I mean considering it has a third gen CITV and Gunners thermal camera and the inside digitalization of different systems is pretty comprehensive id say it looks pretty good, protection is sorta meh but enough to stop most smaller rpgs, it does lack a good comprehensive city fighting armor package to deal with side and rear rpg shots, but other than that I wouldn't complain.
Its also not super expensive for what you get (2 thermal sights, and good digitalization along with a decent hull judging from interior photos)
Not top of the line obviously, but the enhanced electronics and better thermals than a T-90 really does help.
Doesn't T90 using 3 gen thermal also ? Only thing I see it have a edge over the old T90A are commander thermal sight ( T90A lack them ) and VT-4 actually quite expensive and not cheap like you may have though.
There is no simple answer to what sight the T-90M has as, with seemingly all their vehicles nowadays, it changes batch to batch and depends on what they have available.
First T-90M’s used Sosna-U sights (2nd generation thermal imager, Catherine-FC) of which the thermal imager portion was imported from France, as it was the most advanced sight that Russia had access to, however in 2017 they showed off some new indigenous sights with the T-90MS they put up for display for export. This was allegedly a third generation thermal imager.
However the example captured in ukraine “intact” had Sosna-U sight clearly shown in the interior photos. It’s pretty safe to say that, as per usual, Russia either chose not to adopt the export sight for themselves, or weren’t able to produce enough of them. Both are pretty much equally likely with historic precedent.
Also side note, important to mention this is all just for the gunner, as there is no CITV for the commander.
>First T-90M’s used Sosna-U sights (2nd generation thermal imager, Catherine-FC) of which the thermal imager portion was imported from France, as it was the most advanced sight that Russia had access to, however in 2017 they showed off some new indigenous sights with the T-90MS they put up for display for export. This was allegedly a third generation thermal imager.
No, T-90M never used Thales' Catherine-FC, but the Catherine-XP third generation thermal sight (also imported from France). French exports of thermal sights supposedly still happened for some time after Februrary 2022 with Thales claiming that they were legally bound by their contract to continue deliveries.
Catherine-XP also was fitted to the T-90MS export variant when it was first showcased.
In the past year, Russia started introducing the PNM-T sight as replacement for the Belarussian Sosna-U sight and the TPK-K thermal imager as replacement for the Catherine-XP. The TPK-K only became available after 2020, when the new thermal detector's development had been finished.
>Also side note, important to mention this is all just for the gunner, as there is no CITV for the commander.
In the T-90M(S) [the commander is provided an "Eagle Eye" sight](https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/t-90ms_eng-11.jpg) made by the Belarussian company Peleng ("CITV" is the name of the M1A2 Abrams' sight, it is not a general term). This features a daylight channel, a laser rangefinder and a third generation thermal imaging system.
Depends on the production batch. Original T-90 tanks (cast turret) and some of the earliest T-90A tank had either no thermal sight (but the Buran passive night sight) or a first generation thermal imager. The rest of the T-90A and most T-90S tanks use the French Catherine-FC second generation thermal imaging system.
The T-90M uses either the Catherine-XP or TPK-K thrid generation thermal imaging systems.
As of somewhat recently, it can be equipped with [hardkill APS and a RWS.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/yfcham/newly_upgraded_variant_of_the_chinese_vt4_export/)
> I mean considering it has a third gen CITV and Gunners thermal camera and the inside digitalization of different systems is pretty comprehensive id say it looks pretty good
Thai VT-4 tanks have second generation thermal imagers, IIRC.
Handsome, though might not be the best deal around.
It's for the most part a frankenstein of Type 96A & Type 99A subcomponents (96A lineage hull & gun + brand new welded turret + 99A derived powerpack, electrical outfit, sensors, etc)
The main gun is still ZPT-98 (Chinese variant of the old 2A46), so most likely going to be less accurate than newer 2A46M.
Other than that, it appears to cover every modern tank requirement (Quick change powerpack, neutral steering, hunter-killer ability, ROWS, optional APS, etc.)
