What's new

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

It's a beautiful tank. And I think it was much needed in the Pakistan Army,to bolster the Armored forces. Until Al Khalid II comes out in full production,you could buy one more model tank type either from the Chinese or maybe...well I guess Americans aren't selling anything to you when it comes to that,but what about masses of CV-90s?
There is no need for a new tank type why get different types it puts a logistical strain current tanks in PA all share components to some extent except Vt-4 . The Tank fleet in the future will probably be made up of VT-4 and AK.If PA wanted a IFV similar to Cv-90 then it would require large amounts of money to get them in large numbers.In small numbers they dont fit into the doctrine of PA
 
.
Why doesn't PA go for a tank with this type of design then? All our AlKhalids and now VT-4 have similar design. Why not go for a better design, especially when it shouldn't be too difficult also?


P.S. Is VT-4P an official designation or just a PDF one?
Type 99 series isn’t offered for export, that being said, the Type 99 isn’t as good of a design as others out there either, for example Russian frontal arc design is superior to 99 series, especially the turret design, Type 99 itself adopts the lower front plate design of the T72 and T90 to improve on the older one as in Al-Khalid, VT-4 and 96 series.

PA could totally go for a better design too, but the thing is, design is one aspect, all the other things about VT4P add up to make it the better option, not to mention the extreme ease of logistics and delivery it gives us.
Lastly, PA needs to consider the adversary when buying anything, Indian armored core still uses T90S from early 2000s with BM42 (1980s ammo) as their best tank, and they have no plans to modernize or buy a new tank for the time Being, so PA doesn’t need the best in the world, they just need something that’s a big enough advantage, and VT-4P is certainly that over the T90S (even the Al-Khalid-1 and even the basic Al-Khalid surpasses T90S in many aspects Except basic protection levels).

VT-4P is not an official designation AFAIK. I just use it to highlight how different it is from the normal one, PA would just call it VT-4 because it’s the only version they have.
 
.
Type 99 series isn’t offered for export, that being said, the Type 99 isn’t as good of a design as others out there either, for example Russian frontal arc design is superior to 99 series, especially the turret design, Type 99 itself adopts the lower front plate design of the T72 and T90 to improve on the older one as in Al-Khalid, VT-4 and 96 series.

PA could totally go for a better design too, but the thing is, design is one aspect, all the other things about VT4P add up to make it the better option, not to mention the extreme ease of logistics and delivery it gives us.
Lastly, PA needs to consider the adversary when buying anything, Indian armored core still uses T90S from early 2000s with BM42 (1980s ammo) as their best tank, and they have no plans to modernize or buy a new tank for the time Being, so PA doesn’t need the best in the world, they just need something that’s a big enough advantage, and VT-4P is certainly that over the T90S (even the Al-Khalid-1 and even the basic Al-Khalid surpasses T90S in many aspects Except basic protection levels).

VT-4P is not an official designation AFAIK. I just use it to highlight how different it is from the normal one, PA would just call it VT-4 because it’s the only version they have.
There are a number of issues that I have with the design of the tanks that PA have. Whilst you make some good points I feel that Survivability is key in any future conflict with the neighbours. The issues with the frontal arc protection and the autoloader protection for the T-80's for example are big issues when you consider that offensive action will be a necessity along certain fronts. The BM42 isn't the greatest round but the enemy has a lot of them and there might be a lot coming from different directions.
In this day and age a Commanders HK system coupled with good visibility for as many of the crew as possible is equally as important.
 
.
There are a number of issues that I have with the design of the tanks that PA have. Whilst you make some good points I feel that Survivability is key in any future conflict with the neighbours. The issues with the frontal arc protection and the autoloader protection for the T-80's for example are big issues when you consider that offensive action will be a necessity along certain fronts. The BM42 isn't the greatest round but the enemy has a lot of them and there might be a lot coming from different directions.
In this day and age a Commanders HK system coupled with good visibility for as many of the crew as possible is equally as important.

I will be blunt PA armor force doesn’t have a good high-low ratio in armor and survivability. I personally don’t see it surviving beyond a few engagements.
 
.
There are a number of issues that I have with the design of the tanks that PA have. Whilst you make some good points I feel that Survivability is key in any future conflict with the neighbours. The issues with the frontal arc protection and the autoloader protection for the T-80's for example are big issues when you consider that offensive action will be a necessity along certain fronts. The BM42 isn't the greatest round but the enemy has a lot of them and there might be a lot coming from different directions.
In this day and age a Commanders HK system coupled with good visibility for as many of the crew as possible is equally as important.
I will be blunt PA armor force doesn’t have a good high-low ratio in armor and survivability. I personally don’t see it surviving beyond a few engagements.

