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

[Waterboy]

I have too, though I’m not in that line of work.
One simply needs to visit CEME and HIT to get an entire list of parts that are locally made for the UD. It includes most of the electronic systems, the Hulls were also rebuilt locally. However even a single part can grind a tank to a halt, and a powertrain is obviously not a small part of a tank, until and unless we can find a replacement for that, we cannot keep these machines in service, no matter how many parts we make.


FY-IV ERA on the hull and turret (and hence a completely different looking turret exterior) compared to FY-II ERA on the Thai model (notice how the ERA on the PA tanks is several times thicker). ERA on the Roof. Newer MRS sensor next to the gunners sight.
Rest of the changes are internal and cannot be seen outside.

Cooolll. I have so much UD media that i haven't uploaded.

Yeah i get your point. He's been telling me about this. Things are complicated.

 

[Inception-06]

WOW? How is that related to VT-4 or Type99A2? Smart alec? Dont make a fool of yourself with such post.

But it’s interesting, why China hasn’t incorporated such elementary futures in its Tank ?

 

[Beast]

But it’s interesting, why China hasn’t incorporated such elementary futures in its Tank ?

It already implemented. Where did you get the idea, its not?

 

[Signalian]

The first three rows are thicker too, not as thick as the blocks on the turret or at the front of the hull, but still more so than on the original. Keep in mind thickness isn’t everything, it’s still FYIV versus FYII, one is older and does not effect the penetration of Tandem HEAT or APFSDS projectiles, while the other does, regardless of its thickness. Moreover, you cover the more vulnerable parts with the thicker armor, the upper glacis is sharply angled and hence less likely to be hit unlike the front of the hull. Putting thicker ERA there will also impede the drivers vision.

The Older models have no ERA on the roof at all.

And ERA in the roof is safe, the tanks systems are built to handle shock and shrapnel, the proximity does not hurt them usually, and even if it does, your crew is worth more, you can lose an optical sight or a radio, but if it saves your crew it’s worth it. Without the ERA you’d be taking far more damage anyways.

That being said, ERA is not a random explosion, it is a controlled, directional explosion that travels outwards, in the direction opposite to the incoming projectile, so ideally it will not even hit anything on the tank itself, as it is directed upwards in the case of roof ERA.

Using of ERA in combined ops is still debatable. In the era of information war, its the one who knows first, sees first, and fires first. Then comes the technicalities of training for one shot one kill, running the tank and maintaining it.

A UAV per troop or per squadron should be considered for surveillance and spotting targets. Its input should go into BMS to allow commanders to make real time decisions without waiting for orders from rear HQs.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Using of ERA in combined ops is still debatable. In the era of information war, its the one who knows first, sees first, and fires first. Then comes the technicalities of training for one shot one kill, running the tank and maintaining it.

A UAV per troop or per squadron should be considered for surveillance and spotting targets. Its input should go into BMS to allow commanders to make real time decisions without waiting for orders from rear HQs.

I would argue that the usage of ERA has never been and never will be a debate, especially in urban warfare. it is simply a no-brainer. Infantry needs to train around ERA, not the other way around, it is that essential to a tanks survival.

Though I do agree with the second part, in any engagement, regardless of wether it involves armor (but especially so when it does), the victor will mostly be the one that spots, engages and hits first.

Even a stock T72 can easily knock out a VT4 if it spots and shoots first, but with modern optics, sensors and Recon that possibility is reduced or negated. Where ERA has most often shown it’s usefulness is in Ambushes and against Infantry, since ERA was in fact originally designed against HE and HEAT projectiles, APFSDS protection came later, and modern ERA protects against Tandem charges too, apart from an APS, it is the best counter to a modern ATGM systems. It is cheaper and lighter than making the base armor thicker and can be readily replaced.

Just due to the way ERA works, having it on the roof of the tank where the armor is generally not that thick, can save it from a top attack ATGM, since it will effectively negate most of its penetration (in the case of HE/HEAT charges, including Tandem charges).

Coming to UAVs and BMS systems, the honest truth is that BMS systems are generally underused, especially in tanks.
While The BMS system in the VT4 particularly is fully capable of working alongside modern UAVs, receiving live feeds and so on (this is also possible in the older BMS systems in AK and AZ, but it’s not easy enough to do to where it would be beneficial many times), I doubt it sees much major use outside basic battle planning. This is not just a reality in the PA but in most armed forces, even the BMS systems in the Abrams and Leo’s are (or at least were historically) scarcely used to their full potential, reason being that these systems aren’t generally designed the best. Unless they are outsourced to someone who knows how to make a good, usable, ergonomic interface and also give it enough processing power to not just be a hassle during combat to operate.
Think of older infotainment systems in cars, they can be so annoying, Archaic and slow that sometimes they negate their intended usefulness and despite logic saying that the military would have better/cutting edge systems, such is not always the case, especially because the military doesn’t really upgrade these systems often compared to how rapidly UAV and software technology is progressing.

In the PA BMS systems are relegated to Command tanks, and for effective use of these systems (because they can definitely be very effective), I would think that the command tank would need to be passive instead of proactive, getting data from multiple sources and communicating it to the rest of the squadron effectively, trying to ensure its own survival to maximize its benefit, while also being cognizant of the fact that for the commander to effectively use the BMS, he will need to often divert attention to it and to communication instead of doing his usual job of spotting for his gunner (which in the AK and VT4, the commander can generally do a better job of spotting than the gunner due to independent sights).

 

[Princeps Senatus]

@iLION12345_1 Do VT-4s have the same turret and hull armour (composition and layout) behind ERA as Type 96 (and AK)?

 

[iLION12345_1]

@iLION12345_1 Do VT-4s have the same turret and hull armour (composition and layout) behind ERA as Type 96 (and AK)?

No, Different for all three. AK and AK-1 have identical base armor design and layout which is different (and better) than ZTZ-96 due to inclusion of certain elements from both Russian/Ukrainian and Chinese designs. ZTZ-96B likely has different armor than its older variants as well.
VT-4 is different Altogether and better than any version of both the others.

Keep in mind all three tanks use the same general design philosophy, but AK is a bit bigger than the 96 series and the VT4 is a bit bigger than the AK series. The layout might match in certain aspects, but the composition will vary (there are some common elements to all three, for example all the AK and 96 both use large amounts of just straight up steel based composite, which is sort of a brute force way to solving a need for armor, but should be pretty effective, We don’t know what the VT4 uses yet.)

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.
VT-4 Main Battle Tank
PA Armoured Corps / 6 Amoured Division.

 

[Signalian]

.,.,.
VT-4 Main Battle Tank
PA Armoured Corps / 6 Amoured Division.

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

1st Armored Divisions needs a new steed next.

 

[Joe Shearer]

In the PA BMS systems are relegated to Command tanks, and for effective use of these systems (because they can definitely be very effective), I would think that the command tank would need to be passive instead of proactive, getting data from multiple sources and communicating it to the rest of the squadron effectively, trying to ensure its own survival to maximize its benefit, while also being cognizant of the fact that for the commander to effectively use the BMS, he will need to often divert attention to it and to communication instead of doing his usual job of spotting for his gunner (which in the AK and VT4, the commander can generally do a better job of spotting than the gunner due to independent sights).

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.

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

1st Armored Divisions needs a new steed next.

Why?

 

[Signalian]

Why?

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.

 

[Signalian]

I would argue that the usage of ERA has never been and never will be a debate, especially in urban warfare. it is simply a no-brainer. Infantry needs to train around ERA, not the other way around, it is that essential to a tanks survival.

Though I do agree with the second part, in any engagement, regardless of wether it involves armor (but especially so when it does), the victor will mostly be the one that spots, engages and hits first.

Even a stock T72 can easily knock out a VT4 if it spots and shoots first, but with modern optics, sensors and Recon that possibility is reduced or negated. Where ERA has most often shown it’s usefulness is in Ambushes and against Infantry, since ERA was in fact originally designed against HE and HEAT projectiles, APFSDS protection came later, and modern ERA protects against Tandem charges too, apart from an APS, it is the best counter to a modern ATGM systems. It is cheaper and lighter than making the base armor thicker and can be readily replaced.

Just due to the way ERA works, having it on the roof of the tank where the armor is generally not that thick, can save it from a top attack ATGM, since it will effectively negate most of its penetration (in the case of HE/HEAT charges, including Tandem charges).

Coming to UAVs and BMS systems, the honest truth is that BMS systems are generally underused, especially in tanks.
While The BMS system in the VT4 particularly is fully capable of working alongside modern UAVs, receiving live feeds and so on (this is also possible in the older BMS systems in AK and AZ, but it’s not easy enough to do to where it would be beneficial many times), I doubt it sees much major use outside basic battle planning. This is not just a reality in the PA but in most armed forces, even the BMS systems in the Abrams and Leo’s are (or at least were historically) scarcely used to their full potential, reason being that these systems aren’t generally designed the best. Unless they are outsourced to someone who knows how to make a good, usable, ergonomic interface and also give it enough processing power to not just be a hassle during combat to operate.
Think of older infotainment systems in cars, they can be so annoying, Archaic and slow that sometimes they negate their intended usefulness and despite logic saying that the military would have better/cutting edge systems, such is not always the case, especially because the military doesn’t really upgrade these systems often compared to how rapidly UAV and software technology is progressing.

In the PA BMS systems are relegated to Command tanks, and for effective use of these systems (because they can definitely be very effective), I would think that the command tank would need to be passive instead of proactive, getting data from multiple sources and communicating it to the rest of the squadron effectively, trying to ensure its own survival to maximize its benefit, while also being cognizant of the fact that for the commander to effectively use the BMS, he will need to often divert attention to it and to communication instead of doing his usual job of spotting for his gunner (which in the AK and VT4, the commander can generally do a better job of spotting than the gunner due to independent sights).

BMS can be used in any vehicle, be it APC or MBT or even a truck. The orders can then be sent through radios to the battle formations. A troop commander or squadron commander should be able to make his formation align with those orders and go into combat.

 

[Tipu7]

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

1st Armored Divisions needs a new steed next.

Complete standardization of one tank type is not practical, even in longer run.
Currently we operate six different types.
And that's problem is not limited to tanks. In Pakistan Army, Helicopters, trucks, utility vehicles, all suffer from this problem.

Most backward militaries, with no credible domestic defense industry, suffer from standardization issues.

 

[Signalian]

Complete standardization of one tank type is not practical, even in longer run.
Currently we operate six different types.
And that's problem is not limited to tanks. In Pakistan Army, Helicopters, trucks, utility vehicles, all suffer from this problem.

Most backward militaries, with no credible domestic defense industry, suffer from standardization issues.

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.

 

[SQ8]

BMS can be used in any vehicle, be it APC or MBT or even a truck. The orders can then be sent through radios to the battle formations. A troop commander or squadron commander should be able to make his formation align with those orders and go into combat.

The standard SDR does support transmission from the BMS in any form so its more a case of finding space and cost rather than anything else