T-80 and T-84 Main Battle Tanks Information pool

[Signalian]

The VT-4 has the same basic design as the AK series with marginal improvements. Of course a new design is the best way forward, but it’s not possible with the current funding, supply and logistical constraints. The VT-4 is the best option for the PA and HIT currently, especially if they can get a Top-attack protection capable hard kill APS for it.

Other accompanying armored vehicles are required too.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Will AK production line be shifted to VT4? Also will there be an extension of HIT to produce more VT4s or the production capacity will remain 50 as was in the case of AK?

Not will, already has. VT4 Assembly is already happening at HIT. Will switch Production soon.

there is an extension happening at HIT, but not of the tank manufacture line for now, 50 is more than enough, will likely not be running at that capacity any time soon due to parts deliveries. That’s why the first batches came from China.

 

[Raja Porus]

Not will, already has. VT4 Assembly is already happening at HIT. Will switch Production soon.

there is an extension happening at HIT, but not of the tank manufacture line for now, 50 is more than enough, will likely not be running at that capacity any time soon due to parts deliveries. That’s why the first batches came from China.

Will we continue importing VT4s along with production to speed up the replacement?

 

[iLION12345_1]

Will we continue importing VT4s along with production to speed up the replacement?

For now. I’ve already talked about the numbers and how they will be received in a post elsewhere.

 

[Raja Porus]

For now. I’ve already talked about the numbers and how they will be received in a post elsewhere.

What would be the fate of AZs? Can they support AVLBs?

 

[iLION12345_1]

What would be the fate of AZs? Can they support AVLBs?

They won’t be retired anytime soon. There’s hundreds of older models to retire, you can make an AVLB or a minesweeper out of the hulls but the hulls themselves are so old at this point.

 

[FuturePAF]

My main comment is that next generation of HIT tank production should replace the carousel autoloader with western style ones. The Russian style autoloaders are not safe if the tank is hit. This will require turret redesign. Based on what's going on in Ukraine......active protection systems are also a key advance for HIT. A 50 ton tank with western style autoloader and active protection is probably the global best in class tank and what HIT should strive for, IMO.

The VT-4 is a decent design to fill the current gap, but new top-attack threats should make us learn the lessons of the Ukraine war and at least modify the design to add some changes as on the proposed T-90 modification by some Russian tank factory students. The Abrams-X should be studied for the next generation tank after the Al-Haider, but more so the South Korean K2 Black Panther / Turkish Altay tank. Going full remote operated turret could be a disaster with future weapons. Giving the driver some control of the tank may also be a way to prevent the tank being knocked out if the crew in the turret are incapacitated.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588917512808591362

 

[CrazyZ]

The VT-4 is a decent design to fill the current gap, but new top-attack threats should make us learn the lessons of the Ukraine war and at least modify the design to add some changes as on the proposed T-90 modification by some Russian tank factory students. The Abrams-X should be studied for the next generation tank after the Al-Haider.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588917512808591362

VT4 hull is mechanically far ahead of T-90. T-90 has a very slow reverse speed. It is being outperformed by T-80/T84 series in the current Ukraine conflict. VT hull with a redesigned turret that includes a turret bustle autoloader is what should come out Al-Haider project, IMO.

 

[FuturePAF]

VT4 hull is mechanically far ahead of T-90. T-90 has a very slow reverse speed. It is being outperformed by T-80/T84 series in the current Ukraine conflict. VT hull with a redesigned turret that includes a turret bustle autoloader is what should come out Al-Haider project, IMO.

I would hope they could have the ammo stored behind the turret in a compartment with blowout panels; a rear bustle auto loader. Not only is it safer for the few, but longer projectiles can be utilized, increasing the ability for the tank to use longer range anti-tank missiles or high velocity projectiles to penetrate next generation armor/thicker armor.

P.S. the leak about the VT-4 that came out this year revealed the turret is indeed very capable, and the ammo is also decent against Abrams level armor.

2nd P.S. I hope they adopt a hybrid Diesel-electric engine to allow the tank to need less fuel and manage its heat signature, as well as sprint in silent mode when needed.

 

[iLION12345_1]

VT4 hull is mechanically far ahead of T-90. T-90 has a very slow reverse speed. It is being outperformed by T-80/T84 series in the current Ukraine conflict. VT hull with a redesigned turret that includes a turret bustle autoloader is what should come out Al-Haider project, IMO.

Not happening, not possible to do either. The auto-loader is not the problem. APS is a better solution and PA is already working on that.
Haider (not Al-Haider) is what we already see in the PA, the VT4s. No more changes for now or the near future, but we will see upgrades to them eventually as part of the Haider program. (Which mind you PAs VT-4s are far different to the VT4s being exported to other nations).

 

[iLION12345_1]

I would hope they could have the ammo stored behind the turret in a compartment with blowout panels; a rear bustle auto loader. Not only is it safer for the few, but longer projectiles can be utilized, increasing the ability for the tank to use longer range anti-tank missiles or high velocity projectiles to penetrate next generation armor/thicker armor.

P.S. the leak about the VT-4 that came out this year revealed the turret is indeed very capable, and the ammo is also decent against Abrams level armor.

2nd P.S. I hope they adopt a hybrid Diesel-electric engine to allow the tank to need less fuel and manage its heat signature, as well as sprint in silent mode when needed.

Again, not happening, go design an entirely new tank if you want that, we don’t have the funds or the R&D for it, and China doesn’t have a need or an interest for it (yet).