I don’t disagree with you nor did I say PAs armored core doesn’t have issues, if you’ve noticed I only talk about the technological aspects of the tanks available on both sides, not the tactical or use-case ones, I leave that to those who are better qualified. At the current stage without Proper Air or SAM cover (old helicopters and no SRSAM systems), Any armored assault will be facing a very hard time, regardless of what tank we are using. Similarly india has the number advantage, they have nearly 3100 tanks and we have 2800, however of this 2800 nearly 500 are absolutely obsolete so I would not count them (type 59 and 69, though they should be entirely replaced with VT4s in a few years). But keep in mind they have two other borders to contend with too.
The PA is in the process of addressing all three of these issues as we can see. The sooner they do it, the better.

However for the specific issues you mentioned, Those issues are present over on the enemy side more than ours.

1. Apart from the T90S (1/3rd of Indias fleet), no tank can even hope to stop a standard APFSDS round fired from any Pakistani tank (as they all use the same rounds apart from VT-4, which uses even better ones). Regardless of the frontal arc or not, T72 and Arjun are hopelessly under-protected (which is also the case with our Al-Zarrars. Though if it is Equipped with ERA and keeping in mind the fact that the Indian army only uses BM42 on 2/3rds of its tanks, the rest use even weaker BM-17, maybe even the AZ can stop some rounds, that being said, the biggest threat to tanks aren’t tanks, it’s ATGMs and other smaller infantry weapons).

2. T90 and T72 have the very same auto-loader protection issue as T80UD, however we have 320 UDs, their entire fleet is T90 and T72, more russian auto-loaders than us, but then both fleets almost exclusively use tanks with auto-loaders, so I don’t see that one going either way. The only frontal arc advantage here rests with the T90S, as the T72s base armor is too weak.

3. A majority of tank combat takes place head on, from the front, basically no tank can stop any AP rounds in its sides or rear, not even the best ones. Would require too much armor and weight (note how the side is flat and the front is sloped, you’d need double the thickness on the sides to achieve the same armor).
That being said, With both BM-42 and BM-17, Indian armor could not even scratch Pakistani armor apart from AZ and maybe Type-85UG if they don’t use ERA on it.
Meanwhile Pakistani armor (any of it, even a type 59) could punch through a T72 or an Arjun from the front, the T90S would be a harder nut to crack (We do have newer ammo like BTA-4 to help with that) but on that topic and To cover your next point:

4. PAs tanks are much better equipped in the visibility (sights and spotting) department than Indian ones.
Firstly All PA tanks have Thermal sights (excluding the type 59 and 69, both of which absolutely need to be replaced, something PA is actively doing), OTOH, Half the Indian T72 fleet doesn’t have them.
No Indian tanks have CITV or Commanders independent sights (AK, AK-1, VT-4P have them), this means the gunner will be doing double duty, spotting and engaging targets, and none of their tanks have Hunter-killer modes.
On top of that all Indian tanks still use second generation thermals with considerably less range than The 3rd generation thermals employed in the better half of PAs fleet (UG, UD and AZ still use second Gen thermals, but with considerably better ammo and comparable FCS systems to the Indian 90S tanks).
This along with the fact that PA is moving on to next gen 32-bit FCS systems and has IBMS systems available in its tanks (something india only added recently and only to T90) means that in a purely tank on tank scenario, 8/10 times, PA tanks will be getting the first shot off. And that’s usually the winning point in a tank engagement.

But again, all this is purely technological/stat related. Just because PA has better tanks doesn’t mean our issues are over, as you, I and others have pointed out.
Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, one arm cannot do well unless every other arm is doing so as well, until PA addresses the issues with its other arms, the armored core won’t function to its fullest either.



