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

[serenity]

Appreciated your effort but doesn't make much sense.

What doesn't make sense from what I said?

I cannot see why VT-4 is better than T90MS. Maybe small area like FY4 armor and GL5 defense system but that's it. Also VT-4 is a little cheaper to purchase and much cheaper in this deal seemingly. T90MS export purchase price is quite a lot. Almost close to Leopard class and Korean tank.

 

[LKJ86]

What doesn't make sense from what I said?

I cannot see why VT-4 is better than T90MS. Maybe small area like FY4 armor and GL5 defense system but that's it. Also VT-4 is a little cheaper to purchase and much cheaper in this deal seemingly. T90MS export purchase price is quite a lot. Almost close to Leopard class and Korean tank.

 

[IblinI]

What doesn't make sense from what I said?

I cannot see why VT-4 is better than T90MS. Maybe small area like FY4 armor and GL5 defense system but that's it. Also VT-4 is a little cheaper to purchase and much cheaper in this deal seemingly. T90MS export purchase price is quite a lot. Almost close to Leopard class and Korean tank.

You were totally wrong when you includes the aps GL5 and FY4 in the package, VT4 is a highly moduler tank, the base version doesn't comes with FY4 nor APS.
It's customized base on the buyers.

 

[serenity]

View attachment 628376

This is what I said. VT-4 is below 99A but much better than 96B. Similar level of top as ztz-99 version before 99A. Definitely up to fourth generation of best tanks. Doesn't mean anything with T90MS which is also in same level. VT-4 is not better than T90MS. It's about the same level but maybe better armor.

You were totally wrong when you includes the aps GL5 and FY4 in the package, VT4 is a highly moduler tank, the base version doesn't comes with FY4 nor APS.
It's customized base on the buyers.

Yes but they can be installed. FY4 comes with VT-4 certainly. Nobody will be stupid to not use it. GL5 installation is up to customer. I didn't say it is all included in this deal but can be used. This can be means VT-4 can improve protection level. And can in future upgrade with FY-x.

 

[LKJ86]

This is what I said.

It is just contrary to what you said.

VT-4 is not better than T90MS type roughly the same level of commander equipments but VT-4 just have more armor and heavier than MS version. VT-4 advantage is just in armor and GL5 protection system which can able to defend against rocket based attack like antitank missile. VT-4 is much better than PLA own 96B with more advanced top using many technology from 99A and commander equipment. Engine is okay power with 1200 or 1300 horse power for this over 50 tonnes. Very poor side armor and everywhere else except for front. FY4 is very amazing although and new fang yin reaction armor is even more advanced and can protect side and top very well. It is modular design and can fit into older tanks. Wait for the newest react armor plates. Will become amazing against currently used penetration rod. Americans will make newer penetration rods for this new armor.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

rocket Projectiles system = MLRS?

yes

 

[serenity]

No it is not. I cannot understand why and what you are referring. Where is the part that is incorrect or contrary??

What you shared in Chinese is saying nothing just VT-4 uses many 99 technologies but 99A still has some special gun and equipment advantages. This is exactly what I said. Same thing with armor and about VT-4 being true hunter 4th generation tank. I really do not understand.

It does not talk about T90MS. Why some people must say VT-4 is better than T90MS. There is nothing to show this and nothing that even says this. I think they are about the same which I said in first post then said again and again and again. Some areas slightly better some areas slightly worse like power for weight and commander equipment in T90MS all available and from modern generation even using some French ones.

I think since they are similar VT-4 is clearly better choice if customer wants to upgrade future armor and the tank is cheaper to buy. Right now the armor is more and heavier especially in front. I think front armor is impossible to penetrate right now. I really think 99A and VT-4 front armor requires 130mm or up and next generation rod. The FY armor is now incredible and occupy little weight.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Not by embarrassing your Allied by tabling resolution in Parliament and getting it rejected by a majority when they ask you for support in a Government to Government direct support.

@MastanKhan

I think Top brass smells a new war coming

I don't think so. Just a normal acquisition.

 

[LKJ86]

No it is not. I cannot understand why and what you are referring. Where is the part that is incorrect or contrary??

What you shared in Chinese is saying nothing just VT-4 uses many 99 technologies but 99A still has some special gun and equipment advantages. This is exactly what I said. Same thing with armor and about VT-4 being true hunter 4th generation tank. I really do not understand.

It does not talk about T90MS. Why some people must say VT-4 is better than T90MS. There is nothing to show this and nothing that even says this. I think they are about the same which I said in first post then said again and again and again. Some areas slightly better some areas slightly worse like power for weight and commander equipment in T90MS all available and from modern generation even using some French ones.

I think since they are similar VT-4 is clearly better choice if customer wants to upgrade future armor and the tank is cheaper to buy. Right now the armor is more and heavier especially in front. I think front armor is impossible to penetrate right now. I really think 99A and VT-4 front armor requires 130mm or up and next generation rod. The FY armor is now incredible and occupy little weight.

Why do you take the weaknesses of Russia's tanks as their strengths, and the strengths of VT-4 as its weaknesses???

VT-4 is not better than T90MS type roughly the same level of commander equipments but VT-4 just have more armor and heavier than MS version. VT-4 advantage is just in armor and GL5 protection system which can able to defend against rocket based attack like antitank missile. VT-4 is much better than PLA own 96B with more advanced top using many technology from 99A and commander equipment. Engine is okay power with 1200 or 1300 horse power for this over 50 tonnes. Very poor side armor and everywhere else except for front. FY4 is very amazing although and new fang yin reaction armor is even more advanced and can protect side and top very well. It is modular design and can fit into older tanks. Wait for the newest react armor plates. Will become amazing against currently used penetration rod. Americans will make newer penetration rods for this new armor.

 

[kongn]

Mate, seriously, if you don't know. Don't throw arrows in the air. MS is what Al-khalid was 15 years ago. Do some reading before commenting.

I'm sorry i tried to keep it in.But really are you comparing dressed up MBT-2000 with the latest russian proryv-3?Do you even know the specs of the latter?

All T-90 series no matter the latest are still inferior to VT-4. The level of VT-4 and handling plus sophistication in fact surpass many aspect of western MBT.

Either spreading propaganda or you are not aware of the improvements in the proryv-3.It fixes almost all of the problems of the T-series.I would love to see that tank in IA.

 

[waz]

As far as i know khalid had 3 problems-
1.Price - many of its components are imported and depreciation of pak rupee made it much costlier than projected.Even high quality steel had to be imported due to failure of pak steel mill.
2.Spare parts issue due to poor state of ukraine industry.
3.Engine -maintainence issue and breakdown during fording .

VT-4 is better than T-90 bhisma but not T-90MS proryv-3 which is superior.India has around 1200 T-90 bhisma with 400 more on order.India doesnt yet have any T-90MS though this might provoke a reaction.
Compared to the 'indian' t-90,VT-4 gun and autoloader is basically same.But it has commander's independent viewer which is a definite advantage .
Protection is similar with composite armour plus ERA,neither having active/passive defences.Will depend on whether FY-4 chinese ERA is better than russian kontakt-5.
Mobility of VT-4 will be better if it comes with 1300 hp engine.
PA certain to deploy it with 6th armoured division in key sector of punjab.

Will be interesting to see whether IA ignores this and waits for next FRCV,or does a new acquisition.

It's better than the T-90M proryv 3.
With all things being equal parts wise the VT-4 still outweighs the T-90MS, where do you think that extra weight comes, it's armour.
The VT-4 does have an active protection system with a demonstration video on this very thread!
The VT-4's mobility is far superior with a more powerful engine, and if it comes with the 1500HP engine then this already wide gap will be even wider.
Fire power is about the same yes.
Battle field management systems are slightly better on the VT-4.

I'm sorry i tried to keep it in.But really are you comparing dressed up MBT-2000 with the latest russian proryv-3?Do you even know the specs of the latter?



Either spreading propaganda or you are not aware of the improvements in the proryv-3.It fixes almost all of the problems of the T-series.I would love to see that tank in IA.

Oh ok, here it is;

https://www.armyrecognition.com/rus...bt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet.html

Just a souped up T-90. Nothing groundbreaking.

 

[LKJ86]

Battle field management systems aren slightly better on the VT-4.

It is just what VT-4 is good at.

 

[waz]

It is just what VT-4 is good at.

Yes it’s noted for that.

 

[IblinI]

It's better than the T-90M proryv 3.
With all things being equal parts wise the VT-4 still outweighs the T-90MS, where do you think that extra weight comes, it's armour.
The VT-4 does have an active protection system with a demonstration video on this very thread!
The VT-4's mobility is far superior with a more powerful engine, and if it comes with the 1500HP engine then this already wide gap will be even wider.
Fire power is about the same yes.
Battle field management systems aren slightly better on the VT-4.



Oh ok, here it is;

https://www.armyrecognition.com/rus...bt_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet.html

Just a souped up T-90. Nothing groundbreaking.

Who were the other contenders, Oplot,
T–90S?

 

[waz]

Who were the other contenders, Oplot,
T–90S?

Yes, the T-90S wasn’t tested though, considered I believe.