However, knowing it still use older gun design, subcomponent performance and integration remains a question mark.
P.s.
For PLA itself, their best MBT (Type 99A) have moved on to the Chinese variant of updated 2A46M, though the more numerous Type 96A still use ZPT-98.
> The main gun is still ZPT-98 (Chinese variant of the old 2A46), so most likely going to be less accurate than newer 2A46M.
The ZPT-98 is developed based on the 2A46, but so is the 2A46M. Both have technical differences and are not carbon copies of the 2A46.
>ZPT-98 (Chinese variant of the old 2A46)
Only the old ZPT-88 on Type 85s and early ZTZ-96 batches are 2A46 copies. The ZPT-98 is a scaled-up version of the PTZ-89 120mm gun, modified to use the 2-piece 125mm. Modernized ZPT-98 are also equipped with new MRS and thermal sleeve, so its competitive to even the 2A46M5.
Can you elaborate on ZPT-98 being a scaled-up version of the PTZ-89 120mm gun? I've tried to find the PTZ-89 gun design, but no luck.
From all the resources I can gather ([Tankograd](https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html#2a46) & [CCTV video](https://youtu.be/hPXkV2vXT3k?t=675)), I'm pretty sure ZPT-98 is a variant of 2A46. I think the breechblock design, as well as the recoil buffer and recuperator layout, are all indicative of a 2A46 variant.
It might have some upgrades (like electro-slag remelting steel & autofrettage process), but the CCTV video didn't elaborate enough.
Pretty good looking, like most modern Chinese vehicles they have a certain clean, modern/slightly science fiction look to them that I appreciate. Though I still like the Type-99 better.
They don't have the character of Russian gear, but- with some exceptions- everything looks like it *should* look, if that makes sense. Tanks, IFVs, warships, aircraft.
I am from Thailand, an army boy, and here are some of the compliments the tank boys gave me.
> AC runs very cold, good for our climate
> Good electronics and FCS. Better than the T-84 Oplot-T
> Easier to start the engine up than the T-84s (Apparently Ukraine had difficulty with the battery so we used our own battery instead)
To me it sounds like they like them and considering the procurement cost, yeah it's not a bad deal.
> AC runs very cold
Honestly that'll make all the different in the world. Knew an M1 tanker who went to iraq, and 4 guys in a hotbox having to go days without bathing is just something I never want to experience.
My Thai brotha, I was just there for cobra gold, wish the U.S. did more training with Thailand. Loved Thai soldiers and your country.
I want Thailand
We have Thailand at home
-Philippines
To be honest, I do not know.
Though as far as I can gather, the first batch of 28 cost around 5.1 million dollar each (with supported equipment and machinery included), the second batch of 20 for around 3 million dollar each (with upported equipment and machinery included)
So yeah that figure of 4.5 million per unit might be true actually. They probably don't include support equipment cost in the number.
Good enough. You should really look at Thai army's video on their VT-4s, the interior look excellent, CITV, BMS, FCS and comms are quite capable. It can also be enhanced with FY-4 ERA packages, which are Chinese equivalent of Relikt, like shown on the OP, and GL5/6 APS. IMO the biggest difference is the muzzle velocity radar that's standard on ZTZ-99s and VT-4s.
The VT-4A1 is upgraded with a mortar that shoots out loitering munitions, GL6 APS, driver's FLIR, and new electronics. That's quite competitive with systems like the K2 or Leopard 2A7. It is limited by its firepower and the lack of blowout panels, though combat experience in Nigeria suggests its not detrimental to its capabilities in the hand of a capable army.
So yes, its darn good.
Like other modern Chinese MBTs, looks fairly solid on paper, although it still follows Soviet-era design philosophy so it inherits some aspects I'm not convinced about. The interior seems cramped (the vehicle certainly isn't large), and the carousel autoloader is still not ideal. It does come with modern electronics, presumably modern ammunition and decent armour, so it's probably a good choice for nations that want something cheaper if they can politically afford to buy from China.
