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

[iLION12345_1]

Either VT4 or AK1 should be standardized throughout Army's tank fleet.

1st Armored Divisions needs a new steed next.

If economic conditions permit, VT4 will be. AK-1 production has ceased. Only VT4s will be procured for the foreseeable future, while older types will be kept running with upgrades to keep numbers up, since we don’t have the money to replace them all with VT4s, but ideally, that would be the plan.

Logically, as unmanned vehicles begin to proliferate on land, sea and in the air, we will find more and more need for such 'command' vehicles that do not actively fight, but collate information, form an image about the battle, and support decision-making.

It is worth remembering that air forces got these first, historically, with AWACS aircraft. The 'command' tank you have visualised above is nothing but a land AWACS, embedded (actually, this is not even necessary) within an armoured formation.

It is not necessary because in an integrated battle group that has armour, infantry fighting vehicles, each with six to ten soldiers within, self-propelled artillery, MBRLs and SAM batteries, the command vehicle can be anywhere, and should not think of itself as belonging to any one component for the formation, in order to maintain integrity of decision-making.

Needless to add, the same thing will be seen developing within navies as well.


Why?

No disagreements there, my post was more along the lines of the ergonomics and usability (or lack thereof) of BMS systems often seen in tanks, they have not reached the level where they can be used effectively yet, at least not in the sub-continent.

Six different types of MBT is also a hasty mix put together but a single type of MBT with upgrades could be the solution. E.g. Indian Army deploys T-90 in mountains of Jammu ti sands of Rajasthan. Similar terrain exists in Pakistan. AK series of MBT was designed keeping terrain in mind- hills, plains, semi-desert and desert.

Ideally that is the solution, and it was also the plan all along. Compared to the amount of AKs PA was actually meant to field, they have less than 40%. Even the AK-1 order was cut from 220 to 130.

Economic conditions did not allow for production numbers high enough to where everything else could be replaced and retired. And though now VT4 is PAs sole focus, we will likely unfortunately see a similar situation with that, a few hundred will be procured, but due to lack of funds it will not be fast enough or in enough numbers to retire the older types. PA wants more than anyone to standardize on a MBT, but such is easier said than done as I’m sure you understand.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If economic conditions permit, VT4 will be. AK-1 production has ceased. Only VT4s will be procured for the foreseeable future, while older types will be kept running with upgrades to keep numbers up, since we don’t have the money to replace them all with VT4s, but ideally, that would be the plan.


No disagreements there, my post was more along the lines of the ergonomics and usability (or lack thereof) of BMS systems often seen in tanks, they have not reached the level where they can be used effectively yet, at least not in the sub-continent.


Ideally that is the solution, and it was also the plan all along. Compared to the amount of AKs PA was actually meant to field, they have less than 40%. Even the AK-1 order was cut from 220 to 130.

Economic conditions did not allow for production numbers high enough to where everything else could be replaced and retired. And though now VT4 is PAs sole focus, we will likely unfortunately see a similar situation with that, a few hundred will be procured, but due to lack of funds it will not be fast enough or in enough numbers to retire the older types. PA wants more than anyone to standardize on a MBT, but such is easier said than done as I’m sure you understand.

Did the PA ever think about fielding an IFV with a 105 mm cannon as a 'light tank?' Especially if it thought about acquiring an IFV?

 

[PanzerKiel]

Did the PA ever think about fielding an IFV with a 105 mm cannon as a 'light tank?' Especially if it thought about acquiring an IFV?

Nopes.
Our doctrine dictates that infantry has to be dropped off out of effective range of enemy anti tank systems, otherwise one good hit takes a whole section out, along with the vehicle.

Infantry fighting vehicles are distinct from armored personnel carriers (APCs), which are transport vehicles armed only for self-defense and not specifically engineered to fight on their own. IFVs are designed to be more mobile than tanks and are equipped with a rapid-firing autocannon or a large conventional gun; they may include side ports for infantrymen to fire their personal weapons while on board.... Armies which think that their future operations entail long distance mobile battles thus have them.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Nopes.
Our doctrine dictates that infantry has to be dropped off out of effective range of enemy anti tank systems, otherwise one good hit takes a whole section out, along with the vehicle.

