What's new

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

The 99A was an excellent tank for its time, The Chinese forces have been focusing their money where needed; on their Air Force and navy. They don’t really need better tanks right now since they’ve got no use for them, their ZTZ-99As are still arguably the best tanks in the region.

It’s not that China can’t make a better tank. It’s that they don’t need it, and the current ones they have come from an Era where China wasn’t fully capable of making its own designs unlike it is now, that’s why the designs are dated.

I’m sure they’ll replace or Upgrade their tank sooner or later, whenever they feel the need for it.
Considering how much China has advanced in other technologies, the new design will probably be comparable to its western and Russian counterparts as well.
I would argue it is not because they have no use of tanks, but more like ZTZ-99A ain't bad enough to urge them to make developing an new MBT or MBT platform into top piority.

The Type-62 is really outdated so they decide to develop ZTQ-15. ZTZ-99A's has a good frontal protection, but we are know it's 30 degree problem and its soviet style auto loader actually limit china to insert a better munition. Its not like current munition is bad or something, but due to the fact modern Armor start to put heavier and heavier armor, it definitely better to use better munition. The problem lies in the modern technology can not provide any "game change" achievement such as material to provide better protection but lot lighter weight, much better canon and shell.

Under current tech, either put better armor or better gun will increase the weight and without a solution to provide lighter weight but super density material and much powerful and reliable engine, you risk of sacrifice mobility and even reliability to achieve these status. Some might argue APS will solve the problem, but from what I learned, Drozd 1 only have around 75% chance of intercept rate, not sure about arena and Drozd 2 tho, but the charge is limited, and it have range requirement, if fired upclosed it lack of time to react. So it will not solved all the problem. Tho china do have a Hard Kill APS system called GL5 and it is originally mounted on Vt-4 model (correct me if I was wrong, really hard to identify the model from the video) for the showcase. Based on video it seems to intercept rocket.

Also, PLA after the recent reform, they focus on mobility and reconnaissance even more. So there is no way for them to sacrifice Mobility and reliability to shift the focus into heavier armor and huge but not necessary better gun. And our own non-script competitive war game shows the result that under modern war against superior foe, most of the armor are not even damaged by tank but Long range artillery, Rocket launcher or CAS in some cases due to their opponent have way better reconnaissance capability and able to pin point red team's location and vaporized them during their rally phase (per-reformed Unit always having this problem) , something which really interesting because for what I read some of the Ukrainian Armored unit were destroyed under same circumstance by Russia.

Some of the armor during the war game is destroyed by some small nimble infantry anti tank unit, apparently they set up an ambush, and due to the red team lack of the reconnaissance, around 10 armor was wasted before they locate the blue team anti-tank infantry unit, which cost them one third of an armor battalion. (which is interesting some of the Russia Armored was destroyed by Ukrainian infantry ambush and the video shows that Russian force also having problem such as lack of reconnaissance capability)

So because of those recent development, PLA decide to consolidate their resource to built more reconnaissance equipment such as reconnaissance vehicle, UAV, helicopter with great performance in reconnaissance (both Z-19 and Z-10M/ME consist good reconnaissance capability and having a very impressive operation range)

And under the PLA's new doctrine how to utilize the reconnaissance and data-link to form up a battle field monitor and conduct network-centric warfare is way more important, since they can simply use long range artillery to weaken their foe before the front unit engage their target, and even try to outflank them, ambush them instead conduct a frontal assault.

And because of that the new MBT Project have very low priority, they simply does not require the MBT to out performance their foe, but provide enough fighting capability to face small skirmish. And ZTZ-99A despite start to fall behind, still capable of carring this duty, which hence the poiunt it not bad enough for them to make it higher priority.

Tho it does not means that China will not develop new armor, just until they find a better solution to provide a more suitable platform, sacrifice mobility for heavier armor or heavier but not necessary better canon does not solve the problem for them. since a direct hit of 155 shell which guided by reconnaissance unit and fired by an SPG will guaranteed the kill.

