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

[Elernal]

When General Dynamics and the entire US military which leads the forefront in unmanned warfare - and the IDF which leads in hard kill systems believes the tank is still relevant - what is a single liner piecemeal statement on PDF worth?

That's because the information you currently have is outdated, this year's war in Russia and Ukraine is the most intense war of the century so far, and the most effective test of the effectiveness of land warfare doctrine, when you say that tanks are given priority by the U.S. and Israel I wonder if you have considered who these tanks are opposing, first consider this before mentioning unmanned warfare and hard kill is not too late, and of course, not to mention the IDF's hard kill capability is not even close to the level of the current permanent members of the UN, just that he has been bullying weak opponents. When the U.S. Army is always looking for ways to put more urban warfare kits on Abrams you will find that things like tanks are actually not as effective as many other units, especially the artillery units that are currently making a splash, and the Army does not need such units that pursue single combat capability in a complete information-based combat system, which is also contrary to U.S. air control doctrine

 

[iLION12345_1]

That's because the information you currently have is outdated, this year's war in Russia and Ukraine is the most intense war of the century so far, and the most effective test of the effectiveness of land warfare doctrine, when you say that tanks are given priority by the U.S. and Israel I wonder if you have considered who these tanks are opposing, first consider this before mentioning unmanned warfare and hard kill is not too late, and of course, not to mention the IDF's hard kill capability is not even close to the level of the current permanent members of the UN, just that he has been bullying weak opponents. When the U.S. Army is always looking for ways to put more urban warfare kits on Abrams you will find that things like tanks are actually not as effective as many other units, especially the artillery units that are currently making a splash, and the Army does not need such units that pursue single combat capability in a complete information-based combat system, which is also contrary to U.S. air control doctrine

Me When people start equating the Pak-Ind theatre and doctrine to the shitshow of a fight that isn’t even a proper conventional conflict in Ukraine-Russia or the power projection based militaries of Europe:

 

[PakFactor]

Me When people start equating the Pak-Ind theatre and doctrine to the shitshow of a fight that isn’t even a proper conventional conflict in Ukraine-Russia or the power projection based militaries of Europe:

So to get this straight, do you consider the power projection of European armies lesser than Indo-Pak in conventional warfare?

 

[iLION12345_1]

So to get this straight, do you consider the power projection of European armies lesser than Indo-Pak in conventional warfare?

I don’t entirely get the question but I’ll try to give an answer.

Can the major European nations (UK, Germany, France and to some extent Italy) project their power further and more effectively in other parts of the world than india and Pakistan? Yes, most definitely, especially after all their recent defense budget increases due to the Russian invasion.
Because that’s what they need to do. France needs to be in Africa, the US needs to be basically everywhere but the US itself, all of them need to be in Ukraine etc, india and Pakistan have no reason to be anywhere else but their own countries, and even then Pakistani forces have many foreign deployments, more so than india, but only in a training or advisory roles, neither country is fighting in another apart from under the UN.
EU nations don’t have as much use for a large tank force because they don’t face a threat of direct invasion, nor do they plan on taking several thousand MBTs to invade another nation (the one country that might need to do so, USA, still has several thousand MBTs, the other European nations are going for quality of tanks over quantity).

Does that mean that if they were put in place of india or Pakistan and asked to fight the other they would fare better than india or Pakistan themselves? No, because even if they have better power projection and overall mode advanced technology, they’re not set up to fight our war. On Afghanistan and Vietnam’s terms, even the US forces could not break through. But put either Afghanistan or Vietnam next to the US and see how many seconds both nations survive, similarly if you put the UK or Germany next to Pakistan, I’d wager we’d have a much easier time beating them than we would India in this entirely hypothetical scenario (of course, economic power be damned in that case).

India and Pakistan are (obviously) far better set up to fight an indo-Pak war, both the countries and militaries literally train every waking day to fight each other. Both doctrines and terrains are very tank friendly and tank heavy. And if the Russian forces weren’t so incompetent at strategy and logistics, tanks would be the most important part of their victory, but send your tanks one by one into an urban area without infantry or air cover and what do you expect apart from them being picked off one by one by modern ATGMs provided by the west.

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict did nothing to prove how good UAVs or how obsolete tanks are in a conventional war, all it did was prove how important proper doctrine, strategy, logistics and morale is.​

 

[PakFactor]

I don’t entirely get the question but I’ll the to give an answer.

Can the major European nations (UK, Germany, France and to some extent Italy) project their power further and more effectively in other parts of the world than india and Pakistan? Yes, most definitely, especially after all their recent defense budget increases due to the Russian invasion.
Because that’s what they need to do. France needs to be in Africa, the US needs to be basically everywhere but the US itself, all of them need to be in Ukraine etc
They don’t have as much use for a large tank force because they don’t face a threat of direct invasion, nor do they plan on taking several thousand MBTs to invade another nation (the one country that might need to do so, USA, still has several thousand MBTs, the other European nations are going for quality of tanks over quantity).

