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

[GumNaam]

An upgrade to infrastructure would have been a good start to accommodate it along with its "economic use" by the rest of the population, with a growing population and more automobiles it's would have been perfect. Remember logistics lines are very crucial in war time and peace time. This is where a lack for foresight hurts Pakistanis.

the primary reason Pakistan opted out of the m1 abram program was not technical but political. General Zia ul Haq just new all too well how the tank would be prone to sanctions. the trials were only done to quietly take notes on the features on the abrams so we can implement them in our own tanks with the help of our Chinese brothers. Pakistan never had any intention of going for the abrams...the weight and other issues not making the abram "suitable" for Pakistani requirements were mere excuses to get ride of the pestering american salesmen after we were done taking notes.

 

[iLION12345_1]

From 2:48s

Please do not go on anymore. You are making a fool of yourself.

As for your front arcs BS for VT-4, too many nonsense which I do not need to explain.

so now that I’ve properly explained the glaring issues (only two of them I might add) to you, you’re telling me that it’s BS. You really are pathetic. It’s not my fault you know nothing about tank design. I can’t explain to you why you’re wrong until you stop accepting the paycheck from the Chinese propaganda brigade. I’m going to stop replying to you because at this point the moderators are going to get unhappy, I hope you’ll do the same for me.

 

[Beast]

so now that I’ve properly explained the glaring issues (only two of them I might add) to you, you’re telling me that it’s BS. You really are pathetic. It’s not my fault you know nothing about tank design. I can’t explain to you why you’re wrong until you stop accepting the paycheck from the Chinese propaganda brigade. I’m going to stop replying to you because at this point the moderators are going to get unhappy, I hope you’ll do the same for me.

You are the saying Chinese don't produce long rod ammunition and only Type99A possess. BS debunk by me. Then u talk about nonsense of front arc which u think it's exclusive VT-4 problem. M1A2 front arc is equally a big target. As for armour , I restraint from talking talking much becos it's state secret from all nations so far. Most of the information u heard or seen can only used as reference. Hardly any nation will fully disclose their armour composition and actual thickness.

As for side armour protection of VT-4, don't forget. Chinese design this tank as modular in the first place. You are a typical keyboard warrior who think u know a lot but did poor research and poor homework,

 

[KampfAlwin]

Why is the 99A’s gun moving slightly upward after firing a problem?

It needs to move up again at a fixed angle anyways to accept new rounds from the auto loader, in case you haven’t realised.

 

[Farhan Bohra]

India has had its hands burnt with the Su-54E already and is preferring to focus on local projects. They have evaluated the Leo2 as well but their infrastructure will require a lot of update to bring it into manufacturing it locally. There is also some hesitation on their part to completely abandon the Arjun - it is not far fetched to see a Leo esque Arjun Mk.3 come out.

Actually Indian Army not going to abandon heavy tanks,,, BRO invested so much in infrastructure and upgrading it. As for Medium tanks, I don't know where this T-14 argument coming from? MoD has not shown a single interest in the project, rather in FMBT.

Even solutions like,, Indian Army/MoD funding for FMBT,, like see-through armor. Even two vendors already eying for this contract and contract for upgrading T-90.

Govt increases capital budget of BRO by 40%, focus on border areas development

The government in its Union Budget for the financial year (FY) 2022-23 has increased the capital outlay for the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), by a record 40 per cent, to Rs 3,500 crore as compared to Rs 2,500 crore in FY 2021-22.

www.indiatoday.in

https://twitter.com/x/status/1490586238025596929

 

[The Eagle]

Thread topic:

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

Treat yourself being informed. Please avoid derailing.

 

[serenity]

Good information guys.

However VT-4 probably shouldn't be compared with Abrams. 50T tank and 60T tank.

My personal opinion of tanks ranked over years of reading material and trying to remember the overall whole. For what it's worth just entertaining hopefully but not too serious.

T-14 (although not totally ready just yet)
K-2 (this is surely a bit more of a personal guess than from attained information because there isn't that much)
Improved Challenger 2
Leopard 2A6/7
M1A2
AMX Leclerc
Type 99A (third version)
T-90M
Challenger 2
Merkava 4
Type 99 (second version) and VT-4 overall balance is similar
Type 10 (like lighter tanks the protection is very minimal and firepower isn't much better than those on top of it)
T-84 Oplot M
Arjun 2
Type 90

Rest are relatively equal low tier tanks like various modern T-72 and T-80 and Type 96A. All of those would be considerably lower than the above list.