PA has a long-term and very complicated Core modernization plan in place, in which they will modernize basically every core of the army. We can already see progress on this plan, it covers more than just new equipment but also training and infrastructure;

They started with aviation (T-129 and AH-1Z), but that hit a snag, so they moved on to the armored core (VT-4P, AK-1 and 2), similarly they are already testing weaponry for the other cores to induct them when the time comes (Towed and SP arty for artillery core, SR and LR SAMS for AD core, new APCs for mechanized infantry, Z-10ME and heavy gunships for aviation, everything has been tested or even picked, the list goes on). Similarly we saw them build new infrastructure for AD core and armored core.

but given our economical state, we cannot do it at an ideal pace, we do it one at a time, once the armored core is done, then another will start, and so on. PA is as well aware of its issues as anyone else, their modernization pace was both quickened and hampered by the 15 years of war on terror. While training and basic equipment standards increased two-fold, the advanced equipment that wasn’t needed in the war remained neglected, either due to necessity or a simple shortage of funds, and we are noticing that right now.
 
Last edited:
.
I agree with 1 and 2. Type 99A is due for an upgrade and it will be getting the electrical and C4I upgrades that VT-4P has. The regular VT-4 is comparable to 99A, but VT-4P is upgraded in this regard.

As for point 3, Type 99 and 99A all have APS, but 99A doesn’t have a hard kill APS like VT-4s Optional GL-5 APS (The normal 99 did). VT-4s Hard kill APS however would be superior to what the Type 99 has, and it’s true that Chinese tanks don’t use Remote weapon systems as per doctrine (makes little sense to be fair…)

I agree with point 4, 99A has thicker armor all around than VT-4, it’s a heavier and bigger tank, however VT-4P with its FY4 ERA and roof coverage does have better protection than standard VT-4P. Another major advantage in this regard is the design of the Type 99 and 99A, it’s basic design is much better than VT-4P in regards to lower front plate and frontal arc.

For Point 5, Yes, type 99A specifically gets new Chinese APFSDS which has better performance than BTA-4, this is also because it has a bigger gun that can Accommodate that round. VT-4P should easily be able to fire better ammunition too but given Pakistans adversary’s armor, it isn’t needed. BTA-4 is more than enough.

For point 6, 99A has a stronger engine than Basic VT-4, Pakistani VT-4P has the same 1500HP engine as Type 99A, hence is more maneuverable than 99A owing to its lighter weight (keep in mind 99A itself is very quick).

For an overall Comparison, I’d say Type 99A is much better than a basic VT-4 but just falls slightly short of a VT4P. but that’s only because the 99A itself is getting old, I’m sure the next iteration of it will add all the things it’s missing and owing to its size (increased armor) and larger gun it will again easily surpass the VT-4P.

That being said, they are both very good tanks for different purposes and doctrines, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, in their specific roles one is not better than the other.

In real war no one knows if enemy something in surprise, Pakistan should have better anti tank ammunition atleast 650 to 680 mm at 2km is must.
 
. .
When AK2 will out actually, then we can be sure about PA actual intentions for future tank fleet
 
. . .
Type 99 series isn’t offered for export, that being said, the Type 99 isn’t as good of a design as others out there either, for example Russian frontal arc design is superior to 99 series, especially the turret design, Type 99 itself adopts the lower front plate design of the T72 and T90 to improve on the older one as in Al-Khalid, VT-4 and 96 series.

Type-99 and Type-99A are very effective against enemy tanks in flat terrain. The design of Type-99 and Type-99A has some weaknesses, China knows that well, but that is not a problem for China. Their doctrine for 99 and 99A (use this tank only in northern terrain, do not bring it into urban warfare...) and related technologies (anti-uav weapons, short-range air defense ...) helps Type-99 and Type-99A avoid threats from anti-tank mines, ATGMs, helicopters and uavs. The only problem that Type-99 and 99A need to worry about is enemy tanks.

Regarding China's refusal to export the Type-99A, my view is that China does not want to disclose information regarding front armor and armor-piercing ammunition. That would take away the advantage of the Type-99 and 99a2 in anti-tank battles.

Of course 99a2's front armor is very thick but its disadvantage is that it makes 99a2 heavier and the front armor is not black technology, it can withstand direct attacks from T-72, T-90, 2A7, Leclerc... but it is very difficult to survive if the enemy tank is equipped with the latest 130mm Rheinmetall.
 
.
Type-99 and Type-99A are very effective against enemy tanks in flat terrain. The design of Type-99 and Type-99A has some weaknesses, China knows that well, but that is not a problem for China. Their doctrine for 99 and 99A (use this tank only in northern terrain, do not bring it into urban warfare...) and related technologies (anti-uav weapons, short-range air defense ...) helps Type-99 and Type-99A avoid threats from anti-tank mines, ATGMs, helicopters and uavs. The only problem that Type-99 and 99A need to worry about is enemy tanks.