VT-4 is already outperforming any other MBT in South Asia by a massive margin, of course the lead needs to be built up even further, but not with stupidly unrealistic demands like this. That’s like saying “I want a V8, sports suspension and racing tires in my mehran but I want it to be good off road”

I wouldn’t blindly trust those leaks. The VT-4 has good armor, especially up front, but the side and rear armor is not that good. An APS fixes all of those things and that is exactly what the PA will get for it, it’s better to not be hit at all than to be hit and hope your armor holds, it’s cheaper and more reliable than redesigning the entire tank.

The ammo the VT4 fires is definitely very good for the south Asian region, but it’s nowhere near what Russia, Germany and America currently make, even the best Chinese ammo is a generation behind Russian, German and American stuff because they are yet to upgrade their autoloaders. Neither China nor Pakistan has any long-rod penetrators in service.

And please, a hybrid electric engine? I mean no offense but do a tiny bit of research before just making unrealistic demands. Where will you put the massive batteries? Where will you put the massive electric motor? How will you service that on the battlefield?

All of you people just keep having unrealistic expectations from everything the PA/PAF/PN purchases, and I don’t mind that as long as you keep it out of the technical threads. Why are there dumb VT4 design ideas in the T80 information pool?

PA doesn’t have the funds to purchase and design the best of everything, they manage their funds-performance ratio in such a way where they can get something that’s somewhat better than what india has while at the same time getting enough numbers, if they just started buying the best of everything or redesigning it they’d be left with half a dozen tanks.

 

[Bilal.]

Again, not happening, go design an entirely new tank if you want that, we don’t have the funds or the R&D for it, and China doesn’t have a need or an interest for it (yet).

VT-4 is already outperforming any other MBT in South Asia by a massive margin, of course the lead needs to be built up even further, but not with stupidly unrealistic demands like this. That’s like saying “I want a V8, sports suspension and racing tires in my mehran but I want it to be good off road”

I wouldn’t blindly trust those leaks. The VT-4 has good armor, especially up front, but the side and rear armor is not that good. An APS fixes all of those things and that is exactly what the PA will get for it, it’s better to not be hit at all than to be hit and hope your armor holds, it’s cheaper and more reliable than redesigning the entire tank.

The ammo the VT4 fires is definitely very good for the south Asian region, but it’s nowhere near what Russia, Germany and America currently make, even the best Chinese ammo is a generation behind Russian, German and American stuff because they are yet to upgrade their autoloaders. Neither China nor Pakistan has any long-rod penetrators in service.

And please, a hybrid electric engine? I mean no offense but do a tiny bit of research before just making unrealistic demands. Where will you put the massive batteries? Where will you put the massive electric motor? How will you service that on the battlefield?

All of you people just keep having unrealistic expectations from everything the PA/PAF/PN purchases, and I don’t mind that as long as you keep it out of the technical threads. Why are there dumb VT4 design ideas in the T80 information pool?

PA doesn’t have the funds to purchase and design the best of everything, they manage their funds-performance ratio in such a way where they can get something that’s somewhat better than what india has while at the same time getting enough numbers, if they just started buying the best of everything or redesigning it they’d be left with half a dozen tanks.

Completely off topic: just noticed GIDS marketing body armour based on UHMWPE material. This may have application in the future for vehicle light weight armour package.

 

[LeGenD]

I would hope they could have the ammo stored behind the turret in a compartment with blowout panels; a rear bustle auto loader. Not only is it safer for the few, but longer projectiles can be utilized, increasing the ability for the tank to use longer range anti-tank missiles or high velocity projectiles to penetrate next generation armor/thicker armor.

P.S. the leak about the VT-4 that came out this year revealed the turret is indeed very capable, and the ammo is also decent against Abrams level armor.

2nd P.S. I hope they adopt a hybrid Diesel-electric engine to allow the tank to need less fuel and manage its heat signature, as well as sprint in silent mode when needed.

1. Abrams type design needed.

2. Ambitious assessment.

Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool

In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can...

defence.pk

3. Abrams type design needed.

 

[iLION12345_1]

1. Abrams type design needed.

2. Ambitious assessment.

Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool

In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can...

defence.pk

3. Abrams type design needed.

An abrams type design just doesn’t work for the PA, because 4 man crews lead to much larger tanks, larger engines, more fuel consumption, so on. US can handle the logistical issues that come with an abrams, Pakistan cannot. It’s significantly harder to entirely isolate ammo from the crew in a tank with an auto-loader, much easier to do in manual loaders.

A better example would be a Japanese Type 10, it uses an auto loader while also having isolated ammo thanks to a bustle loader and very clever packaging. It keeps the small size/silhouette and light weight that PA prefers.

An even better and actually achievable first step would be to put the extra ammo that’s not in the carousel into a bustle behind the turret that’s isolated from the crew and give it blast panels.
While at the same time increasing the armoring and protection of the carousel. These are the two steps Russia took in the T90M to make it less prone to ammo explosion, and it seems to work fairly well, certainly better than the existing setup, especially once paired with something like a GL-6 APS.

Keep in mind, the largest culprit of ammo cook off in Russian tanks is not the ammo in the carousel, the carousel is fairly hard to hit given its situated in the lower-center of the tank, it’s the ammo lying about in the crew compartment that’s not protected in any way, while VT-4 and AK take basic steps to protect said ammo, they’re clearly not enough to prevent explosions, hence something like the T90MS setup is a good achievable step.

 

[FuturePAF]

1. Abrams type design needed.

2. Ambitious assessment.

Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool

In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can...

defence.pk

3. Abrams type design needed.

Perhaps something like the Turkish Altay?