Low protection and lighter tanks typically would have better mobility and driving range. Anyway firepower is first priority, second is mobility, third is protection but the ones nearer the top are all clearly better protection but not much worse if any worse in mobility due to far more powerful propulsion units. Western tanks have firepower advantage due to better guns and still better ammunition despite huge improvements in Chinese ammunition over the last ten years. Russian ammo of modern versions I'm not familiar with but surely improved as well. Our guns and ammo still don't match latest Euro and American though.

Honestly ever tank on that list is close enough that the important factor is really the crew, the situation, the numbers, the strategy and tactics, and of course supports. Infantry and drones or helicopters and air support or none. Money too of course as usual and operational readiness. Buy and pick what suits your situation.

 

[LeGenD]

I have shifted some responses to another thread. This thread shall remain on topic.

 

[Beast]

Good information guys.

However VT-4 probably shouldn't be compared with Abrams. 50T tank and 60T tank.

My personal opinion of tanks ranked over years of reading material and trying to remember the overall whole. For what it's worth just entertaining hopefully but not too serious.

T-14 (although not totally ready just yet)
K-2 (this is surely a bit more of a personal guess than from attained information because there isn't that much)
Improved Challenger 2
Leopard 2A6/7
M1A2
AMX Leclerc
Type 99A (third version)
T-90M
Challenger 2
Merkava 4
Type 99 (second version) and VT-4 overall balance is similar
Type 10 (like lighter tanks the protection is very minimal and firepower isn't much better than those on top of it)
T-84 Oplot M
Arjun 2
Type 90

Rest are relatively equal low tier tanks like various modern T-72 and T-80 and Type 96A. All of those would be considerably lower than the above list.

Low protection and lighter tanks typically would have better mobility and driving range. Anyway firepower is first priority, second is mobility, third is protection but the ones nearer the top are all clearly better protection but not much worse if any worse in mobility due to far more powerful propulsion units. Western tanks have firepower advantage due to better guns and still better ammunition despite huge improvements in Chinese ammunition over the last ten years. Russian ammo of modern versions I'm not familiar with but surely improved as well. Our guns and ammo still don't match latest Euro and American though.

Honestly ever tank on that list is close enough that the important factor is really the crew, the situation, the numbers, the strategy and tactics, and of course supports. Infantry and drones or helicopters and air support or none. Money too of course as usual and operational readiness. Buy and pick what suits your situation.

Did you written this from your own perspective? The western tank is heavier, not due to thicker armour but more to do with addtional space needed to accomodate a man loader.

Russian and Chinese are using 125mm smoothbore gun vs 120mm western caliber. the slightly larger rounds do have the advantage of packing additional chemical for high velocity. A big reason why 125mm going for auto loader system becos of the fatigue for loader handling a bigger 125mm rounds.

 

[Inception-06]

 

[serenity]

Did you written this from your own perspective? The western tank is heavier, not due to thicker armour but more to do with addtional space needed to accomodate a man loader.

Russian and Chinese are using 125mm smoothbore gun vs 120mm western caliber. the slightly larger rounds do have the advantage of packing additional chemical for high velocity. A big reason why 125mm going for auto loader system becos of the fatigue for loader handling a bigger 125mm rounds.

Yeah just from my perspective and opinion only.

Leclerc and K2 are both around 55T and use automatic loader so yes you're right a lot of that weight is to create the volume for a massive space for a manual loader and the separation compartment.

Chinese heavyweight of Type 99A is around 55T to 60T depending on source of information. This shows it's around same overall protection level as K2 and Leclerc which also use autoloader. However the 99A puts a lot more armor than those two on the frontal 120 degrees and has less side protection.

If I were to sit in a MBT that will be shot with APFSDS between those three tanks and only fired directly straight on, I would pick 99A. It has roughly 200mm more composite and laminar welded armor than those two and still has FY ERA blocks on top of that extra armor.

If side shot, they are all equally dead anyway. No MBT on this planet can take a modern APFSDS or any anti tank round directly from the side but at an angle, every extra degree off, every extra mm of armor counts even if just using pythagoras to calculate a basic depth difference. Of course impact physics is fluids rather than simply drawing 2D planes.

But this still doesn't negate the history where 125mm was used to compensate for poorer ammo quality and accuracy. 125mm provides more energy due to a larger volume chamber but it wears on gun mechanism more since 125mm gun is actually quite a lot more heavy than a 120mm. That history is past though and nowadays the ammo quality has climbed a lot but on firepower, I would still err on the side of caution and consider the most modern Russian and Chinese 125mm gun and ammo to be slightly worse than the most modern German 120mm gun and western ammo. China didn't spend much effort to push ahead in these fields but rather just normal pace progress unlike in navy and airforce or space and strategic weaponry. Meanwhile some western nations have placed quite strong emphasis on tank developments because a few of those countries have been engaged in urban and tank warfare or could potentially be like Israel, South Korea, USA, Germany, and France.

I think 99A is a great development for a lower priority budget and certainly the point for PLA is to have good enough and then in huge numbers. 99A is more than good enough which surprised me that they still put so much emphasis on tanks when Type 15 and 99A came out. I thought PLA would have no funding left over after all the more important developments like advanced artillery, rockets, new vehicles, EW systems, helicopters, and mobile SAMs and all those things. But they still had enough oil left to develop some updated MBTs. To say those newer MBTs are K2 or latest NATO tank upgrades level, personally I feel maybe that's expecting too much.

For now, we can be happy that newer Chinese tanks like Type 99A and VT-4 have much improved sensors and communication equipment, better protection and mobility from better engines and general upgrades and improvements to firepower via software, equipment like muzzle reference systems and newer higher quality ammunition. This is more than good enough. A pack of 20 99A tanks will annihilate 10 K2 or Type 10 or 50 Arjun whatever. It is as much about numbers as it is about overall tank individual capability. There is a balancing point and different for all strategies and supporting equipment.

 

[Beast]

Yeah just from my perspective and opinion only.

Leclerc and K2 are both around 55T and use automatic loader so yes you're right a lot of that weight is to create the volume for a massive space for a manual loader and the separation compartment.

Chinese heavyweight of Type 99A is around 55T to 60T depending on source of information. This shows it's around same overall protection level as K2 and Leclerc which also use autoloader. However the 99A puts a lot more armor than those two on the frontal 120 degrees and has less side protection.

If I were to sit in a MBT that will be shot with APFSDS between those three tanks and only fired directly straight on, I would pick 99A. It has roughly 200mm more composite and laminar welded armor than those two and still has FY ERA blocks on top of that extra armor.

If side shot, they are all equally dead anyway. No MBT on this planet can take a modern APFSDS or any anti tank round directly from the side but at an angle, every extra degree off, every extra mm of armor counts even if just using pythagoras to calculate a basic depth difference. Of course impact physics is fluids rather than simply drawing 2D planes.

But this still doesn't negate the history where 125mm was used to compensate for poorer ammo quality and accuracy. 125mm provides more energy due to a larger volume chamber but it wears on gun mechanism more since 125mm gun is actually quite a lot more heavy than a 120mm. That history is past though and nowadays the ammo quality has climbed a lot but on firepower, I would still err on the side of caution and consider the most modern Russian and Chinese 125mm gun and ammo to be slightly worse than the most modern German 120mm gun and western ammo. China didn't spend much effort to push ahead in these fields but rather just normal pace progress unlike in navy and airforce or space and strategic weaponry. Meanwhile some western nations have placed quite strong emphasis on tank developments because a few of those countries have been engaged in urban and tank warfare or could potentially be like Israel, South Korea, USA, Germany, and France.

I think 99A is a great development for a lower priority budget and certainly the point for PLA is to have good enough and then in huge numbers. 99A is more than good enough which surprised me that they still put so much emphasis on tanks when Type 15 and 99A came out. I thought PLA would have no funding left over after all the more important developments like advanced artillery, rockets, new vehicles, EW systems, helicopters, and mobile SAMs and all those things. But they still had enough oil left to develop some updated MBTs. To say those newer MBTs are K2 or latest NATO tank upgrades level, personally I feel maybe that's expecting too much.

For now, we can be happy that newer Chinese tanks like Type 99A and VT-4 have much improved sensors and communication equipment, better protection and mobility from better engines and general upgrades and improvements to firepower via software, equipment like muzzle reference systems and newer higher quality ammunition. This is more than good enough. A pack of 20 99A tanks will annihilate 10 K2 or Type 10 or 50 Arjun whatever. It is as much about numbers as it is about overall tank individual capability. There is a balancing point and different for all strategies and supporting equipment.

I disagree with you. It's not like China is short of development fund. China is not like Russia, if a project is important. Funds will always be available for R&D since China are flushed with money.

We have even seen type 15 light tank developed which most countries are not doing since all they do is convert IFV into an assault tank. But emphasize on light tank comes back after the highly deployability and suitable for almost most terrain. The US marine has their MBF project.

Flush with money and development, the metallurgy and technology for China has improved alot. I do see 125mm has advantage over 120mm if metallurgy if both are same.

 

[serenity]

I disagree with you. It's not like China is short of development fund. China is not like Russia, if a project is important. Funds will always be available for R&D since China are flushed with money.

We have even seen type 15 light tank developed which most countries are not doing since all they do is convert IFV into an assault tank. But emphasize on light tank comes back after the highly deployability and suitable for almost most terrain. The US marine has their MBF project.

Flush with money and development, the metallurgy and technology for China has improved alot. I do see 125mm has advantage over 120mm if metallurgy if both are same.

Yes China is not short on development funding at all which surprised me that we still developed 99A and Type 15 as entirely new developments. It shows after all those funds eaten up by space, airforce, navy, and improvements to more important areas of army and rocket forces which include hypersonic weapons, new cruise missiles, and many other things, we still had some funding left to do some tanks.

The Type 15 is a different story however since it is arguably more necessary and useful than Type 99A since 99A is not that much more useful than 99. Type 15 can travel to places and offer mobility no other main battle tank with anything at 105mm or above can provide and Sprut is simply not comparable. Nor even Pindad (which is comparable).

125mm may be better now and particularly after new electroslag remelting manufacturing process integrated in the 2000s but before that during PLA's 1980s to 2000s development, 125mm was simply selected to compensate for having poorer overall gun and ammunition quality. Of course this is for the 1980s until early 2000s when modified ZPT-98 using those new technologies were integrated to the old 2A46 gun licensed versions.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Good information guys.

However VT-4 probably shouldn't be compared with Abrams. 50T tank and 60T tank.

My personal opinion of tanks ranked over years of reading material and trying to remember the overall whole. For what it's worth just entertaining hopefully but not too serious.

T-14 (although not totally ready just yet)
K-2 (this is surely a bit more of a personal guess than from attained information because there isn't that much)
Improved Challenger 2
Leopard 2A6/7
M1A2
AMX Leclerc
Type 99A (third version)
T-90M
Challenger 2
Merkava 4
Type 99 (second version) and VT-4 overall balance is similar
Type 10 (like lighter tanks the protection is very minimal and firepower isn't much better than those on top of it)
T-84 Oplot M
Arjun 2
Type 90

Rest are relatively equal low tier tanks like various modern T-72 and T-80 and Type 96A. All of those would be considerably lower than the above list.

Low protection and lighter tanks typically would have better mobility and driving range. Anyway firepower is first priority, second is mobility, third is protection but the ones nearer the top are all clearly better protection but not much worse if any worse in mobility due to far more powerful propulsion units. Western tanks have firepower advantage due to better guns and still better ammunition despite huge improvements in Chinese ammunition over the last ten years. Russian ammo of modern versions I'm not familiar with but surely improved as well. Our guns and ammo still don't match latest Euro and American though.

Honestly ever tank on that list is close enough that the important factor is really the crew, the situation, the numbers, the strategy and tactics, and of course supports. Infantry and drones or helicopters and air support or none. Money too of course as usual and operational readiness. Buy and pick what suits your situation.

AFAIK There are not three versions of the ZTZ-99, only two. ZTZ-99 and 99A. I would place Pakistan specific VT-4s only slightly behind the 99A. The former leads in technological and C4I aspects while the latter leads in firepower and protection. I would place both above the Leclerc because the XLR
variant of it apparently still isn’t in service, which is quite an upgrade for the aged tank.

You’re right to say that the K-2 is mostly just a guess. There isn’t enough on it. I’d place the T90MS provyv 3 above all those tanks except the T-14, the Leo 2A6/A7 and the M1A2CSEPV3. Russian metallurgy, ERA and ammunition are still some of the best.

I’d place challenger 2 at the bottom of the list due to its rifled gun, however the improved challenger 2/Challenger 3 would place pretty high up with the armor improvements and the 130MM smootbore.

My list would look something like (speaking purely from a capability standpoint)
T-14
Leo 2A7+
M1A2C SEP V3
T90MS Provyv 3
Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
K-2
ZTZ-99A
VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
T90S/Al-Khalid
Arjun MK-1A
And all the legacy tanks below these.

I don’t put Japanese tanks in the list because they’re very specific in their roles. If anything any list like this is purely speculative and redundant because tanks unlike fighter jets or ships don’t fight in a single, level playing field. The air and the sea remain pretty much the same, the ground on the other hand changes a lot. Each country designs tanks with their specifications, terrain, logistics and economy in mind, so while one tank may be better for one country, it certainly won’t be for another.

Secondly, if you go into detail on these tanks, you’ll see that literally none of them is balanced apart from the top 3-4 tanks. Each has some major flaws and some redeeming qualities.

Design wise I’d say Chinese and Chinese origin tanks lack the most, while protection remains an issue is basically every Asian tank (especially side protection). Ukraine has very weak ammunition even if they improve their tank. Russia (before the T-14) has had rather poor transmissions in its tanks.
The countries that are mass-introducing Hard kill APS systems are taking a massive leap in regards to tank protection, which would make even a mediocre tank a massive threat to a much better one.

 

[IblinI]

AFAIK There are not three versions of the ZTZ-99, only two. ZTZ-99 and 99A. I would place Pakistan specific VT-4s only slightly behind the 99A. The former leads in technological and C4I aspects while the latter leads in firepower and protection. I would place both above the Leclerc because the XLR
variant of it apparently still isn’t in service, which is quite an upgrade for the aged tank.

You’re right to say that the K-2 is mostly just a guess. There isn’t enough on it. I’d place the T90MS provyv 3 above all those tanks except the T-14, the Leo 2A6/A7 and the M1A2CSEPV3. Russian metallurgy, ERA and ammunition are still some of the best.

I’d place challenger 2 at the bottom of the list due to its rifled gun, however the improved challenger 2/Challenger 3 would place pretty high up with the armor improvements and the 130MM smootbore.

My list would look something like (speaking purely from a capability standpoint)
T-14
Leo 2A7+
M1A2C SEP V3
T90MS Provyv 3
Challenger 3 (not in service yet)
K-2
ZTZ-99A
VT-4P/AMX Leclerc/Merkava IV Windbreaker (the trophy APS plays a big part here)
ZTZ-99/VT-4/Challenger 2/T-84 Oplot M.
Al-Khalid-1/ZTZ-96B
T90S/Al-Khalid
Arjun MK-1A
And all the legacy tanks below these.

I don’t put Japanese tanks in the list because they’re very specific in their roles. If anything any list like this is purely speculative and redundant because tanks unlike fighter jets or ships don’t fight in a single, level playing field. The air and the sea remain pretty much the same, the ground on the other hand changes a lot. Each country designs tanks with their specifications, terrain, logistics and economy in mind, so while one tank may be better for one country, it certainly won’t be for another.

Secondly, if you go into detail on these tanks, you’ll see that literally none of them is balanced apart from the top 3-4 tanks. Each has some major flaws and some redeeming qualities.

Design wise I’d say Chinese and Chinese origin tanks lack the most, while protection remains an issue is basically every Asian tank (especially side protection). Ukraine has very weak ammunition even if they improve their tank. Russia (before the T-14) has had rather poor transmissions in its tanks.
The countries that are mass-introducing Hard kill APS systems are taking a massive leap in regards to tank protection, which would make even a mediocre tank a massive threat to a much better one.

mostly agreed with this list, realistically speaking, no need to glorify a tank (Type 99A) which the design was dated back ten years ago, and see no major upgrade, it fit PLA's need and they are not in a hurry to replace it atm.