Regarding China's refusal to export the Type-99A, my view is that China does not want to disclose information regarding front armor and armor-piercing ammunition. That would take away the advantage of the Type-99 and 99a2 in anti-tank battles.

Of course 99a2's front armor is very thick but its disadvantage is that it makes 99a2 heavier and the front armor is not black technology, it can withstand direct attacks from T-72, T-90, 2A7, Leclerc... but it is very difficult to survive if the enemy tank is equipped with the latest 130mm Rheinmetall.
Firstly, There is no such thing as Type 99A2. Only Type 99 and Type 99A.

Secondly, neither have anything special about them that would make them suited for flat terrain, they are surely good tanks for flat or any other terrain, but I don’t see any specific decisions made that have anything to do with flat terrain.

It Is true that none of the Chinese, and by extension Pakistani and Indian tanks, are suited for urban warfare. That’s because all three countries do not expect them to be used in urban areas, that is not unique to China. Western tanks were originally designed with the same principles in mind, Urban-warfare kits came later.

Infantry and air-support is a bigger threat to tanks than tanks, tanks support infantry, infantry supports tanks, air cover supports both, both support air cover. Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, the shortcomings of any piece of equipment are made up by doctrine, as I’m sure China is aware.

Your reasons for China not wanting to export Type 99 make sense, though to be clear from what is known, it’s armor and Ammo, While good, are nothing revolutionary or special, they simply make separate vehicles for export and that’s about all the reason they need to not sell it.

99As front armor good, but still not the best compared to Modern Russians tanks, and its frontal arc, both turret and hull, is still poor (which means it’s basic design is poor). The only thing they fixed in it over older Chinese tanks and VT4, was to make the lower front plate smaller. It also has a serious lack of armor on the side. The same is true for the VT-4.

Type 99 has an active protection system, but its Active protection system is also at a disadvantage compared to the trophy and Other hard kill systems employed by western and Russian tanks (even the Chinese GL-5 hard kill active protection system present in the VT-4 is likely superior to what the Type 99 uses). But we have to keep in mind 99A itself is old now, it will likely see an upgrade soon that will add missing technology to it, they may even add the Better APS.

While it can likely survive most APFSDS rounds frontally when it’s ERA is intact, Modern T90 models as well as other modern Western tanks can also survive its ammo. Though the same may not be true for T72 and older T90S that india uses.

China has yet to showcase a larger gun or more advanced ammo comparable to what Germany, US and Russia are fielding in their latest tanks. (T-14 Armata, Leo with 130MM gun and abrams with its new DU ammo). Some sources claim The Chinese 125-III APFSDS (only used in Type 99A) is comparable to modern western ammo, but given its size and other sources giving lower penetration figures for it, this remains doubtful.

All that being said, the only tanks China will be facing are Indian T90S and T72M, which are really not even comparable to Type 99A, China realizes this and just puts the money elsewhere. Their tank fleet is more than capable to take on anything india has at the moment. Plus, knowing China, I’m sure when the time comes and the need is present, they will upgrade their tanks massively. Right now they are focusing more on their navy and Air Force as they need that more.
 
.
I don’t disagree with you nor did I say PAs armored core doesn’t have issues, if you’ve noticed I only talk about the technological aspects of the tanks available on both sides, not the tactical or use-case ones, I leave that to those who are better qualified. At the current stage without Proper Air or SAM cover (old helicopters and no SRSAM systems), Any armored assault will be facing a very hard time, regardless of what tank we are using. Similarly india has the number advantage, they have nearly 3100 tanks and we have 2800, however of this 2800 nearly 500 are absolutely obsolete so I would not count them (type 59 and 69, though they should be entirely replaced with VT4s in a few years). But keep in mind they have two other borders to contend with too.
The PA is in the process of addressing all three of these issues as we can see. The sooner they do it, the better.

However for the specific issues you mentioned, Those issues are present over on the enemy side more than ours.

1. Apart from the T90S (1/3rd of Indias fleet), no tank can even hope to stop a standard APFSDS round fired from any Pakistani tank (as they all use the same rounds apart from VT-4, which uses even better ones). Regardless of the frontal arc or not, T72 and Arjun are hopelessly under-protected (which is also the case with our Al-Zarrars. Though if it is Equipped with ERA and keeping in mind the fact that the Indian army only uses BM42 on 2/3rds of its tanks, the rest use even weaker BM-17, maybe even the AZ can stop some rounds, that being said, the biggest threat to tanks aren’t tanks, it’s ATGMs and other smaller infantry weapons).