Does that mean that if they were put in place of india or Pakistan and asked to fight the other they would fare better than india or Pakistan themselves? No, because even if they have better power projection and overall mode advanced technology, they’re not set up to fight our war. On Afghanistan and Vietnam’s terms, even the US forces could not break through. But put either Afghanistan or Vietnam next to the US and see how many seconds both nations survive, similarly if you put the UK or Germany next to Pakistan, I’d wager we’d have a much easier time beating them than we would India in this entirely hypothetical scenario (of course, economic power be damned in that case).

India and Pakistan are (obviously) far better set up to fight an indo-Pak war, both the countries and militaries literally train every waking day to fight each other. Both doctrines and terrains are very tank friendly and tank heavy. And if the Russian forces weren’t so incompetent at strategy and logistics, tanks would be the most important part of their victory, but send your tanks one by one into an urban area without infantry or air cover and what do you expect apart from them being picked off one by one by modern ATGMs provided by the west.

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict did nothing to prove how good UAVs or how obsolete tanks are in a conventional war, all it did was prove how important proper doctrine, strategy, logistics and Morale is.​

​

Ok. Now your point is clear to understand. Thanks.

 

[LeGenD]

India and Pakistan are (obviously) far better set up to fight an indo-Pak war, both the countries and militaries literally train every waking day to fight each other. Both doctrines and terrains are very tank friendly and tank heavy. And if the Russian forces weren’t so incompetent at strategy and logistics, tanks would be the most important part of their victory, but send your tanks one by one into an urban area without infantry or air cover and what do you expect apart from them being picked off one by one by modern ATGMs provided by the west.

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict did nothing to prove how good UAVs or how obsolete tanks are in a conventional war, all it did was prove how important proper doctrine, strategy, logistics and morale is.​

Russian invasion of Ukraine was originally well-planned and executed but Russian tanks could not survive in Ukrainian environments. Ukrainian forces have taken out entire columns of Russian forces [on the move] in different locations. Ukrainian forces also had a total of 250 S-300 launchers in their possession to make it very difficult for Russian jets to provide CAS to Russian forces in different locations.

Ukrainian forces have also suffered losses in men and material in various engagements but NATO continues to provide equipment and valuable INTEL to them. NATO have made this war very costly for Russia to fight by extension.

Many now assume that Russian forces are incompetent and lack in courage but they were not equipped to fight NATO in reality. Many had bought into sheer hype created by Russian analysts over the years and thought that Russia forces could steamroll Baltics. I maintained on this forum that I would like to see Russian forces defeat POLAND in a war, let alone Baltics.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Russian invasion of Ukraine was originally well-planned and executed but Russian tanks could not survive in Ukrainian environments. Ukrainian forces have taken out entire columns of Russian forces [on the move] in different locations. Ukrainian forces also had a total of 250 S-300 launchers in their possession to make it very difficult for Russian jets to provide CAS to Russian forces in different locations.

Ukrainian forces have also suffered losses in men and material in various engagements but NATO continues to provide equipment and valuable INTEL to them. NATO have made this war very costly for Russia to fight by extension.

Many now assume that Russian forces are incompetent and lack in courage but they were not equipped to fight NATO in reality. Many had bought into sheer hype created by Russian analysts over the years and thought that Russia forces could steamroll Baltics. I maintained on this forum that I would like to see Russian forces defeat POLAND in a war, let alone Baltics.

I agree with you, I never expected Russia to be able to win. It was very well known how poorly maintained their military is, how low morale is and how many ghost soldiers and officers there are in their forces.

On top of that it was very poorly executed after the first week or so of fighting. In most cases it’s individual Russian tanks or jets without infantry covert, AD cover or SEAD/DEAD/EW cover just getting picked off. I’m not sure if Russia somehow didn’t expect the west to arm Ukraine or what, but either way they were always to me the perfect example of a paper tiger military, one with high numbers and statistics but no chance of pulling off an entire invasion like that. Russians didn’t even know what they were doing in Ukraine. “Denazifying”, what a meme.

That’s not to say Ukraine’s military was in any better state while starting, but western intelligence, training and armament plus their actual will to fight has changed things considerably.

 

[KampfAlwin]

Interesting... VT-4 with a new type of APS

 

[arslank03]

Interesting... VT-4 with a new type of APS
View attachment 888952

im pretty certian PA will have suggested improvements and these are those improvements. Top attack protection is nice, wish there was an extra round or two

 

[SQ8]

That's because the information you currently have is outdated, this year's war in Russia and Ukraine is the most intense war of the century so far, and the most effective test of the effectiveness of land warfare doctrine, when you say that tanks are given priority by the U.S. and Israel I wonder if you have considered who these tanks are opposing, first consider this before mentioning unmanned warfare and hard kill is not too late, and of course, not to mention the IDF's hard kill capability is not even close to the level of the current permanent members of the UN, just that he has been bullying weak opponents. When the U.S. Army is always looking for ways to put more urban warfare kits on Abrams you will find that things like tanks are actually not as effective as many other units, especially the artillery units that are currently making a splash, and the Army does not need such units that pursue single combat capability in a complete information-based combat system, which is also contrary to U.S. air control doctrine

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is ANYTHING but conventional or intense in the standard sense.
The extremely poor execution by Russia of the assets on the ground pretty much negates the effectiveness of armor as @iLION12345_1 points out but also rotary and fixed wing assets. Russian deployment of support elements - poor or non existent CAS and even poorly used Unmanned assets makes this conflict more a measure of how ill prepared Russia us for war instead of any true reflection on armored warfare.

