What's new

Poor Pakistan Producing Third Generation Tanks!

I have physically seen one of these. Its significantly bigger and better protected, equipped than AK. I wonder tho if we could use a version of the same turret system to upgrade older AKs?

Also, i think Pakistan needs to acquire 1500hp engines to upgrade VT4 and AKs future variants. You need all the power you can get to navigate through terrain like Cholistan, Thar and other regions.
Kindly read through the VT4 and Al-Khalid thread, both the turret and the engine have been discussed there.

The VT-4 is definitely significantly larger. The AK-1 tops out at around 49 tons with ERA. The VT-4 (specifically the Pakistani variant) is closer to 54 tons.

The Al-Khalid has needed a redesign for some time now, but with HIT shifting to VT4 production (they’re building a new factory for VT4 hulls, alongside using the existing AK factory, likely hints towards higher volume of locally produced parts and increased production capacity), it’s unlikely we will see a major redesign for the AK anytime soon. They are however working on integrating several new technologies to existing AK and AK-1 models including the VT4s ERA package and powertrain (the latter of which is not an easy task at all). They’re also working on CITVs, LWRs and RWS among other things, we should see tech getting carried over from VT4 to AKs eventually as upgrade programs.

The VT4s engine is already plenty powerful, 1500 or 1200HP doesn’t make much difference in tanks, the torque figure (specifically low-RPM torque) does. The engine in the VT4 can be uptuned or downtuned to make anywhere from 1100-1500HP. The Thai and Nigerian models are tuned to 1300~ HP, PAs are downtuned to 1200HP, despite weighing more than the Thai and Nigerian ones. (that’s by PAs own request, they wanted better efficiency and reliability because the engine has significantly worst mileage and is a bit more maintenance heavy when compared to the understressed AK engines, which are conversely underpowered as well, but in turn give better reliability and longer range, it’s a balance). PA can always tune them up for more power if needed. It also depends on the fuel that’s being used, tank engines are multi-fuel and not all fuel will produce the same power. The last element is the Transmission, the AK has an extremely complex, maintenance heavy transmission, one that allows it to have decent forward and excellent reverse mobility despite low power (both tanks engines are 1200HP, but the VT4s engine makes nearly 1.5-1.8x more torque). The VT4 has a simpler, more reliable transmission, but it does limit its reverse speed a bit when compared to the AK.

In case of FC;

1. How does T-69 II fare in NW Pakistan ?

2. A troop f T-69 can support FC only with direct firepower, considering FC has 25-pounders also ?

3. Why was 105 mm L-7 gun replaced with Chinese 100 mm rifled gun ?

4. What are the implications of ammunition in this case (105mm Vs 100mm) ?

5. How would T-69s operate in mountains ?

6. What combat strength of FC should be deployed to provide security to a troop strength and transport convoy of T-69s before it enters the battle zone ?

7. T-69 has to negotiate steep gradients, wouldn't FC need attachment of Engineers det for that and also EME for maintenance and field repairs ? Should that be provided by Army or FC should form own cadre ?

8. MRAPs and T-69 shoulder to shoulder can give decisive edge to FC during COIN war ? would APC or IFV fare better instead of MRAP ?

9. Should T-69 be used as pill boxes or should the FC armored commander become a " mountain fox "?

10. Should FC cross the border into Afghanistan led by T-69s during any confrontation or let the Army handle
This is perhaps the most important point that people tend to overlook when they complain about FCs use (or lack thereof) of tanks, APCs, helicopters and MRAPs. Those things require a dedicated team of trained engineers to back them up wherever they go, especially the older tanks. Sure they are still very potent against COIN threats, but AFAIK FC does not have its own proper setup or regiment of EME and largely relies on army engineers, so the FC can’t just start using them as frontline machines or do offensive ops, for that they’d need to call in the army, and at that point it just makes more sense to use the army’s own assets. If the FC really wants to use these machines in roles other than just static guards at the border, they need to start hiring their own combat engineers.
The point is in last 20 years these brand new tanks were not even used in the western front.

We have been using alzarrar and t59s. A year ago the army bought hundreds of upgraded t55s to equip the fc. The excuse was that its a lighter tank and the best stuff should be saved for the eastern sector 🤣

Tbh our FC boys have sacraficed so much and this line of thinking from the army is extemely disgraceful. As if lahore and islamabad dha’s are so much more valuable in money and blood than waziristan peshawer or quetta. All of which should be top priority for army leadership.

That is the point you jahil. We are not even giving FC boys a few dozen of our best tanks!
Pakistan never bought any t-55 tanks.
Problem with Pakistani Defense Industry is that most of the time it doesn't do it's own R&D hence adds minimum added value to any TOT they bring in.
This makes the hoax of self-reliance just another bill to pay with not much export potential.... This maybe the reason why AK-1 didn't see much success or the fact that's it's mediocre in it's performance (does the job for us but not impressive enough for foreign buyers).
Pakistan does not need vt4p. It is an advance 3rd gen tank . While ak1 is already a 3rd gen tank . Pakistan should have gone for true 4th gen tank but then why . We have no war to fight anyway .... Should focus on economy and education to build future gen tanks our selves

Top Bottom