2. T90 and T72 have the very same auto-loader protection issue as T80UD, however we have 320 UDs, their entire fleet is T90 and T72, more russian auto-loaders than us, but then both fleets almost exclusively use tanks with auto-loaders, so I don’t see that one going either way. The only frontal arc advantage here rests with the T90S, as the T72s base armor is too weak.

3. A majority of tank combat takes place head on, from the front, basically no tank can stop any AP rounds in its sides or rear, not even the best ones. Would require too much armor and weight (note how the side is flat and the front is sloped, you’d need double the thickness on the sides to achieve the same armor).
That being said, With both BM-42 and BM-17, Indian armor could not even scratch Pakistani armor apart from AZ and maybe Type-85UG if they don’t use ERA on it.
Meanwhile Pakistani armor (any of it, even a type 59) could punch through a T72 or an Arjun from the front, the T90S would be a harder nut to crack (We do have newer ammo like BTA-4 to help with that) but on that topic and To cover your next point:

4. PAs tanks are much better equipped in the visibility (sights and spotting) department than Indian ones.
Firstly All PA tanks have Thermal sights (excluding the type 59 and 69, both of which absolutely need to be replaced, something PA is actively doing), OTOH, Half the Indian T72 fleet doesn’t have them.
No Indian tanks have CITV or Commanders independent sights (AK, AK-1, VT-4P have them), this means the gunner will be doing double duty, spotting and engaging targets, and none of their tanks have Hunter-killer modes.
On top of that all Indian tanks still use second generation thermals with considerably less range than The 3rd generation thermals employed in the better half of PAs fleet (UG, UD and AZ still use second Gen thermals, but with considerably better ammo and comparable FCS systems to the Indian 90S tanks).
This along with the fact that PA is moving on to next gen 32-bit FCS systems and has IBMS systems available in its tanks (something india only added recently and only to T90) means that in a purely tank on tank scenario, 8/10 times, PA tanks will be getting the first shot off. And that’s usually the winning point in a tank engagement.

But again, all this is purely technological/stat related. Just because PA has better tanks doesn’t mean our issues are over, as you, I and others have pointed out.
Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, one arm cannot do well unless every other arm is doing so as well, until PA addresses the issues with its other arms, the armored core won’t function to its fullest either.



PA has a long-term and very complicated Core modernization plan in place, in which they will modernize basically every core of the army. We can already see progress on this plan, it covers more than just new equipment but also training and infrastructure;

They started with aviation (T-129 and AH-1Z), but that hit a snag, so they moved on to the armored core (VT-4P, AK-1 and 2), similarly they are already testing weaponry for the other cores to induct them when the time comes (Towed and SP arty for artillery core, SR and LR SAMS for AD core, new APCs for mechanized infantry, Z-10ME and heavy gunships for aviation, everything has been tested or even picked, the list goes on). Similarly we saw them build new infrastructure for AD core and armored core.

but given our economical state, we cannot do it at an ideal pace, we do it one at a time, once the armored core is done, then another will start, and so on. PA is as well aware of its issues as anyone else, their modernization pace was both quickened and hampered by the 15 years of war on terror. While training and basic equipment standards increased two-fold, the advanced equipment that wasn’t needed in the war remained neglected, either due to necessity or a simple shortage of funds, and we are noticing that right now.
Sorry, no offence but I feel depressed when people commenting on defense matters use core instead of corps!
 
.
I don’t disagree with you nor did I say PAs armored core doesn’t have issues, if you’ve noticed I only talk about the technological aspects of the tanks available on both sides, not the tactical or use-case ones, I leave that to those who are better qualified. At the current stage without Proper Air or SAM cover (old helicopters and no SRSAM systems), Any armored assault will be facing a very hard time, regardless of what tank we are using. Similarly india has the number advantage, they have nearly 3100 tanks and we have 2800, however of this 2800 nearly 500 are absolutely obsolete so I would not count them (type 59 and 69, though they should be entirely replaced with VT4s in a few years). But keep in mind they have two other borders to contend with too.
The PA is in the process of addressing all three of these issues as we can see. The sooner they do it, the better.

However for the specific issues you mentioned, Those issues are present over on the enemy side more than ours.