Honestly I think VT-4 will have better future, because despite PLA does not prioritize to use tank to carry out anti-Tank duty, their client might not share their doctrine. And if their client such as PA can provide enough feed back (which is something I really like it, PA do provide many useful feedback to help china to come up a better design), come out a upgrade package to specifically satisfied PA's need is totally possible. As for ZTZ-99, if PLA ever gona upgrade the model, likely use the feed back from the VT-4 or from their war gaming result.

But it is something not gona happen very soon, army's budget is prioritized in filling the list of support unit such as artillery, reconnaissance and army aviation and such. Increase the support unity support efficient having higher priority.


the video of Russia Armor Unit get ambushed, you can see it take them sometime to react to the attack, and if Ukraine ambush were better organized who know how many unit Russia would lost.

video link to introduced Drozd APS

video link to introduce GL5
 
.
Good video.
This whole thing of ditching tanks is the talk of amateurs. No way can you hold land, take up defensive positions, provide close fire support to infantry for a prolonged time etc just with drones. Our battlefront is wide and also fluid hence we need it all.

A next gen tank could be unmanned or a manned tank with UAV/UGV capabilities, this should be explored by China and Pakistan for future conflicts.
 
.
A next gen tank could be unmanned or a manned tank with UAV/UGV capabilities, this should be explored by China and Pakistan for future conflicts.
Kind depend on what you mean, if you ask for the data-link between UAV and Tank that is not something too difficult and basically a shelf product. All you need is a digital map system and a data link to link up with UAV.

If you mean the tank to have capability to launch UAV and link up in the same time, then it is another question.
Aside from does Tank really need to launch UAV themselves, the tech is also already available.
Reconnaissance vehicle usually has the capability of launching UAV and link with it. It just it usually not imply to the tank.
 
.
Kind depend on what you mean, if you ask for the data-link between UAV and Tank that is not something too difficult and basically a shelf product. All you need is a digital map system and a data link to link up with UAV.

If you mean the tank to have capability to launch UAV and link up in the same time, then it is another question.
Aside from does Tank really need to launch UAV themselves, the tech is also already available.
Reconnaissance vehicle usually has the capability of launching UAV and link with it. It just it usually not imply to the tank.

Tanks need to have capabilities to search, track and engage all types of UAVs/UCAVs, also if a scan eagle UAV or something better can be matted with tank and tank crew can deploy it for situational awareness and target acquisition etc. Then lone tank will be able to better defend itself, now if you put a tank like this in NCW environment with other advance assets then you have next gen fighting capabilities.

Moreover, tanks should get something like loyal wing man which air forces are looking for manned fighters.
 
Last edited:
. .
A bit offtopic, but it's related with VT-2B/VT-5/VT-5 tanks:

CH-series transmission limitations

Отсюда делают вывод, что CH700 используется на ZTQ15.png

CH-series transmission structural scheme

Схема трансмисси CH700 (возможно).png

(4) Figure 2-3-39 of the domestic CH series planetary transmission mechanism shows a schematic diagram of the transmission scheme of China's CH series three-degree-of-freedom planetary transmission mechanism. The speed change mechanism consists of 4 planetary rows (the third and fourth planetary rows form a composite planetary row) and 6 operating elements (4 brakes, 2 clutches), which can realize 6 forward gears and 3 reverse gears.
JCa
- ky

Figure 2-3-39 Schematic diagram of CH series planetary gearbox
The fourth row is a double star row with internal and external jets, sharing the sun wheel and planetary frame with the third planetary row. Following the previous analysis, the transmission ratio of the planetary mechanism can be obtained, as shown in Table 2-3-5.

Table 2-3-5 Variable speed gears, operating parts and transmission ratios
Gear
Variable speed transmission ratio
First gear
(1+k2)

CH700 transmission demonstrator
CH700B.png

So, I suppose, if this scheme is correct (according to few sources it takes 4/2 instead of using full 6/3), VT-4's CH1000B should be the same scheme with 4/2 real and 6/3 ("full", but they're fully not involved)
 
. .
Hello!

