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

[Dazzler]

That's little bit exaggeration.

On the contrary, thats the truth. Its armor, especially the turret front is commendable.

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.



This is indeed impressive for Oplot if true but I've a very hard time believing a sub 50 tonne Soviet cast armour based tank can withstand even 90s ammunition. Okay add modifications, modernisation of armour, and some of the best ERA in the world, it should be quite a well protected tank. But that sabot round is designed to penetrate 60+ tonne 21st century armour. Maybe the new ERAs are highly effective though. Maybe Norinco can purchase Duplet for export option. BTW Dazzler could you supply any sources of information or if you can disclose any specifics?

Cast armor? Ukrainians abandoned cast armor back in the 90s. The t-80ud and 84 series contain all welded esr refined HHS steel construction.

 

[serenity]

On the contrary, thats the truth. Its armor, especially the turret front is commendable.

Do you have information on how testing of armour was done? Or did engineers rely on blueprints, material composition, and salesman claims to evaluate armour? Would be nice and fun to have destructive testing

I meant it was based on T-80 which was designed as a cast armour turret originally. They have been modernised since then but the real extent of which eludes all. Like Type99 has all these modern tank features but how well executed we don't know either. But at least it is a ground up design and not based off Type 59 or 80 series.

 

[Dazzler]

Do you have information on how testing of armour was done? Or did engineers rely on blueprints, material composition, and salesman claims to evaluate armour? Would be nice and fun to have destructive testing

Who discusses such things on an internet forum?

Do you have information on how testing of armour was done? Or did engineers rely on blueprints, material composition, and salesman claims to evaluate armour? Would be nice and fun to have destructive testing

I meant it was based on T-80 which was designed as a cast armour turret originally. They have been modernised since then but the real extent of which eludes all. Like Type99 has all these modern tank features but how well executed we don't know either. But at least it is a ground up design and not based off Type 59 or 80 series.

Do you know which variant? T80 had several variants from object 478 to 219.

 

[serenity]

Who discusses such things on an internet forum?

Well you are making some claims that makes us think you are in the know (giving you the benefit of the doubt). I can understand why you won't want to disclose further information but surely you can understand how that would be interesting to know so you can't blame me. Beyond that, anyone can claim anything. I can claim I am the chief designer of Type 110 next gen Chinese tank and its armour cannot be penetrated by anything in existence. What makes the Ukrainian 40 something tonne tank impervious to latest US sabot round. If that science is achieved by Ukraine surely other bigger military nations have it too. Then does that mean M1A3 is impenetrable being 60+ tonnes.

Oplot has won 0.5 exports (Thailand is sort of a win but they also decided on Oplot BEFORE VT-4 was introduced and marketed to them so the original Oplot decision was made without the consideration of VT-4, MBT2000 probably significantly worse than VT-4 enough for them to order VT-4 twice and completely ignore MBT2000 which means latter was not to their liking) in a market that has had many buyers looking for 40 something tonne tanks. If the performance was good, it would have many export orders.

 

[Dazzler]

Well you are making some claims that makes us think you are in the know (giving you the benefit of the doubt). I can understand why you won't want to disclose further information but surely you can understand how that would be interesting to know so you can't blame me. Beyond that, anyone can claim anything. I can claim I am the chief designer of Type 110 next gen Chinese tank and its armour cannot be penetrated by anything in existence. What makes the Ukrainian 40 something tonne tank impervious to latest US sabot round. If that science is achieved by Ukraine surely other bigger military nations have it too. Then does that mean M1A3 is impenetrable being 60+ tonnes.

No one will discuss each detail. Yes, some salient points will make their way to the public but that's it.

 

[serenity]

No one will discuss each detail. Yes, some salient points will make their way to the public but that's it.

Okay fair enough. Please don't take my comments about Oplot to be insulting to either Ukraine or Oplot or T-80. I just have a difficult time believing its armour can withstand M3 sabot while the whole tank is under 50 tonnes. That is some seriously world leading armour engineering. Others will need to catch up or copy it quickly.

 

[Dazzler]

Okay fair enough. Please don't take my comments about Oplot to be insulting to either Ukraine or Oplot or T-80. I just have a difficult time believing its armour can withstand M3 sabot while the whole tank is under 50 tonnes. That is some seriously world leading armour engineering. Others will need to catch up or copy it quickly.

JapNese type 10 sits at 45 tons and has a better armor. You guys should get hold of them asap.

 

[Hu Yao]

JapNese type 10 sits at 45 tons and has a better armor. You guys should get hold of them asap.

Put how good type 10 is aside, that tank is far too expensive for us.

 

[Dazzler]

Well you are making some claims that makes us think you are in the know (giving you the benefit of the doubt). I can understand why you won't want to disclose further information but surely you can understand how that would be interesting to know so you can't blame me. Beyond that, anyone can claim anything. I can claim I am the chief designer of Type 110 next gen Chinese tank and its armour cannot be penetrated by anything in existence. What makes the Ukrainian 40 something tonne tank impervious to latest US sabot round. If that science is achieved by Ukraine surely other bigger military nations have it too. Then does that mean M1A3 is impenetrable being 60+ tonnes.

Oplot has won 0.5 exports (Thailand is sort of a win but they also decided on Oplot BEFORE VT-4 was introduced and marketed to them so the original Oplot decision was made without the consideration of VT-4, MBT2000 probably significantly worse than VT-4 enough for them to order VT-4 twice and completely ignore MBT2000 which means latter was not to their liking) in a market that has had many buyers looking for 40 something tonne tanks. If the performance was good, it would have many export orders.

T64 was never exported. That doesn't make it less effective. On the contrary, when the R variant was revealed, the west had no answer to it.

 

[serenity]

JapNese type 10 sits at 45 tons and has a better armor. You guys should get hold of them asap.

What are you talking about now? How can China buy Japanese Type 10? It has good armour it is still a lightly armoured tank. The overall protection is still less than a heavy weight with 20 tonnes more armour or even a medium weight with 10 tonnes more armour. Also Type 10 is stupid for China. PLA wants to have numbers in order to have tanks everywhere on the giant landmass. It cannot afford to go down the track of buying a handful of super expensive "hangar queens". It needs numbers and to get numbers you have to compromise on quality and ability. Type 96 is ideal.

 

[Dazzler]

What are you talking about now? How can China buy Japanese Type 10? It has good armour it is still a lightly armoured tank. The overall protection is still less than a heavy weight with 20 tonnes more armour or even a medium weight with 10 tonnes more armour.

Armor efficiency has little to do with weight, rather the right combination of materials used.

 

[serenity]

But what do you mean by you guys should get a hold of it? Sounds like a snide remark. No need for that stuff. Just because I don't believe your claims, doesn't mean you need to be passive aggressive. Please provide some evidence Ukrainian armour is so good. Saying type 10 at similar weight has good armour does not constitute evidence. Type 10 uses ultra high tensile steels and composites, like many tanks (except the ultra high tensile steel part which is why each is over $8M USD for Japan itself). Seriously pointless when one drone can take out multiple Type 10s when they still don't have semi-spherical APS. As far as I understand Type 10 is good armour for its weight but still saying that Oplot can be good is true but so can any 40 tonne tank. But this is considering armour relative to weight. 40 tonnes may be high quality armour but it's still 40 tonnes and M3 round will make easy work of it (high quality 40 tonnes or low quality). Armour science is not particularly difficult. India also does well in it with Arjun variants. The armour on that is as good as heavy weight westerns. Norinco may be short changing customers with dodgy armour though. But the overall take is that if M3 can be beaten by 40 tonnes of armour, 60 tonnes is useless. Why then do so many nations choose to go with heavy tanks.

 

[Hu Yao]

What are you talking about now? How can China buy Japanese Type 10? It has good armour it is still a lightly armoured tank. The overall protection is still less than a heavy weight with 20 tonnes more armour or even a medium weight with 10 tonnes more armour.

I am not sure about your opoinion. Type 10 has decent armour for sure. We just didn't know how good it is.

If you make your tank smaller, then you don't need that much steal, your tank will be much lighter. Remember AMX-30 brennus a 36 ton tank with decent firepower and protection, and that is made in 1970s.

Using 21 centry tech you can get a very good tank within 50 tons. Just how much money you wanna cost.

For Japan, their type 90 tanks can go nowhere except Hokkaido. In most East Asian Countries, the terrian is quite soft. Heavy tanks always sucked into the mud.

So their type 10 tanks just gave up some new features like 120M/L55 cannon, heavy armour and something else. Just focusing on weight. Have to say type 10 is good. But too expensive for every other countries.

 

[Dazzler]

But what do you mean by you guys should get a hold of it? Sounds like a snide remark. No need for that stuff. Just because I don't believe your claims, doesn't mean you need to be passive aggressive. Please provide some evidence Ukrainian armour is so good. Saying type 10 at similar weight has good armour does not constitute evidence. Type 10 uses ultra high tensile steels and composites, like many tanks (except the ultra high tensile steel part which is why each is over $8M USD for Japan itself). Seriously pointless when one drone can take out multiple Type 10s when they still don't have semi-spherical APS. As far as I understand Type 10 is good armour for its weight but still saying that Oplot can be good is true but so can any 40 tonne tank. But this is considering armour relative to weight. 40 tonnes may be high quality armour but it's still 40 tonnes and M3 round will make easy work of it (high quality 40 tonnes or low quality). Armour science is not particularly difficult. India also does well in it with Arjun variants. The armour on that is as good as heavy weight westerns. Norinco may be short changing customers with dodgy armour though. But the overall take is that if M3 can be beaten by 40 tonnes of armour, 60 tonnes is useless. Why then do so many nations choose to go with heavy tanks.

I usually avoid responding to useless rhetoric. Its a workable idea provided both sides are willing. Choosing heavy tank has more to do with the doctrine and the way user wants to employ the system in a given scenario.

 

[Hu Yao]

But what do you mean by you guys should get a hold of it? Sounds like a snide remark. No need for that stuff. Just because I don't believe your claims, doesn't mean you need to be passive aggressive. Please provide some evidence Ukrainian armour is so good. Saying type 10 at similar weight has good armour does not constitute evidence. Type 10 uses ultra high tensile steels and composites, like many tanks (except the ultra high tensile steel part which is why each is over $8M USD for Japan itself). Seriously pointless when one drone can take out multiple Type 10s when they still don't have semi-spherical APS. As far as I understand Type 10 is good armour for its weight but still saying that Oplot can be good is true but so can any 40 tonne tank. But this is considering armour relative to weight. 40 tonnes may be high quality armour but it's still 40 tonnes and M3 round will make easy work of it (high quality 40 tonnes or low quality). Armour science is not particularly difficult. India also does well in it with Arjun variants. The armour on that is as good as heavy weight westerns. Norinco may be short changing customers with dodgy armour though. But the overall take is that if M3 can be beaten by 40 tonnes of armour, 60 tonnes is useless. Why then do so many nations choose to go with heavy tanks.

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