Posted on 07/02/2021 11:02:59 PM PDT by Right Wing Vegan
Pakistan has acquired VT-4 battle tanks, which have been manufactured by its closest ally China. The latest procurement of these tanks by Pakistan comes at a time when its arch-rival India is also planning to enhance its fleet of tanks and armored vehicles.
The first batch of the VT-4 battle tanks was formally inducted into the Pakistan Army recently. The VT-4 battle tanks are manufactured by China’s state-owned company, Norinco.
The delivery of the tanks began in April last year. In September, field-tests were conducted after which, the Pakistan Army had said that “the VT-4 is compatible with any modern tank in the world integrating advanced armor protection, maneuverability, firepower capability and the state-of-the-art technology”, and would be employed in an offensive role by strike formations.
According to reports, Commander Mangla Corps, Lt. Gen. Shaheen Mehmood visited the Armoured Division and inspected the first batch of VT-4 tanksMajor on June 30. He also took stock of the post-shipment inspections of the first batch of the VT-4 tanks.
According to Pakistan Army’s media wing, the Corps Commander also observed the mobility and maneuverability test of the newly inducted tanks.
(Excerpt) Read more at eurasiantimes.com ...
Are they made with inferior Chicom steel? A little drilling and hammering will be needed to get them to fit together properly, and don’t forget the the crudely drawn and badly worded user manual.
Going to be a testing ground for equipment and tactics like the Spanish Civil War.
Written by some niece of Xi's who studied four months of Urdu at Peking University!
Norinco steel is notoriously strong
Tanks are just easy targets for drones.
There are a few articles which deal with this subject. It appears the the MBT-3000, aka VT4, is export only and of inferior design and capabilities; contest winner, hands down, is the T-90.
here’s one such article of which the posted link seems to be the truncated version:
https://bcfocus.com/vt-4-mbt-vt-4-mbt-vs-t90-all-you-need-to-know-who-is-stronger-between-pakistan-vt-4-tank-and-india-t-90-bhishma-tank/
VT-4 seems to be a Chinese copy of our Abrams tank.
—
Its actually an export only version of their MBT 3000, and not even competitive with the T-90, let alone the Abrams.
“Tanks are just easy targets for drones.”
Having worked on the Abrams for over 10 years, I can tell you the fast, easy way to knock out a tank. The weakness is its fuel truck. Have your small, relatively light-weight drone attack the fuel truck and the tank will stop moving shortly after. Then, it’s just a static artillery piece.
This is one reason why the Army wanted to ditch the Abrams years ago, but Congress would not allow it. The modern battlefield is a proliferation of fire and forget missiles and autonomous and guided drones. Another reason is, two ships delivered all of the tanks for Desert Storm. Almost any modern military could have sunk those ships with ease. One C5A can deliver one Abrams. And the logistics cost of keeping the tank going on the battlefield is enormous.
Yes, tanks are wonderful to have. Nothing beats a tank if you can keep it, and all of the rest of the battlefield supplied. But doing that will be increasingly problematic as autonomous drones will be ranging, probably as much as one thousand miles from the battle. You simply can’t protect all the ships and planes that supply your military without some major investment in air space control from ground level to about thirty feet into the air where the autonomous vehicles and drones will probably operate. (The US has dominated the air above battlefields for seventy years. That’s one reason why evolution has driven competitors down so low.)
Having said that, every country has to plan, procure for and operate in their particular terrain. If you’re Pakistan attacking India that’s totally different than the US, which has to be ready for any terrain at any time. Finland, for example, has some very capable ships and vehicles and they have fairly short range and particular vulnerabilities if used in non-Finish territory. Since they are only defending, they can optimize their equipment and logistics to make any attacker pay dearly for every foot of Finish territory. Therefore, no sane leader would target Finland for military assault.
No fair. You’re playing chess while others are playing checkers.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
While the EVIL CIA/federal government/etc. take away/disarm/dismantling/etc. part (so far) of our U.S. military of tanks, humvees, etc. And at the same time the EVIL CIA/federal government/etc. is arming the “Taliban”/etc. (I can tell you what “Taliban”/”al queda”/”isis”/”al Bagdadi”/etc. REALLY mean) with our U.S. military’s tanks, humvees, bases, etc.in Afghanistan and probably Syria and Iraq, etc. too.
As Bill Mauldin put it, a moving foxhole attracts the eye.
The Sherman tank was not competitive with the German Tiger tank, one-on-one. But we made a LOT of them. China's tanks may be individually inferior, but China can make a lot more of them than we can make Abrams.
Clinton gave them the blueprints in 94’.
Big question is does it have the Chum armor?
Well, that was a pretty awful article.
And it does not get into the details that matter, that is, probabilities of aquiring and hitting targets at various ranges, the capabilities of the weapon system vs the armor/countermeasures of the other guys, weaknesses or compromises in defenses, mechanical reliability, agility, etc. etc.
Granted, the reality of most of the stuff that matters wont be revealed, even to the machines owners, until there is a war.
“Professionals discuss logistics.”
I would not call myself a professional. But, having been in engineering for numerous military items, I can tell you that for the want of a resistor a radio was lost. For want of a radio...
It’s actually pretty easy if you have all the equations and the data to feed them. You can fight a battle on a table top and decide just how much the real thing is likely to cost. Then, spend the wheel of fortune at every turn because that’s what the enemy will to you. So, whatever you figure...it’s going to be much higher. (Because of globalization, we no longer have the kind of rapidly adaptive industrial base to quickly make good losses.)
It’s best all around not to fight. There are two ways to do that. You can maintain a hugely capable and robust military that’s ready at a moment’s notice for any contegnecy...so that any potential attacker knows the price he’ll pay is too high....Or, you can surrender.
Do you know what Hitler had planned for the British Isles when he took over? He was going to kill every male and turn the females into slaves. I’d say, no matter who the attacker is, it’s better to die fighting. Or, just spend the money and maintain that military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.