Your example of urban TUSK kits for M1s is also completely misplaced and irrelevant as tanks have faced difficulties in urban warfare since WWII. Why were they not ruled obsolete then based on your logic?

Even element in warfare has a particular use case(s) where it performs best. Tanks don’t favor confined places - nor are they single shot elements sent into enemy territory without reconnaissance or support elements.
That had held true since they were introduced, in WW1 to WW2, to Vietnam to Chechnya and Iraq until today.

 

[Inception-06]

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is ANYTHING but conventional or intense in the standard sense.
The extremely poor execution by Russia of the assets on the ground pretty much negates the effectiveness of armor as @iLION12345_1 points out but also rotary and fixed wing assets. Russian deployment of support elements - poor or non existent CAS and even poorly used Unmanned assets makes this conflict more a measure of how ill prepared Russia us for war instead of any true reflection on armored warfare.

Your example of urban TUSK kits for M1s is also completely misplaced and irrelevant as tanks have faced difficulties in urban warfare since WWII. Why were they not ruled obsolete then based on your logic?

Even element in warfare has a particular use case(s) where it performs best. Tanks don’t favor confined places - nor are they single shot elements sent into enemy territory without reconnaissance or support elements.
That had held true since they were introduced, in WW1 to WW2, to Vietnam to Chechnya and Iraq until today.

Do you expect Pakistan or India would do a better execution of assets at the ground then the Russian Military?

 

[iLION12345_1]

Do you expect Pakistan or India would do a better execution of assets at the ground then the Russian Military?

Against each other? I definitely do.
Both are fully volunteer forces with rather patriotic/motivated soldiers and have been practicing it for 7 odd decades including several wars with each other already. Both have highly thought out logistical and defensive lines as well as dedicated formations for dedicated tasks. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a sudden and mostly unplanned action contract to popular belief. A Pakistan-india war will not be as such, it will unfortunately also be much bloodier, especially with how Muslims are currently viewed in India.

Where both forces might suffer is obviously economics and internal fiascos. There’s over a dozen separatist movements in India and Pakistan has its fair share of terrorist elements to contend with. Neither india and especially not Pakistan can hold out on a war as long as Russia has, yes they’re doing poorly, but they’re still better economically than both india and Pakistan combined.

 

[Raja Porus]

Do you expect Pakistan or India would do a better execution of assets at the ground then the Russian Military?

You doubt our pdf's manstein?

 

[Inception-06]

You doubt our pdf's manstein?

I don’t have any doubt in what I have seen. I am reading since years and now moreover since Syrian civil war and Russia Ukraine war, that Tanks failed on the Battlefield because they lacked the support of Infantrymen. That’s easy written here in PDF many times. But no one did try to explain what exactly is the role of Infantrymen in the battlefield when it’s accompanying the Tank. Is it to walk in front of the Tank ? Is it walk near the Tank ? Run on the flanks of the Tank ? Is it driving with battle taxi in Pakistani case the M-113 or APC with the speed of the Tank near the flanks ? Or be behind the Tanks and when Enemy formation is firing or spotted and Infantrymen has to dismount and what comes after that ? I tried to scratch this core issue years ago, but the enthusiastic writing here didn’t reach the Level to discuss this core issue.

 

[blain2]

I don’t have any doubt in what I have seen. I am reading since years and now moreover since Syrian civil war and Russia Ukraine war, that Tanks failed on the Battlefield because they lacked the support of Infantrymen. That’s easy written here in PDF many times. But no one did try to explain what exactly is the role of Infantrymen in the battlefield when it’s accompanying the Tank. Is it to walk in front of the Tank ? Is it walk near the Tank ? Run on the flanks of the Tank ? Is it driving with battle taxi in Pakistani case the M-113 or APC with the speed of the Tank near the flanks ? Or be behind the Tanks and when Enemy formation is firing or spotted and Infantrymen has to dismount and what comes after that ? I tried to scratch this core issue years ago, but the enthusiastic writing here didn’t reach the Level to discuss this core issue.

View attachment 889305

Not sure if I clearly understand what you are asking. In general, Infantry's role is to "close with and destroy" the enemy with armor support and in this specific case of combined arms operations. It is the infantry that holds the ground, so whether the infantry moves on foot or in APCs/IFVs with the armor, the idea is to get infantry in the vicinity of contact with the adversary and then through superior fire and maneuver, assault and take over the positions (you could add 10 other missions/capabilities to this list that the infantry could deliver on).

How the infantry is employed when the armor moves depends on the situation and the frontage requiring coverage. There are entire manuals written on infantry employment with combined arms as well as on the movement to contact. You are essentially teaching both infantry and armor to advance while keeping in mind own and opposing direct/indirect fire among a thousand other considerations.