Infantry fighting vehicles are distinct from armored personnel carriers (APCs), which are transport vehicles armed only for self-defense and not specifically engineered to fight on their own. IFVs are designed to be more mobile than tanks and are equipped with a rapid-firing autocannon or a large conventional gun; they may include side ports for infantrymen to fire their personal weapons while on board.... Armies which think that their future operations entail long distance mobile battles thus have them.

Aaj meray se bhi pehle jawab

 

[Paul2]

Some T-80s have been withdrawn from service. Commonality of parts, training of crews and capability of MBT are other deciding factors when selecting a tank. Eventually a single type of MBT should be the option exercised by Army which can then be followed up with multiple upgrade programs like Abrams and Leo.

You always want to have at least 2 types of a big ticket defence items, especially if you have foreign equipment. Also, never let your defence companies to merge too much.

Nopes.
Our doctrine dictates that infantry has to be dropped off out of effective range of enemy anti tank systems, otherwise one good hit takes a whole section out, along with the vehicle.

Infantry fighting vehicles are distinct from armored personnel carriers (APCs), which are transport vehicles armed only for self-defense and not specifically engineered to fight on their own. IFVs are designed to be more mobile than tanks and are equipped with a rapid-firing autocannon or a large conventional gun; they may include side ports for infantrymen to fire their personal weapons while on board.... Armies which think that their future operations entail long distance mobile battles thus have them.

An IFV taking a hit from a modern ATGM will still lose a squad, but at least it can retaliate at 2-3kms... if the gun is good enough. Modern ATGMs now soundly outrange M242

 

[Signalian]

Did the PA ever think about fielding an IFV with a 105 mm cannon as a 'light tank?' Especially if it thought about acquiring an IFV?

Nopes.
Our doctrine dictates that infantry has to be dropped off out of effective range of enemy anti tank systems, otherwise one good hit takes a whole section out, along with the vehicle.

Infantry fighting vehicles are distinct from armored personnel carriers (APCs), which are transport vehicles armed only for self-defense and not specifically engineered to fight on their own. IFVs are designed to be more mobile than tanks and are equipped with a rapid-firing autocannon or a large conventional gun; they may include side ports for infantrymen to fire their personal weapons while on board.... Armies which think that their future operations entail long distance mobile battles thus have them

PA won’t field light tanks. PA wants MBT with enough armor to survive the battle instead of getting out of action from one hit by enemy.

Imagine a light tank taking all those hits years ago on COIN instead of that burnt out AZ which took multiple hits from different directions. This is also an eye opener for those who think that crew safety is not on cards with PA. Light tanks will be lost quickly along with their crews even if they field a heavy gun 125mm. M-113 is not supposed to come in direct contact with enemy. God knows how the commanders will deploy it when the time comes. The vehicle that PA wants to have direct contact with enemy is MBT.

 

[PanzerKiel]

You always want to have at least 2 types of a big ticket defence items, especially if you have foreign equipment. Also, never let your defence companies to merge too much.



An IFV taking a hit from a modern ATGM will still lose a squad, but at least it can retaliate at 2-3kms... if the gun is good enough. Modern ATGMs now soundly outrange M242

If IFV is retaliating, it means it's operating out there alone. Logically tanks should be taking the hard knocks due to their better armor protection and better firepower. IFVs or APCs should be operating in the cover provided by the tanks. IFVs can only operate with impunity in a low threat environment having no ATGMs or small diameter anti tank weapons... That or if they want to operate alone, then heavy rotary air cover. Otherwise.....

 

[Signalian]

If IFV is retaliating, it means it's operating out there alone. Logically tanks should be taking the hard knocks due to their better armor protection and better firepower. IFVs or APCs should be operating in the cover provided by the tanks. IFVs can only operate with impunity in a low threat environment having no ATGMs or small diameter anti tank weapons... That or if they want to operate alone, then heavy rotary air cover. Otherwise.....

Bradley sandwiched by Abrams for protection

 

[PanzerKiel]

Bradley sandwiched by Abrams for protection

View attachment 935180

.... Which brings me to my call sign here...