1. Apart from the T90S (1/3rd of Indias fleet), no tank can even hope to stop a standard APFSDS round fired from any Pakistani tank (as they all use the same rounds apart from VT-4, which uses even better ones). Regardless of the frontal arc or not, T72 and Arjun are hopelessly under-protected (which is also the case with our Al-Zarrars. Though if it is Equipped with ERA and keeping in mind the fact that the Indian army only uses BM42 on 2/3rds of its tanks, the rest use even weaker BM-17, maybe even the AZ can stop some rounds, that being said, the biggest threat to tanks aren’t tanks, it’s ATGMs and other smaller infantry weapons).

2. T90 and T72 have the very same auto-loader protection issue as T80UD, however we have 320 UDs, their entire fleet is T90 and T72, more russian auto-loaders than us, but then both fleets almost exclusively use tanks with auto-loaders, so I don’t see that one going either way. The only frontal arc advantage here rests with the T90S, as the T72s base armor is too weak.

3. A majority of tank combat takes place head on, from the front, basically no tank can stop any AP rounds in its sides or rear, not even the best ones. Would require too much armor and weight (note how the side is flat and the front is sloped, you’d need double the thickness on the sides to achieve the same armor).
That being said, With both BM-42 and BM-17, Indian armor could not even scratch Pakistani armor apart from AZ and maybe Type-85UG if they don’t use ERA on it.
Meanwhile Pakistani armor (any of it, even a type 59) could punch through a T72 or an Arjun from the front, the T90S would be a harder nut to crack (We do have newer ammo like BTA-4 to help with that) but on that topic and To cover your next point:

4. PAs tanks are much better equipped in the visibility (sights and spotting) department than Indian ones.
Firstly All PA tanks have Thermal sights (excluding the type 59 and 69, both of which absolutely need to be replaced, something PA is actively doing), OTOH, Half the Indian T72 fleet doesn’t have them.
No Indian tanks have CITV or Commanders independent sights (AK, AK-1, VT-4P have them), this means the gunner will be doing double duty, spotting and engaging targets, and none of their tanks have Hunter-killer modes.
On top of that all Indian tanks still use second generation thermals with considerably less range than The 3rd generation thermals employed in the better half of PAs fleet (UG, UD and AZ still use second Gen thermals, but with considerably better ammo and comparable FCS systems to the Indian 90S tanks).
This along with the fact that PA is moving on to next gen 32-bit FCS systems and has IBMS systems available in its tanks (something india only added recently and only to T90) means that in a purely tank on tank scenario, 8/10 times, PA tanks will be getting the first shot off. And that’s usually the winning point in a tank engagement.

But again, all this is purely technological/stat related. Just because PA has better tanks doesn’t mean our issues are over, as you, I and others have pointed out.
Modern warfare is combined arms warfare, one arm cannot do well unless every other arm is doing so as well, until PA addresses the issues with its other arms, the armored core won’t function to its fullest either.



PA has a long-term and very complicated Core modernization plan in place, in which they will modernize basically every core of the army. We can already see progress on this plan, it covers more than just new equipment but also training and infrastructure;

They started with aviation (T-129 and AH-1Z), but that hit a snag, so they moved on to the armored core (VT-4P, AK-1 and 2), similarly they are already testing weaponry for the other cores to induct them when the time comes (Towed and SP arty for artillery core, SR and LR SAMS for AD core, new APCs for mechanized infantry, Z-10ME and heavy gunships for aviation, everything has been tested or even picked, the list goes on). Similarly we saw them build new infrastructure for AD core and armored core.

but given our economical state, we cannot do it at an ideal pace, we do it one at a time, once the armored core is done, then another will start, and so on. PA is as well aware of its issues as anyone else, their modernization pace was both quickened and hampered by the 15 years of war on terror. While training and basic equipment standards increased two-fold, the advanced equipment that wasn’t needed in the war remained neglected, either due to necessity or a simple shortage of funds, and we are noticing that right now.
The real aspect is interoperability. I cannot emphasize this more and the more the prc-9661 is deployed to vehicles and integrated with IBMS the more this will happen.

Time spent syncing different manufacturer systems on datalinks even if using the same protocol is not something considered by most. Situational awareness is probably more important than armor and penetration in this respect because the Indian defense and flanking line of ATGMs is going to make life hell (and vice versa) for any armor advance.

The tank troop commander that sees and knows where his enemy is first will win 9/10 times versus the one with a bigger gun or thicker armor.

If they have a UAV overhead monitoring tanks and marking enemy ambush positions they will avoid them and have better tactics available.
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom