn't exactly be asking for Chinese top of the line stuff(Type 99 in this case) on silver platter while Chinese gain nothing in return. For Chinese the benefit will be threefold...

1) Obviously the profit China will make by selling Pak their stuff

2) Interoperability between Pak/China equipment which will be needed more and more as the west tries to prop up India against China(along with SK, Japan, Phillipines, Vietnam and whoever else has beef with China). In the big scheme of things China would need allies it can depend on or else it will face a serious threat in the future from this group of countries.

3) Pakistan having more and more Chinese equipment and moving away from Western stuff would ensure Pakistan would stay in China's camp. In short it would wield an indirect but powerful influence over Pak.

With minimal risk of their sensitive tech being exposed to other countries, I think China should sell their top of the line stuff to Pak. In my opinion China stands to gain way more(from a geostrategic perspective) in addition to profits than Pak would. Pak would just be getting some high end defense equipment, which can also be acquired from other countries for the right price.

 

[CHACHA"G"]

My feeling is ,,,,,,,, PAK may go for both VT4 and Opt....... OPt will bring engine tech (we don't have any other option , if Ukraine wants us to buy them for engine tech) and OPt will also bring T-80UDs upgrade , just saying if we buy 200 OPts and upgrade T-80UDs that will make 500 OPts and if we are planning to keep AK and trying to build AK-II that deal(OPts) will also help there.
And VT4 will come to replace older tanks (others) and AK-II will going to replace AZ......
In short , my guess is 500+ OPts(200+ new and 300 T-80uds upgraded) , 700+ AKs (all types),, 500+ VT4(AH) total 1700+ ..............
Rest who knows.......... Time will tell...........

@Dazzler I thought Pakistan produced some good quality tanks. Last time it was the lack of funds due to which many things were not incorporated in the Al-Khalids. So my question is if we have funds to look for a foreign tank, why not inject those funds in our local industry i.e Al-Khalids and take them to what was initially envisaged?

If I don't get any -ve ratings ,,,,,, Dear brother that means , our AK(not AK-I fully but atleat 50%) is 20+ years old tank , some thing we started in 90s.............
AK-II in devp need more resources and tech , and this deal (single or both) will bring many techs which are desperately required for AK-II , and also bring new gen tank............

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

For AK II I'd like to see a tank that incorporates Ukrainian, Chinese and Turkish technology.

 

[Leclan]

chin's good no on handling east asia events for now. and china never seek a full opposite policy against US and its alies. chin still cooperate with US on almost most of the world affairs,though sometimes we does have different viewpoints. at least rational people of the two countries are clear enough to realize that.
about alies, chin has quite an experience about allies. some are good, some are not. after this we now have our own values and princple about making allies.we want a win-win coperation,not a one side vs another side. i think both china and pakistan leaders are awared of that. now if we are true allies,we should respect each others efforts and cautiously take good care of the relationship and feelings about each other. "china needs allies to what what,or it will what what" makes us feel blackmailed
.

 

[Dazzler]

I hope we don't fall into the Ukrainian trap again - affordable tanks and too expensive after sales support.
Just put the T-80UD through a major upgrade program. Currently, 1 T-80UD has been upgraded with latest ERA Duplet.

I will not point a finger at them though. Spare parts is what where every weapon seller makes real money be it Chinese, Ukrainians, Americans or Europeans. The weapon system merely the key they use to access the opportunity to make $. As long as the weapon system works as advertised, no harm done.

There are at least two benefits of buying Ukrainian mbts. Their engine/ transmission and armour are simply top notch.

Altay is now looking for a proper engine package. The first batch was supposed to install German MTU engines, but the deal cancelled after Turkey-German relationship deteriorate. They might ask for help from UK or Ukraine.

UK's Perkins series engine are not reliable. Turks should not go for them. Their 70 metric ton behemoth Challenger 2 uses a CV 12 Condor 1200HP engine that gives it a horrendously small P/W ratio of just over 19. The reason for using 1200Hp engine is too obvious, they cannot make it go further due to reliability/ quality issues.

His assessment is wrong.

M1 Abrams series MBT are renowned for their accuracy and much more advanced than the Chinese MBT he referred to. A professional should know what he is talking about.

Whatever happened in Bahawalpur - is mostly stories. Even if there was a problem, additional trials did not happen which suggest that PAK - US relations weren't up to the mark at the time.

No they are not, they are real life accounts that happened. Pakistan was keen to induct M1A1 but the performance and cost (GDLS asked for 5$ million a piece) never justified that. It was decided to go for an indigenous solution with China instead during Aslam Beg's era.

China also has very very hot desert area to test MBT, from inner Mogolia to Xinjiang.


American tanks are working in information battlefield, very strong battlefield situational awareness capability. Even Other country has M1A1 or M1A2, they can't make a full-fledge use of it cause the surrounding here is missing.

Of course it does, The Gobi region is also quite hot with temperatures soaring up to 53 degree Celsius. The problem is that every desert has its peculiar dynamics. For instance, the temperature at Thar/ Cholistan touches 60 degree or more and it has very fine sand particles. Due to these, the filter system of the engine gets stuffed with them much quicker. As a result, the engine begins to heat up fast and eventually fails. Also, electronics and FCS tend to fry in such tremendous heat.

Tanks that suffered this fate include M1A1, Type-85II early version, Type-85III (Storm 2 that competed with T-80ud), MBT 2000/ Type-90II prototype 2 (the third one passed), T-80Ud Obyekt 478B (not the improved BE variant).

Thanks for your valuable insight. Now that makes sense.

I learned from a source that a Pakistani military delegation visited US in 1987 to evaluate M1A1 Abrams MBT and its performance stunned our delegation. This is why Pakistani military expressed its interest in inducting this MBT and a unit was dispatched to Pakistan for trials in Bahawalpur* but Zia-ul-Haq (and his team) perished in an unfortunate event soon after and the ensuing political crises led to cancellation of the deal.

*Yes, it is rare for the US to provide us the real thing. Your disclosure suggest that Americans dispatched a noticeably inferior (watered-down) unit for trials in Pakistan. However, outcome of this trial has created a false impression in Pakistan that M1A1 Abrams MBT is trash and this belief is utterly misplaced and "dangerous." People are lacking in knowledge about the specifications of the unit that was tested in Pakistan and the vastly superior American designs.

Iraq learned its lesson the hard way in 1991 but it was not in the position to do anything about it. In-fact, performance of US army in this war stunned the entire world including USSR and China. Consequently, Russia embraced the notion of hybrid warfare and China initiated a major modernization drive of its armed forces.

Arabian deserts have sand that is thin and soft like talcum powder (I have seen them in person). This kind of sand easily creeps into sensitive parts of any vehicle and can ruin it. Therefore, it is not wise to drive through Arabian deserts without appropriate measures. In order to utilize M1A1 in this kind of environment, engine of every unit was outfitted with a high quality air filter to prevent "sand ingestion," and problem addressed. At present, both M1A1 and M1A2 variants are outfitted with high quality (self-cleaning) air filters for operations in desert environments across the world.

As far as the accuracy factor is concerned, one needs to examine onboard systems of an M1A1 and Type-59 MBT; difference is like between day and night.

A glimpse of Type-59 MBT from inside:

Glimpses of M1A1 Abrams from inside:

Specifications of M1A1 Abrams in 1985:-

• 120 mm main gun (M256 Smooth Bore cannon)
• Nuclear, biological, and chemical overpressure system
• Advanced Chobham armor
• Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
• Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
• Digital ballistic computer
• Laser range finder (LRF)
• Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)
• Onboard malfunction detection system
• Compartmented fuel/ammunition
• Single channel ground/air radio system (SINGCARS)

You can learn a great deal about M1A1 from this book: https://ospreypublishing.com/m1-abrams-vs-t-72-ural

Thermal imaging capability of M1A1 in 2013:

More importantly, M1 Abrams is a continuously evolving platform.

The latest prototype is known as M1A2 SEP V3. Although much of the information about this variant is classified at the moment, I learned a few tidbits and they suggest a cutting-edge machine. Structure is similar to the older M1A1 but virtually everything onboard is revolutionary. This variant might also receive a new generation of ammunition to defeat emerging threats.

Every mounted gun of M1A2 SEP V3 can be controlled from inside when not manned.

German Leopard-II MBT is also becoming cutting-edge.

Another thing is that no matter how advanced a weapon system is, adequate training is a must. Crew must learn how to take advantage of the capabilities of a weapon system.

For example, the (famous) Battle of 73 Easting took place during sandstorm conditions:

By contrast, U.S. troops fought extremely well. At 73 Easting, for example, the 2nd ACR maintained a tight, efficient combat formation throughout an extended approach march, and did so in the midst of a sandstorm, in hostile territory, over unfamiliar terrain, and without significant losses to mechanical breakdown or logistical failure en route. Its crews' gunnery was exceptional, outperforming peacetime proving ground standards for both the M1 and the Bradley. The first three kills by Eagle troop were recorded in three shots by a single M1 over an interval of less than ten seconds. As a whole, 182 of 215, or 85 percent, of the shots fired by 2nd ACR crews struck their targets at ranges of up to 2000 meters, under combat conditions.(76) Similar results were obtained by U.S. forces throughout the KTO.

Source: Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict - The RMA Debate


Yes, this is also a factor. Good point.


M1A1 Abrams MBT absolutely outgunned Russian (T-72 and T-62) and Chinese (Type-69, Type-59 and Type-55) MBT in the Persian Gulf War (1991) but this does not imply that Russian and Chinese MBT were/are bad; rather M1A1 was relatively superior in capabilities and safety measures to its contemporaries.

My point is that it is important for people to do their homework and look at the bigger picture.

Again, a very bias and naive statement. You forgot the air cover and netcentric systems that were pretty much nonexistent on the other side. Apaches and A10s were hot in the area and the Iraqis stood no chance.

I will not point a finger at them though. Spare parts is what where every weapon seller makes real money be it Chinese, Ukrainians, Americans or Europeans. The weapon system merely the key they use to access the opportunity to make $. As long as the weapon system works as advertised, no harm done.

There are at least two benefits of buying Ukrainian mbts. Their engine/ transmission and armour are simply top notch.



UK's Perkins series engine are not reliable. Turks should not go for them. Their 70 metric ton behemoth Challenger 2 uses a CV 12 Condor 1200HP engine that gives it a horrendously small P/W ratio of just over 19. The reason for using 1200Hp engine is too obvious, they cannot make it go further due to reliability/ quality issues.



No they are not, they are real life accounts that happened. Pakistan was keen to induct M1A1 but the performance and cost (GDLS asked for 5$ million a piece) never justified that. It was decided to go for an indigenous solution with China instead during Aslam Beg's era.



Of course it does, The Gobi region is also quite hot with temperatures soaring up to 53 degree Celsius. The problem is that every desert has its peculiar dynamics. For instance, the temperature at Thar/ Cholistan touches 60 degree or more and it has very fine sand particles. Due to these, the filter system of the engine gets stuffed with them much quicker. As a result, the engine begins to heat up fast and eventually fails. Also, electronics and FCS tend to fry in such tremendous heat.

Tanks that suffered this fate include M1A1, Type-85II early version, Type-85III (Storm 2 that competed with T-80ud), MBT 2000/ Type-90II prototype 2 (the third one passed), T-80Ud Obyekt 478B (not the improved BE variant).



Again, a very bias and naive statement. You forgot the air cover and netcentric systems that were pretty much nonexistent on the other side. Apaches and A10s were hot in the area and the Iraqis stood no chance.

The fact is that Russian MBTs are showing excellent resistence against American/ European ATGMs in Syria. Did you go through this by some chance?

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion....s-double-due-successful-performance-in-syria/


In short, do not believe everything you see on those History and NATGEO documentaries. Much of those are bias fabrications.

 

[LeGenD]

No they are not, they are real life accounts that happened. Pakistan was keen to induct M1A1 but the performance and cost (GDLS asked for 5$ million a piece) never justified that. It was decided to go for an indigenous solution with China instead during Aslam Beg's era.

One of the members here pointed out that that unit was not actually M1A1 but an inferior variant.

Anyways, it is possible that M1A1 Abrams was not prepared for operations in Bahawalpur type environment back then [in the 1980s]. Additionally, we didn't give US a chance to customize its product per our needs. For example, we could have requested a solution for the issue of "sand ingestion" from this company: http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.c...F112255-Military-Ground-Vehicle-Equipment.pdf

"The M1 Abrams requirement pioneered the first PJAC Air Cleaner back in 1991. On a 1,560 mile dust course at Yuma Proving Grounds, a non-pulse jet equipped M1A1 had to stop and service filters ten times. The M1A1 equipped with the PJAC never had to stop to service the filters. Now the PJAC is offered on many ground vehicles and is used by governments all over the world."

Source: http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/071714.pdf

What happened in Bahawalpur in the 1980s, is completely invalid today. If we are to judge an M1 MBT variant today, we need to concentrate on its evolution over the course of years and what it can do today. We need to stop living in the past.

As for pitting Type-59 against an M1A1 Abrams in the battlefield; Iraq did this in 1991 and results are in front of everybody. Just another reason to not take Bahawalpur-based account [very] seriously.

---

Based on revelations in this very forum, I get the impression that we are giving developers of Oplot-M and VT-4 ample chance to customize their products per our needs. Both failed in their [initial] trials in Bahawalpur, right?

---

Can you tell me why we testing Oplot-M and VT-4 when we have Al-Khalid?

Again, a very bias and naive statement. You forgot the air cover and netcentric systems that were pretty much nonexistent on the other side. Apaches and A10s were hot in the area and the Iraqis stood no chance.

You seem to look at these matters in black-and-white ways, my friend. A battlefield scenario of the scale and intensity of the Persian Gulf War (1991) is likely to establish conditions for engagements [each varying from the other] in which superiority of weaponry and training of soldiers will be subject to stresses unlike in any trials.

Battle of 73 Easting occurred in "stormy conditions," and without involvement of Apaches and A10s.

Details in following sources:-

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com...ng-and-the-road-to-the-synthetic-battlefield/
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/10-lessons-the-battle-73-easting-15332
https://www.quora.com/During-the-ma...r-not-by-the-main-gun-of-opposing-Iraqi-tanks

A notable account:-

"I say that because there was at least one well-publicized instance of an M1A1 tank from the 24th Mechanized Division taking direct fire from sub-1000m range by T-72 tanks, three of them. The first shot bounced off the frontal turret armor with the M1A1 crew destroying that tank. The second shot, from a different tank, also bounced off the frontal turret armor, and the M1A1's crew destroyed that tank. The third shot, from a third tank at about 400 m penetrated the aluminum side sponson box of the turret but not the turret armor itself. This tank then hid behind a sand berm, which the M1A1 crew shot through and destroyed the third tank."

Want to test Al-Khalid or Type-59 like that? Good luck.

Al-Khalid is a fairly decent MBT and might endure a modern-era round or two but Type-59 will be toast in a single shot.

 

[Dazzler]

One of the members here pointed out that that unit was not actually M1A1 but an inferior variant.

Anyways, it is possible that M1A1 Abrams was not prepared for operations in Bahawalpur type environment back then [in the 1980s]. Additionally, we didn't give US a chance to customize its product per our needs. For example, we could have requested a solution for the issue of "sand ingestion" from this company: http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.c...F112255-Military-Ground-Vehicle-Equipment.pdf

"The M1 Abrams requirement pioneered the first PJAC Air Cleaner back in 1991. On a 1,560 mile dust course at Yuma Proving Grounds, a non-pulse jet equipped M1A1 had to stop and service filters ten times. The M1A1 equipped with the PJAC never had to stop to service the filters. Now the PJAC is offered on many ground vehicles and is used by governments all over the world."

Source: http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/071714.pdf

What happened in Bahawalpur in the 1980s, is completely invalid today. If we are to judge an M1 MBT variant today, we need to concentrate on its evolution over the course of years and what it can do today. We need to stop living in the past.

As for pitting Type-59 against an M1A1 Abrams in the battlefield; Iraq did this in 1991 and results are in front of everybody. Just another reason to not take Bahawalpur-based account [very] seriously.

---

Based on revelations in this very forum, I get the impression that we are giving developers of Oplot-M and VT-4 ample chance to customize their products per our needs. Both failed in their [initial] trials in Bahawalpur, right?

---

Can you tell me why we testing Oplot-M and VT-4 when we have Al-Khalid?


seem to look at these matters in black-and-white ways, my friend. A battlefield scenario of the scale and intensity of the Persian Gulf War (1991) is likely to establish conditions for engagements [each varying from the other] in which superiority of weaponry and training of soldiers will be subject to stresses unlike in any trials.

Battle of 73 Easting occurred in "stormy conditions," and without involvement of Apaches and A10s.

Details in following sources:-

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com...ng-and-the-road-to-the-synthetic-battlefield/
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/10-lessons-the-battle-73-easting-15332
https://www.quora.com/During-the-ma...r-not-by-the-main-gun-of-opposing-Iraqi-tanks

A notable account:-

"I say that because there was at least one well-publicized instance of an M1A1 tank from the 24th Mechanized Division taking direct fire from sub-1000m range by T-72 tanks, three of them. The first shot bounced off the frontal turret armor with the M1A1 crew destroying that tank. The second shot, from a different tank, also bounced off the frontal turret armor, and the M1A1's crew destroyed that tank. The third shot, from a third tank at about 400 m penetrated the aluminum side sponson box of the turret but not the turret armor itself. This tank then hid behind a sand berm, which the M1A1 crew shot through and destroyed the third tank."

Want to test Al-Khalid or Type-59 like that? Good luck.

Al-Khalid is a fairly decent MBT and might endure a modern-era round or two but Type-59 will be toast in a single shot.

The sole reason to opt for an mbt from outside is to replace the obsolete fleet quickly. HIT is struggling to churn it in big numbers. At best they can make 50 a year. Responding to the rest of your post is a waste of my time.

 

[LeGenD]

The sole reason to opt for an mbt from outside is to replace the obsolete fleet quickly. HIT is struggling to churn it in big numbers. At best they can make 50 a year.

Budget related issues then?

VT-4 vs. Oplot-M vs. Al-Khalid; which is better and why. Please enlighten me.

Responding to the rest of your post is a waste of my time.

Why? Am I typing fairy tales here?

Problem with you [and a few other members here] is that when your points are shot down, you resort to cheap cop outs like these.

Either be prepared to address an argument (or concede). Do not give me lame excuses.

Let us settle this debate like "gentlemen," in another thread where you tell me what is right and what is wrong. I will pay full attention to your views there.

Deal?

 

[Dazzler]

Budget related issues then?

VT-4 vs. Oplot-M vs. Al-Khalid; which is better and why. Please enlighten me.


Why? Am I typing fairy tales here?

Problem with you [and a few other members here] is that when your points are shot down, you resort to cheap cop outs like these.

Either be prepared to address an argument (or concede). Do not give me lame excuses.

Let us settle this debate like "gentlemen," in another thread where you tell me what is right and what is wrong. I will pay full attention to your views there.

Deal?

Which of my points have you killed so far? Lets see:


M1A1 failed in Pakistan is a fact so keep refuting it all you like. It missed targets on the move is also a fact. its powerpack heated to undesired levels is also a fact. You may not find it documented, but there is a BBC documentary exposing the M1A1 fiasco to some degree so take it or leave, its up to you. However, if you want someone to hand you documentation on what actually happened in Tamewala/ Cholistan and Bahawalpur trials, forget it.

You conveniently overlooked several important points in trying to prove the might of your favorite mbt.

The fact is that M1A1, like any other weapon system in the world, is as vulnerable in the battlefield without adequate air cover as any. Yes there have been improvements and it showed much better performance in the first gulf war and stuff. it could even fire the M829A1 silver bullet that literally shredded the Asad babil's frontal armor. In However, during the war, the tank regiments had convenient supply and maintenance chains to support it throughout the war. The air cover was there, and Apaches and Thunderbolts rarely left them isolated in the desert.

The technology in these mbts was also played a conclusive role. What on earth a downgraded Asad Babil could have done against a top of the line mbt? Even one on one confrontation, the result would be obvious. It was not even a competition.


I live a real world and have worked on some prestigious projects so i may know, have seen and operated things up close that some of you fanboys can only dream of.

 

[HAIDER]

mages suggest Pakistan Army may be testing Norinco VT4 MBT
Samuel Cranny-Evans - Jane's Defence Weekly

Images have emerged on Chinese social media suggesting that the Pakistan Army (PA) may be testing the China North Industries Corporation (Norinco) VT4 main battle tank (MBT). Published on 6 January the photographs show PA personnel inspecting a VT4 platform at an undisclosed location.

The VT4 is a third-generation MBT offered for export by Norinco. It is an improvement over the Al-Khalid MBT (also known as MBT-2000), which is currently in service with the PA, although it retains the 125 mm main gun, carousel auto-loader, and crew configuration of the older vehicle.

Among the key differentiating features are the thermal-imaging capabilities and panoramic sights of the VT4, which enhance the vehicle’s ability to operate at night or in poorly lit environments. The VT4 is also capable of incorporating a remote weapon station.

Pakistan is known to be in close co-operation with China for the development and acquisition of MBTs, although it is also likely to continue to use other sources, notably Ukraine, for powerpacks and ancillary systems.

Pakistan currently deploys a fleet of Al-Khalid and Type 85-II MBTs, as well as a large quantity of T-80UDs MBTs, the latter which were supplied by Ukraine. The South Asian country is in the process of increasing the size of its armoured vehicle fleet to match that of its regional rival, India, which recently announced plans to convert a large part of its T-72 MBTs fleet to the T-90S standard.

Moreover, an Indian order for 700 T-90S MBTs is expected to be placed in April 2018, which will eventually take the Indian Army’s total number of T-90S platforms to more than 1,500 vehicles, thus placing Pakistan at a distinct numerical disadvantage in terms of modern MBTs.

janes.com