Heard some rumors about planned VT-4 autoloader expansion to use more powerful APFDS, was this one of the demands of the Pakistani military during the testing?
 
.
Hello!

Heard some rumors about planned VT-4 autoloader expansion to use more powerful APFDS, was this one of the demands of the Pakistani military during the testing?
It was not. VT-4 uses a standard T72 style and size auto-loader (of course it is modernized, but the same design, style and dimensions). All Chinese tanks use that style and size autoloader. China does not make any APFSDS longer than the maximum length limit of the T72 style autoloader. The two best Chinese APFSDS are BTA-4 that is used with VT-4 and DTC-10-125 which is used by ZTZ-99A, both are short rod penetrators with 760MM length (Shell and charge), 760MM is the maximum size that can be used by the auto-loaders of Al-Khalid, ZTZ-96, ZTZ-99 and VT-4.
 
.
It was not. VT-4 uses a standard T72 style and size auto-loader (of course it is modernized, but the same design, style and dimensions). All Chinese tanks use that style and size autoloader. China does not make any APFSDS longer than the maximum length limit of the T72 style autoloader. The two best Chinese APFSDS are BTA-4 that is used with VT-4 and DTC-10-125 which is used by ZTZ-99A, both are short rod penetrators with 760MM length (Shell and charge), 760MM is the maximum size that can be used by the auto-loaders of Al-Khalid, ZTZ-96, ZTZ-99 and VT-4.
But were there any demands to make it wider, for future, at least? Cause few of my Chinese friends said NORINCO working on it "right now" for export VT's)

About it's length, It's shorter, than 760mm, because of separate place for shell and charge, the limit for shell part should be ~690mm.

And judging on those leaked DTC10-125 data, it should be around ~10-15mm bigger than DTW-125/BTA-4 (~580mm rod) :)
 
.
It was not. VT-4 uses a standard T72 style and size auto-loader (of course it is modernized, but the same design, style and dimensions). All Chinese tanks use that style and size autoloader. China does not make any APFSDS longer than the maximum length limit of the T72 style autoloader. The two best Chinese APFSDS are BTA-4 that is used with VT-4 and DTC-10-125 which is used by ZTZ-99A, both are short rod penetrators with 760MM length (Shell and charge), 760MM is the maximum size that can be used by the auto-loaders of Al-Khalid, ZTZ-96, ZTZ-99 and VT-4.

Type-15 doesn't.
 
.
But were there any demands to make it wider, for future, at least? Cause few of my Chinese friends said NORINCO working on it "right now" for export VT's)

About it's length, It's shorter, than 760mm, because of separate place for shell and charge, the limit for shell part should be ~690mm.

And judging on those leaked DTC10-125 data, it should be around ~10-15mm bigger than DTW-125/BTA-4 (~580mm rod) :)
Making a longer rod will sacrifice the gunpowder utilized. There is pro and cons. Doesn't mean a longer rod will always better in term armour penetration.
 
.
Making a longer rod will sacrifice the gunpowder utilized. There is pro and cons. Doesn't mean a longer rod will always better in term armour penetration.
The main point is keep it balanced, for example, increasing rod lenght for DTC10-125 for ~2,5% and muzzle velocity for ~1,15% comparing to DTW-125 led to increasing of LOS performance for ~ 13%, which is pretty good.

The problem is angle performance for shorter rods, especially if we talk about 90 degreed penetration
 
. .
Pakistan made mistake by buying these VT 4 They don't offer anything against future warfare we did hurry to buy them rather waited for tech innovation like panther tank atleast we could have waited for longer to use those tech if panther in our future tank Al Khalid 2

Wait for how long? 20 years? :lol: The German themselves havent even finalise this tank and you are to claim Pakistan can get this goodies? And you think Pakistan economy is very good and Germans are kind to give credit for you?

VT-4 are currently a match for T-90S , M1A2 or Challenger 2 that are currently serving in major countries. The decision to got for VT-4 is to fill in current challenge and not wait for future while the threat gap is there for next 10-20 years.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom