Some snaps of OplotM & VT4 testing in Pakistan

[Dazzler]

Yes yes, you can even claim the engine of VT-4 is copy from T-34. It it makes you better. Go ahead

It turns out that I wasn't kidding.

Original (t-80)

Copy (ztz-88)

Both sights boast identical characteristics.

Frankly i'm pretty glad we only give export versions of Chinese weapons to Pakistan. This way we don't need to actually give anyone access to our best weapons and keep others in the dark until its too late.

Its fine if they don't think much of the VT-4 as it was always just a shadow of Chinas true MBT capabilities aka type 99A2. Its quite funny that a downgraded export model can even compete vs another countries best offerings that they can barely afford themselves.

We take what works for us and refuse what doesn't. Isn't that a global practice?

However, we do suggest improvements to the system to make it acceptable for us. There's no exception to this. Same happened to the Oplot.

 

[sinait]

It turns out that I wasn't kidding.

Original (t-80)

Copy (ztz-88)

Both sights boast identical characteristics.

We take what works for us and refuse what doesn't. Isn't that a global practice?

However, we do suggest improvements to the system to make it acceptable for us. There's no exception to this. Same happened to the Oplot.

No problem with that, hard to disagree.
Practice only what is best for Pakistan, not necessary to follow global practice,

But what's your point of bringing in a 1980s relic, ztz88.
The ztz96A/B is developed from ztz88, but with extensive upgrades.
Its 2018 now, and we all know the Chinese started off with Russian designs but have moved on and beyond in many areas ever since.
.

 

[帅的一匹]

Superior to anything Russia can throw at it? Russia beat China every year in the tank biathlon using T-72B3s while China was using its newest tanks such as Type96B. Some T-72s achieved 100% hits.

You make the rules, you win.

 

[Beast]

No problem with that, hard to disagree.
Practice only what is best for Pakistan, not necessary to follow global practice,

But what's your point of bringing in a 1980s relic, ztz88.
The ztz96A/B is developed from ztz88, but with extensive upgrades.
Its 2018 now, and we all know the Chinese started off with Russian designs but have moved on and beyond in many areas ever since.
.

This dazzler knows nothing about VT-4 or latest Chinese tank. He just scrapped whatever he can configure from Internet with his limited understanding to try fulfil his fantasy about inferior Chinese tank. Looking at his amusing way of using a early 90s brochure online about old ztz-88 and then try to link to VT-4 tank of the 2017.

That is the problem of these fake Pakistanis who has no idea of Chinese military hardware. Reply on bogus Facebook source and misinfo from Chinese slayer to come to their conclusion. It’s funny these people decide to listen to their Pakistanis counterpart who has very limited Chinese language and can’t even understand all the official documentary from PLA and Norinco. Those documentary has rich info about those tank latest Chinese tank development.

 

[ptldM3]

You make the rules, you win.

So much hot air but you haven't answered why they deny the Chinese to use their own rounds that their guns are calibrated with.
You are beginning to sound like an Indian.
.

Both of you sound petty making excuses you can't prove.


Did Russia change rules to benifit them specifically? Prove it. Show everyone in a video how they changed the rules.

Every tank in the competition had to hit the same exact number of targets, they had to complete the same course in the same amount of time so please show how Russia cheated China.


As for China using Russian gun rounds. Never heard of it before nor should it matter, remember China hit all the targets you claimed, so the point is literally irrelevant. I'm also waiting for an explanation as to how Russian rounds would fit a Chinese tank since Chinese members are always claiming China uses longer Sabot rounds.

 

[Beast]

Both of you sound petty making excuses you can't prove.


Did Russia change rules to benifit them specifically? Prove it. Show everyone in a video how they changed the rules.

Every tank in the competition had to hit the same exact number of targets, they had to complete the same course in the same amount of time so please show how Russia cheated China.


As for China using Russian gun rounds. Never heard of it before nor should it matter, remember China hit all the targets you claimed, so the point is literally irrelevant. I'm also waiting for an explanation as to how Russian rounds would fit a Chinese tank since Chinese members are always claiming China uses longer Sabot rounds.

Of cos, it matters. The Chinese gun are calibrated to our own gun need with our specific rounds and therefore critical to accuracy result. We wouldn't even know what kind of standard rounds given by Russian. These change of rules are well documented in a PLA CCTV documentary about 2016 tank biathlon. Type96B is upgraded but still standard lower cost mass produced tank. It cannot used an expensive 1200hp engine.

The photo you shown about Type99a1 without the raise at back of chassis belongs to old version haven getting the engine upgrade. The latest Type99a2 clearly shown the significant of engine upgraded and even new chassis need to be used.

See the bulge at the back of the chassis... New 1500hp engine with full one piece design for easy swapping of powerplant. If Type 96B used a 1200hp, similar modification like VT-4 need to be made. Your many source of Type96B using 1200hp are just using unreliable western source of recycling fake data with no truth in it.

The most reliable source about Chinese military hardware all need to come from Chinese language news or Chinese video documentary. Then some half cook foreigner with little grasped of Chinese will try to act smart and do a bad translation and resulted in many fake data and story about Chinese military hardware.

 

[帅的一匹]

Of cos, it matters. The Chinese gun are calibrated to our own gun need with our specific rounds and therefore critical to accuracy result. We wouldn't even know what kind of standard rounds given by Russian. These change of rules are well documented in a PLA CCTV documentary about 2016 tank biathlon. Type96B is upgraded but still standard lower cost mass produced tank. It cannot used an expensive 1200hp engine.

The photo you shown about Type99a1 without the raise at back of chassis belongs to old version haven getting the engine upgrade. The latest Type99a2 clearly shown the significant of engine upgraded and even new chassis need to be used.

See the bulge at the back of the chassis... New 1500hp engine with full one piece design for easy swapping of powerplant. If Type 96B used a 1200hp, similar modification like VT-4 need to be made. Your many source of Type96B using 1200hp are just using unreliable western source of recycling fake data with no truth in it.

The most reliable source about Chinese military hardware all need to come from Chinese language news or Chinese video documentary. Then some half cook foreigner with little grasped of Chinese will try to act smart and do a bad translation and resulted in many fake data and story about Chinese military hardware.

No matter VT4 or Oplot M being chosen in the end, I give my best wish to PA.

 

[clarkgap]

It turns out that I wasn't kidding.

Original (t-80)

Copy (ztz-88)

Both sights boast identical characteristics.



We take what works for us and refuse what doesn't. Isn't that a global practice?

However, we do suggest improvements to the system to make it acceptable for us. There's no exception to this. Same happened to the Oplot.

ZTZ-88 is installed on Type-96A. VT-4 installs different one. These are the image of Thailand's VT-4:

 

[Dazzler]

No problem with that, hard to disagree.
Practice only what is best for Pakistan, not necessary to follow global practice,

But what's your point of bringing in a 1980s relic, ztz88.
The ztz96A/B is developed from ztz88, but with extensive upgrades.
Its 2018 now, and we all know the Chinese started off with Russian designs but have moved on and beyond in many areas ever since.
.

First, no one is belittling China and her willingness to push her ability to do better. The world knows this and their incredible progress is a testament to this fact. However, @Beast guy seems to think everything that comes out of China is super duper by default, which is obviously not the case.

In fact, China often offers the best products to export market to analyze and accommodate practical improvements suggested by users into the system.

In case some of you dont know, the VT-4 boasts better ECS than your type-99A, which is a testament to the value they associate with their customers.

 

[ptldM3]

Of cos, it matters. The Chinese gun are calibrated to our own gun need with our specific rounds and therefore critical to accuracy result. We wouldn't even know what kind of standard rounds given by Russian. These change of rules are well documented in a PLA CCTV documentary about 2016 tank biathlon.

Why do you keep mentioning about the ammunition? Chinese members keep claiming the Chinese tanks hit all their targets, so you can't use ammunition as en excuse. Nor do I believe the supposed claim from a TV show, I don't think Russian rounds would even be comparable to a Chinese auto loaded and carousel unless they copied the T-72, so which is it?


Again a claim was made that Chinese tanks "outperform everything Russia through at it". Clearly that never happened.

Type96B is upgraded but still standard lower cost mass produced tank. It cannot used an expensive 1200hp engine.

Every source says it uses a 1200HP engine. What do you have to back your claim that it uses a weaker engine? You can't just make things up as you go. You're going to have to show proof and evidence. You can't use the same lame excuses that, you're Chinese, you know better. Western sources are unreliable. It's interesting that when Chinese members want to bash Russian or Indian equipment they use western sources but if someone uses western sources for Chinese equipment then Chinese members use stale and embarrassing excuses.

The photo you shown about Type99a1 without the raise at back of chassis belongs to old version haven getting the engine upgrade.

The photos I showed was two Chinese tanks from the biathalon. You can claim whatever you like.

See the bulge at the back of the chassis... New 1500hp engine with full one piece design for easy swapping of powerplant. If Type 96B used a 1200hp, similar modification like VT-4 need to be made. Your many source of Type96B using 1200hp are just using unreliable western source of recycling fake data with no truth in it.

The new Chinese light tank which has a 1000HP engine and has the same "bump". The T-72 and T90 have had substantial power increases without that bump.


Again you don't need to modify a chasis to accommodate for a more powerful engine nor does engine size need to be increased. As I said before new engine management, upgraded turbochargers, fuel injectors, exhaust manifold, exhaust, etc all adds power.

That same "bump" was added to T-90 chasis that had was used as a howitzer. It had nothing to do with engine, it was added because the hull required more room for crew.

 

[clarkgap]

Why do you keep mentioning about the ammunition? Chinese members keep claiming the Chinese tanks hit all their targets, so you can't use ammunition as en excuse. Nor do I believe the supposed claim from a TV show, I don't think Russian rounds would even be comparable to a Chinese auto loaded and carousel unless they copied the T-72, so which is it?


Again a claim was made that Chinese tanks "outperform everything Russia through at it". Clearly that never happened.









Every source says it uses a 1200HP engine. What do you have to back your claim that it uses a weaker engine? You can't just make things up as you go. You're going to have to show proof and evidence. You can't use the same lame excuses that, you're Chinese, you know better. Western sources are unreliable. It's interesting that when Chinese members want to bash Russian or Indian equipment they use western sources but if someone uses western sources for Chinese equipment then Chinese members use stale and embarrassing excuses.









The photos I showed was two Chinese tanks from the biathalon. You can claim whatever you like.









The new Chinese light tank which has a 1000HP engine and has the same "bump". The T-72 and T90 have had substantial power increases without that bump.


Again you don't need to modify a chasis to accommodate for a more powerful engine nor does engine size need to be increased. As I said before new engine management, upgraded turbochargers, fuel injectors, exhaust manifold, exhaust, etc all adds power.

That same "bump" was added to T-90 chasis that had was used as a howitzer. It had nothing to do with engine, it was added because the hull required more room for crew.

Because 96B/VT-2B use an eight cylinder engine and VT-4 and 99 series use twelve cylinder engine. That's the biggest different. I believe we can find some clear images of the power packs of 96B and 99A, then we can compare them.

 

[Beast]

First, no one is belittling China and her willingness to push her ability to do better. The world knows this and their incredible progress is a testament to this fact. However, @Beast guy seems to think everything that comes out of China is super duper by default, which is obviously not the case.

In fact, China often offers the best products to export market to analyze and accommodate practical improvements suggested by users into the system.

In case some of you dont know, the VT-4 boasts better ECS than your type-99A, which is a testament to the value they associate with their customers.

I never say anything from China is super duper or whatever but it’s more of you making things up that you don’t know and lump them together with inferior stuff. Like your T-72 stabilizer and commander sight of VT-4 which all proves to be fake or make up. Isn’t VT-4 steering more modern and better than even Leopard A5 is boasting? Maybe you didn’t even bother to see the video I posted. Then you give orange while I ask for apple of example of common capabilities of stationery turret stabilizing with chassis making a 360 turn which proves only western tank and VT-4 can matched.

It’s more of you cant accept facts VT-4 is a much better tank than al Khalid 2 and Oplot M

 

[clarkgap]

Because 96B/VT-2B use an eight cylinder engine and VT-4 and 99 series use twelve cylinder engine. That's the biggest different. I believe we can find some clear images of the power packs of 96B and 99A, then we can compare them.

I found several pictures of the power pack on 96B. It is not very clear, but we can recognize the eight cylinders. I will try to find better ones.

According to the interview for the deputy chief commander of power system of 96B, the power of single cylinder on this engine is same like 99A. Due to 99A has a 1500HP twelve cylinder engines. So power of the eight cylinder engine = 1500 * 8 / 12 = 1000 HP.

Some media report 96B has a 1200/1300 hp engine. I guess they confused the 96B and VT-4. The Export varaint of 96B is VT-2B.

 

[IblinI]

 

[SipahSalar]

Why do we need these tanks? Is Al-Khalid insufficient?