tanlixiang28776
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,948
- Reaction score
- 0
All this VT-4 trash talking. It will be quite hilarious if the Pakistan Army chooses it anyway.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the trials conducted in pakistan showed gun problems.Desert conditions are difficult on tanks. M1's issue in gulf wars was more the dust disrupting the turbine's performance. Not so much the gun. They can wrap seals around the muzzle.
U don't know what type 10 tanks armour is made of. So don't look down upon your enemy.
Modern ERA is effective against APFSDS. A tank below 50 ton can resist M3 round is for sure.
Plus: I thought we are not big mouth Indians, so don't need to bluff
the trials conducted in pakistan showed gun problems.
Type 99A2 is very very very expensive.There's some obvious confusion here. I'm not saying Type 10 is bad, quite the contrary. I'm saying that using the example of Type 10 to make the case for Oplot is bad. It is fallacious reasoning. Dazzler responded to my skepticism that a 40 something tonne tank can defeat M3 round from which is the latest sabot developed by the Americans particularly to defeat the latest Russian armour (with focus on defeating the latest ERA and penetrating through thickest section of turret). He says that Type 10 is well protected (it is) and Type 10 is 40 something tonnes, therefore Oplot being similar weight can be as well protected (it can indeed) but we know that Type 10 is over $8M USD for JSDF and Oplot is a fraction of that. If Oplot utilises ultra high tensile steels as part of the composite armour makeup along with expensive ceramics armour plates, it can indeed be similarly well protected as Type 10. All of this are big assumptions and then the bigger assumption on top of all this is that Type 10 and Oplot by association, can withstand M3 sabot rounds. No information on this but I'm skeptical Type 10 can 100% withstand M3 APFSDS. Maybe Oplot can with Duplet but let's not forget that M3 is designed with the aim to defeat ERA like Duplet, Relikt, and maybe even Malachit. So yes 40 tonne tanks can be well protected (semantics) but if 60+ tanks can be destroyed by primitively armed and trained, 40 tonne tanks are easy work no matter what they are and what they pretend to be.
I thought you were referring to M1 all this time. Can you provide sources to VT-4 trials in Pakistan? Why did Pakistan ever buy a single Al Khalid (whatever the Chinese base product is) if engine and gun are both crap. They can't be more crap now than the original Type 90s or whatever they were called. I hope Pakistan doesn't buy VT-4, it'll hint to me that the purchases they do make like Type 054A frigates, missiles, and others are decent and Pakistan does properly evaluate purchases and only make purchases of decent equipment. Personally I think Chinese tanks are far less competitive than their peers because tanks haven't been an area of priority for modernisation in a long time. It stands to reason that many things are outdated or underperform on Chinese tanks owing to this fact and the PLA's continued use of the old Soviet style cannon fodder doctrine of superior numbers (at least all this does apply to Type 96 and lesser tanks in PLA, Type 99 is unknown but seems to favour western doctrine). It will be interesting to see which tank Pakistan goes for. Was Altay considered? or rejected because of budget considerations? In this weight and cost class, Pakistan pretty much only has the choice of VT-4, T-80 variants, and T-72 variants (including T-90S but not MS due to costs). Oplot does seem to stand out along with VT-4 at least on paper. T-72 variants are if anything less capable and no more reliable. T-90 is better than T-72 but also costs more. No point purchasing T-72 when Pakistan has AK anyway. Oplot is also pretty unreliable even when not tested to extremes as shown in major failures in Strong Europe competitions in the last few years, especially this year's iirc. T-90 could be a decent option but cost and India has them as well and in greater numbers. They will know the T-90 more intimately and understand its weaknesses more than PA when PA gets through training with them. So realistically VT-4 or Oplot in this market. To us without confidential trial information that so many members say they have access to, out of these two Oplot has publicly showed problems with reliability more than VT-4. That's not to say VT-4 is better! But it is what it is to otherwise ignorant observers. PA will know better and make the right decision.
All this VT-4 trash talking. It will be quite hilarious if the Pakistan Army chooses it anyway.
you guys are quite pickyNo body trash talked VT 4, but rather some performance shortfalls were mentioned. Remember, the first step to accept a product is to have its flaws identified, and then removed to suit customer needs. That's a universal practice and is standard around the globe.
Some of you get so offended when a flaw is mentioned in some Chinese product which sounds rather childish.
There's some obvious confusion here. I'm not saying Type 10 is bad, quite the contrary. I'm saying that using the example of Type 10 to make the case for Oplot is bad. It is fallacious reasoning. Dazzler responded to my skepticism that a 40 something tonne tank can defeat M3 round from which is the latest sabot developed by the Americans particularly to defeat the latest Russian armour (with focus on defeating the latest ERA and penetrating through thickest section of turret). He says that Type 10 is well protected (it is) and Type 10 is 40 something tonnes, therefore Oplot being similar weight can be as well protected (it can indeed) but we know that Type 10 is over $8M USD for JSDF and Oplot is a fraction of that. If Oplot utilises ultra high tensile steels as part of the composite armour makeup along with expensive ceramics armour plates, it can indeed be similarly well protected as Type 10. All of this are big assumptions and then the bigger assumption on top of all this is that Type 10 and Oplot by association, can withstand M3 sabot rounds. No information on this but I'm skeptical Type 10 can 100% withstand M3 APFSDS. Maybe Oplot can with Duplet but let's not forget that M3 is designed with the aim to defeat ERA like Duplet, Relikt, and maybe even Malachit. So yes 40 tonne tanks can be well protected (semantics) but if 60+ tanks can be destroyed by primitively armed and trained, 40 tonne tanks are easy work no matter what they are and what they pretend to be.
M3 is designed to defeat Kontakt-5 not relikt and other modern ERAs. We are in year 2018 not 1998 sir!
M1 abrams is not M1A1 it's M1A2SepV3, T-80 is not T-80 1976 they are T-84 or t-80BVM. Don't look down upon them.
I thought you were referring to M1 all this time. Can you provide sources to VT-4 trials in Pakistan? Why did Pakistan ever buy a single Al Khalid (whatever the Chinese base product is) if engine and gun are both crap. They can't be more crap now than the original Type 90s or whatever they were called. I hope Pakistan doesn't buy VT-4, it'll hint to me that the purchases they do make like Type 054A frigates, missiles, and others are decent and Pakistan does properly evaluate purchases and only make purchases of decent equipment. Personally I think Chinese tanks are far less competitive than their peers because tanks haven't been an area of priority for modernisation in a long time. It stands to reason that many things are outdated or underperform on Chinese tanks owing to this fact and the PLA's continued use of the old Soviet style cannon fodder doctrine of superior numbers (at least all this does apply to Type 96 and lesser tanks in PLA, Type 99 is unknown but seems to favour western doctrine). It will be interesting to see which tank Pakistan goes for. Was Altay considered? or rejected because of budget considerations? In this weight and cost class, Pakistan pretty much only has the choice of VT-4, T-80 variants, and T-72 variants (including T-90S but not MS due to costs). Oplot does seem to stand out along with VT-4 at least on paper. T-72 variants are if anything less capable and no more reliable. T-90 is better than T-72 but also costs more. No point purchasing T-72 when Pakistan has AK anyway. Oplot is also pretty unreliable even when not tested to extremes as shown in major failures in Strong Europe competitions in the last few years, especially this year's iirc. T-90 could be a decent option but cost and India has them as well and in greater numbers. They will know the T-90 more intimately and understand its weaknesses more than PA when PA gets through training with them. So realistically VT-4 or Oplot in this market. To us without confidential trial information that so many members say they have access to, out of these two Oplot has publicly showed problems with reliability more than VT-4. That's not to say VT-4 is better! But it is what it is to otherwise ignorant observers. PA will know better and make the right decision.
its not.about get offended, its about you.dont have proof to back your claim.No body trash talked VT 4, but rather some performance shortfalls were mentioned. Remember, the first step to accept a product is to have its flaws identified, and then removed to suit customer needs. That's a universal practice and is standard around the globe.
Some of you get so offended when a flaw is mentioned in some Chinese product which sounds rather childish.
Like somebody faking a recovery snorkelling test video which claim as defect? I am absolutely comfortable accepting a true report of VT-4 trial problem with solid proof.No body trash talked VT 4, but rather some performance shortfalls were mentioned. Remember, the first step to accept a product is to have its flaws identified, and then removed to suit customer needs. That's a universal practice and is standard around the globe.
Some of you get so offended when a flaw is mentioned in some Chinese product which sounds rather childish.
Agree!Like somebody faking a recovery snorkelling test video which claim as defect? I am absolutely comfortable accepting a true report of VT-4 trial problem with solid proof.
But spreading lies and hearsay are another thing. It is a fact they are too many VT-4 haters bend to badmouth this tank.
Engine failure, being dragged by ARV during field trials..
View attachment 490378 View attachment 490379 View attachment 490380
It is pretty clear that it is MBT 3000 aka VT4
but recent there is a statement issued.by NORINCO calls for fair treatment to VT4 in competition, why is that?
its not.about get offended, its about you.dont have proof to back your claim.
you are not God or Allah that whatever you tell is.bound to be true.
going for T84 oplot is a predetermined result before the trial started, cut and dried. VT4 is just a passer by. its like waste out time and resource.
nothing religious here, dont misinterpret here. as i browse at CJDBY, the production cost of AK1 is only 1.8 million USD. I dont think Pakistan will pay 5.8 million per to get VT 4 unless we promise TOT it. oplot is the only option left.Post reported for dragging religion totally out of context for no reason at all. As i said, such trials are based on pragmatic testing, not some baseless nationalistic behavior but i guess it is too much for you guys to handle.
This is not the first time a chinese mbt struggled here in Pakistan.
Listen, see and learn. The type-85III was tested alongside the t-80ud for stopgap third generation mbt as the development of Alkhalid was delayed due to engine and other issues. The tests took place in 94-95 and eventually the type-85III lost to t-80ud, again, the engine and transmission were main culprits.
The 6td diesel engine was hands down a better option, though it also had problems initially but it ran almost twice as much distance as the Chinese mbt without failing. Though the army had high hopes for type-85III as they were already using the IIAP and were satisfied.
An interesting old video showing the results of the original trials.