The Panzerkeil ("armoured wedge" or "tank wedge") was an offensive armoured tactic developed by German Kampfgruppe (battle groups) on the Eastern Front during World War II. The Panzerkeil was developed in response to the Soviet employment of the Pakfront anti-tank gun defence.

The Panzerkeil was an offensive formation used by armoured vehicles, most commonly tanks, supported by Panzergrenadier mechanised infantry and aircraft.The tanks would form into a wedge-shaped formation, with the most heavily armed and armoured vehicles forming the tip. At the Battle of Kursk, Tiger I heavy tanks would form the tip, Panther medium tanks (where available) the base, with Panzer IV and Panzer III medium tanks forming the wings.

The advantage of the Panzerkeil was that the anti-tank gunners of the opposing Pakfront would be forced to constantly adjust their ranges due to the depth of the formation. Also, the heavily armoured Tigers and Panthers would bear the brunt of the anti-tank fire, leaving the more vulnerable tanks safe from enemy fire.

 

[nomi007]

Did the PA ever think about fielding an IFV with a 105 mm cannon as a 'light tank?' Especially if it thought about acquiring an IFV?

our main focus is on Vigo dala

 

[Paul2]

If IFV is retaliating, it means it's operating out there alone. Logically tanks should be taking the hard knocks due to their better armor protection and better firepower. IFVs or APCs should be operating in the cover provided by the tanks. IFVs can only operate with impunity in a low threat environment having no ATGMs or small diameter anti tank weapons... That or if they want to operate alone, then heavy rotary air cover. Otherwise.....

IFVs will have to operate alone outside of tank's protection for most of the time outside of large, well planned manoeuvre. How well do you think the army will be able to send whole mech battalions to every small diversion by the opposing force in a large conflict?

 

[PanzerKiel]

IFVs will have to operate alone outside of tank's protection for most of the time outside of large, well planned manoeuvre. How well do you think the army will be able to send whole mech battalions to every small diversion by the opposing force in a large conflict?

That's why, mech battalions generally form part of armor of maneuver brigades, with one mech unit grouped with two to three armor units, atleast in the sub continent as well.

 

[SQ8]

If IFV is retaliating, it means it's operating out there alone. Logically tanks should be taking the hard knocks due to their better armor protection and better firepower. IFVs or APCs should be operating in the cover provided by the tanks. IFVs can only operate with impunity in a low threat environment having no ATGMs or small diameter anti tank weapons... That or if they want to operate alone, then heavy rotary air cover. Otherwise.....

Moreover - sometimes having too much of an overpowered IFV like the Bradley was with its TOWs and bushmaster leads to its commanders deciding to play “Tank commander” with seriously detrimental results in exercises.

You’re a tin can with some light armor - not a chobham coated 105mm rifled gun equipped mobile bunker… dont try going up against it

 

[Signalian]

To add more to why tanks such as AK and VT4 still matter..

Tanks have direct protection—the ability to survive being hit. They can sit on a street or in a jungle, under the canopy or the urban clutter, identify targets of immediate threat and neutralise them in an extremely precise manner using optics, sensors and direct-fire systems. Given appropriate rules of engagement, the risk of civilian casualties is low compared to air systems that sit above the canopy/clutter and have more difficulty in identifying and discriminating targets. Tanks also have relatively indefinite endurance—they can accompany other elements of the team, be logistically sustained easily, and remain in support on the ground (individually or in relays) continuously for long periods. Drones/gunships cannot be deployed in the same numbers as tanks, and gunships are much harder to sustain in engineering and logistic terms, require immense amounts of fuel to achieve comparable endurance and, in fact, aerial assets can achieve only a fraction of the full-time intimate presence achieved by tanks.

Another aspect is that tank's primary purpose is to provide intimate support to a combined arms formations in close combat, not just to kill other tanks at long range. In terms of long-range anti-tank capability, drones/gunships are highly capable when it is safe for them to fly. But in terms of close combat, they are severely restricted in comparison with tanks.

 

[sparten]

Did the PA ever think about fielding an IFV with a 105 mm cannon as a 'light tank?' Especially if it thought about acquiring an IFV?

They summarily court martial anyone who suggests it.