China secrectly aquired a single T-72 ural-1 from romania by trading chinese fighter aircraft technology in return, romania shipped the fully dismantled T-72 in parts to china without alerting the soviets.
the tank was codenamed "Model 64" in China and was completely evaluated, the chinese figured out that the T-72 better suited their needs than the M48 however they also noted that the tank was far behind the west when it comes to eletronics and FCS. They did like the 125mm gun and reverse engineered it.
I dont think china ever had T-62's or anything based on it
From my views it seems the chinese only took the low profile design and gun of the T-72 but everything else is their own developments
They apparently [captured a t62 in 1969 and studied it.](https://web.archive.org/web/20100905205805/http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type69.asp)
“In March 1969, during an armed clash between the PRC and the Soviet Union along the Ussuri River on Damansky Island, the Chinese troops captured a Soviet T-62 tank. The tank was carefully examined by Chinese engineers and its night vision and other components were copied and integrated into the Type 69 design. The Type 69 was finally certified for design finalisation in 1974”
The type 69 comes from the 59, which is a T-54 copy (under licence). After the capture of the T-62, a lot of the changes for the type-69 were internal and smaller components, the IR lamp next to the gun is one of the clearer upgrades.
The captured T-62 is in a museum in Beijing.
No. You’re confusing T-62 No.545, which was captured in 1969 during the Sino-Soviet border conflicts.
I’m not sure where the other commenter got their information from. The only reference to the Model 64 and the whole Romania deal I could find was on the War Thunder forums, which referenced some Chinese language articles which didn’t seem to make any mention of it.
‘Modern’ (or more accurately, modern domestic design of) Chinese MBT’s were based on the Type-59, 69, 79 and 88, which were all extremely similar in that they were glorified T-54’s or direct copies of the T-54. The Type-85 was developed domestically for export to Pakistan (and others) by NORINCO in 1988 but wasn’t accepted for service until examination of captured Iraqi T-72’s in Iran, which impressed upon the PLA the need for superior armour. All evolution came from the Type-88 essentially, with a welded turret and 125mm for the Type-85 eventually evolving into the ZTZ-96. The ZTZ-99’s are all evolutions of the ZTZ-96.
It’s a common misconception that China outright copied the Soviets in tank design, when in reality they came to a lot of similar conclusions while evolving the T-54 but ended up with superior tanks. Which is pretty funny if you ask me.
>they came to a lot of similar conclusions while evolving the T-54 but ended up with superior tanks.
They have money and their tank development wasn't de facto aborted in 1991. This is the outcome of those two things.
How are they truly superior if they copy the carousel autoloader. Seem like T-72/90 series equivalents. Aee the remaining rounds in armored bins at least.
That is a design relic, but the newer ZTQ-15 (light tank) features a cassette style autoloader which does indicate that they've moved away from carousel autoloaders.
The ZTZ's are generally superior in that most, if not all, of the 96's have been upgraded to the 99 standard. That means a better FCS, Gunner thermals and communications. The 99's also actually feature CITV's and LWR's as standard, with a laser defence system mounted on the turret roof which seems to be successful enough that they kept it around for the ZTZ-99A, which is the capstone MBT of the PLAGF. This is what makes them better than Russian equivalents. Plus the ZTZ-99A has actual reverse gears, meaning it can reverse at a max speed of 36km/h, far better than 4km/h and 10km/h speeds offered by the T-72/90 and T-80 respectively.
So basically bar the newer tank all the rest have the same Russian style layout right. The Indian T-90s are getting drop in thermals for the Russian Commanders sight and are upgrading their FCS as well.
Visually clean but what really matters if it can resist an INVAR shot. That's the primary armament of the Indian T-90s. And whether it can kill them in turn (head on).
As always, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of fight i the dog.
China has learned a lot from post Cold War tank development - this looks good. Lessons from the T-90 and the Abrams - so a little from Column A and a little from Column B.
What the PLA needs is the doctrine and logistics to go with it and their tanks like it.
Looks like a tank, sounds relatively modern, but we'll never know what it's really capable of until Pakistan or one of its other users gets into a fight using them. And in any case it's probably still inferior to the current Type 99, or China wouldn't be exporting it.
It’s a hell of a lot better than anything Russia has but that’s not saying much. Pretty much an upgraded T72 that takes some things from western tanks but still suffers from the same issue that the ammo isn’t separated from the crew that all soviet-family tanks. It’s problems are exacerbated by a lack of any additional armor on the sides which is a particularly weird choice by the Chinese. It actually has good reverse speeds unlike Russian tanks. It’s got great optics, a pretty good new engine that isn’t and a decently roomy turret but it’s still kinda cramped.
Recently what I’m assuming is going to be a new turret/ERA layout for the VT4/Type 99 was seen on top of a T-72 chassis: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/11oa9iz/a_chinese_upgrade_for_an_unknown_countrys_t72s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
It still doesn’t fix some core issues with soviet tank design though, like the poor gun depression. Considering China has already made its own cassette autoloader for the VT5 I don’t know why they don’t make a 125mm cassette autoloader and a new turret ass it quite honestly would solve a lot of the problems with soviet tank design.
Overall it’s a hell of a lot better than pretty much all other soviet-family tanks in service but I’d say it’s still a ways behind western tanks, really the only improvements I think they could make would basically just redesign the whole tank since a lot of the issues with soviet tank hulls were addressed with the Object 187 meanwhile the turret would probably be most similar to the black eagle. Like all tanks it does need APS though.
[Unless you specifically mean in service](https://old.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/yfcham/newly_upgraded_variant_of_the_chinese_vt4_export/) it was shown off at the 2022 Zhuhai expo. Since it's an export tank you won't see it in service until new deals are signed.
>The cassette autoloader's greatest advantage is its fast rate of fire. The disadvantage is that it is set with the turret that is most likely to be hit, so if you want to protect it, the defense of the turret front and the heading Angle are important. For the Type 99A, the equivalent thickness at the thickest point of the turret front was about 1050mm, but the heading Angle protection was too weak to protect the cassette autoloader, so it was placed in the hull with a lower hit rate. However, for light tanks such as Type 15 and VT 5, which are not strong in defense anyway, it is better to maximize their firepower, and naturally adopt the cassette autoloader
>It’s a hell of a lot better than anything Russia has but that’s not saying much.
It is not "a hell of a lot better" than a T-80BVM or a T-90M. It is even debatable that the VT-4 is better than some older/weaker tanks, given that it lacks behind them in some respects.
Not top of the line but still be able to face most type of mbts that being used in majority regions in the world (T-72/90A etc.).
Seeing it being operated by Thailand is very understandable to me. They have quite low threats around them which are T90 from Vietnam and PT91 from Malaysia are the best that they could face while Myanmar is operating VT-2/T-72 and, Cambodia / Laos are using T-72/55. Moreover, they have Oplot Ts that seem to be slightly better.
The look of it is pretty cool, modern CN MBTs are visually attractive to me.
Sum: Cheap, reliable, be able to fight those widely used Russian/Soviet MBTs, and looking attractive. Three ☑ to me 😊
I don't think he's referring to public opinion. Manufacturers do NOT care or redesign based on social media opinion. I think he's referring to totalitarian regimes and the lack of dissenting opinions inherent in their system.
If no one questions the parameters or design, then manufacturer doesn't get the feedback they need to re-evaluate their method.
Agree that it's half-half, but I think the competitive sector is the "private" sector (as far as Chinese businesses are truly "private"). I'm not familiar enough with their military industrial complex though, but it seems in some fields, where dominated by the Party's influence, there is a one-party opinion that is somewhat forced upon all. I'm assuming the military is going to be one of these fields.
With procurement, they compete with many designs and have to win contracts. Designs that don't win end up being developed for the export market. The VT-4 is one of those designs that didn't win. J-31 was even one of those designs for the J-XX program until losing to the J-20.
With training, there was a huge anti corruption campaign Xi went on. Xi created the 195th brigade out of the most experienced soldiers in the military and basically had all existing units take their turn in getting their asses whooped in simulated combat and exposed the Soviet style leadership and training corruption. Basically, if you aren't a good commander, there is a very good incentive to train well or risk public humiliation.
>I think the competitive sector is the "private" sector (as far as Chinese businesses are truly "private"). I'm not familiar enough with their military industrial complex though, but it seems in some fields, where dominated by the Party's influence, there is a one-party opinion that is somewhat forced upon all. I'm assuming the military is going to be one of these fields.
China's military industrial complex - just like the Soviet Union's one - has several design bureaus competing against each other. E.g. the VT-5 light tank that is offered for export was originally developed for the PLA but lost an internal competition to what would become the ZTQ-15.
yes, but once something is selected, is there room to criticize the decision or show something is wrong and needs to be redone? That's hard even in western "open markets", and we don't execute people for bad business decisions...
But that they still produce at a high quality. It doesn’t matter who invented the technology if the one who stole it can still produce it at a high enough quality.
This picture doesn’t have the vt-4 with hardkill APS. [This is what it should look like](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/ydd7ey/recent_pictures_of_the_vt4_export_ztz99_with_aps/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
The West is really gambling on this 'poor quality manufacturing' cope. We should probably wait to see how China's military fares in a campaign first. The missile they made and destroyed a satellite with seemed to work just fine. They also have hypersonic weapons.
>The West is really gambling on this 'poor quality manufacturing' cope.
Yea, saying that China manufactures equipment for pretty much everyone in terms of electronics and mechanical components - I think the argument that Chinese stuff will be jank is a couple decades past its point now...
The Chinese will likely face the issue that Middle Easterns have with their social system, where peoples political/social standing is more important than tactical/strategic ability.
The US had plane-carried ASAT missiles in 1985 so its not exactly some big thing today, ASAT weapons are also just a horrible idea because of Kessler syndrome. Hypersonic is just a buzzword, Mach 5 is fast but missiles have carried better payloads at higher speeds and been deemed impractical.
> Said Chinese tanks have never seen combat and are as if this moment only used in training
China isn't fighting a major war right now, and that's probably why they *haven't* seen combat. The fact that a tank has not seen combat does not automatically equate to the tank being bad.
For example, the M1 didn't see combat..... until it did, and proved itself to be an excellent vehicle
> Lord forbid the west actually finds out how bad the tank in question actually is
For one, I highly doubt the west is completely oblivious to the capabilities of modern Chinese tanks. Secondly, the only point you actually make against Chinese tanks is an incorrect one about gun stabilization.
I'm not going to claim that I know for a fact that Chinese tanks are superb, or even all that good, but you haven't demonstrated why they're as terrible as you claim them to be.
> From videos released by the Chinese government themselves we can easily tell said tanks don’t have a proper barrel stabilizer, that’s the thing that stops the gun from wobbling all over the place when the tank is moving
Stabilizers *are not always turned on*. In fact, they are often *left off* to prevent components from wearing out. You can't just look at a single video and then conclude that a tank doesn't have a stabilizer.
The assertion that modern Chinese MBTs don't have stabilizers also runs counter to the basic history of Chinese tanks. Even T-55, which China had access to decades ago, were equipped with hydromechanical stabilizers.
All of this is in addition to the fact that we actually *do* have footage of Chinese tanks using their stabilizers.
Moreso that the tank is made for the ERA (made to allow easy integration of ERA). It would be extremely logistically taxing and completely unnecessary to make unique ERA for new tanks as long as the old ERA provides sufficient protection.
But even if neither the tank nor the ERA were explicitly made for each other, you can still apply ERA to a tank in a way that has less gaps than what the Russians did on some of their newer T-72s. You can just compare the ERA coverage on the turrets of T-72B2 and T-72B3 for an example of a higher cost solution with cleaner ERA coverage (T-72B2) and a lower cost solution with comparatively worse ERA coverage (T-72B3).
The VT-4 tank is a good budget option, particularly for countries with a surplus of 125mm guns and ammunition. Tbh I would recommend VT-4 over T-90MS.
However, if the caliber is not a deciding factor, I would recommend purchasing the K2 Black Panther instead of the VT-4.
Looks neat and can do its job but the VT4 is similar to the Type 99G which is currently in service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA), but has downgraded capabilities such as sights, engine and gun... it might be the best Chinese tank for export but it's no match compared to European tanks or U.S tanks...
Obsolete junk. It's basic design was taken from the Soviet T-72 which means it has the autoloader carousel in the turret. When the top of the turret is penetrated, the ammunition stored in the carousel detonates and launches the turret into orbit. We've seen this so often in Ukraine that it's become a meme. I feel sorry for any army that buys this model. You sacrificed safety to save money.
I mean considering it has a third gen CITV and Gunners thermal camera and the inside digitalization of different systems is pretty comprehensive id say it looks pretty good, protection is sorta meh but enough to stop most smaller rpgs, it does lack a good comprehensive city fighting armor package to deal with side and rear rpg shots, but other than that I wouldn't complain. Its also not super expensive for what you get (2 thermal sights, and good digitalization along with a decent hull judging from interior photos) Not top of the line obviously, but the enhanced electronics and better thermals than a T-90 really does help.
VT indicates export model, probably worth mentioning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT-4
It comes with AC....
Doesn't T90 using 3 gen thermal also ? Only thing I see it have a edge over the old T90A are commander thermal sight ( T90A lack them ) and VT-4 actually quite expensive and not cheap like you may have though.
VT-4 has faster reverse speed, it has IFF system and map telling where friendly tanks are. https://youtu.be/ri6XLziUfV0
Very useful vid, saved
There is no simple answer to what sight the T-90M has as, with seemingly all their vehicles nowadays, it changes batch to batch and depends on what they have available. First T-90M’s used Sosna-U sights (2nd generation thermal imager, Catherine-FC) of which the thermal imager portion was imported from France, as it was the most advanced sight that Russia had access to, however in 2017 they showed off some new indigenous sights with the T-90MS they put up for display for export. This was allegedly a third generation thermal imager. However the example captured in ukraine “intact” had Sosna-U sight clearly shown in the interior photos. It’s pretty safe to say that, as per usual, Russia either chose not to adopt the export sight for themselves, or weren’t able to produce enough of them. Both are pretty much equally likely with historic precedent. Also side note, important to mention this is all just for the gunner, as there is no CITV for the commander.
>First T-90M’s used Sosna-U sights (2nd generation thermal imager, Catherine-FC) of which the thermal imager portion was imported from France, as it was the most advanced sight that Russia had access to, however in 2017 they showed off some new indigenous sights with the T-90MS they put up for display for export. This was allegedly a third generation thermal imager. No, T-90M never used Thales' Catherine-FC, but the Catherine-XP third generation thermal sight (also imported from France). French exports of thermal sights supposedly still happened for some time after Februrary 2022 with Thales claiming that they were legally bound by their contract to continue deliveries. Catherine-XP also was fitted to the T-90MS export variant when it was first showcased. In the past year, Russia started introducing the PNM-T sight as replacement for the Belarussian Sosna-U sight and the TPK-K thermal imager as replacement for the Catherine-XP. The TPK-K only became available after 2020, when the new thermal detector's development had been finished. >Also side note, important to mention this is all just for the gunner, as there is no CITV for the commander. In the T-90M(S) [the commander is provided an "Eagle Eye" sight](https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/t-90ms_eng-11.jpg) made by the Belarussian company Peleng ("CITV" is the name of the M1A2 Abrams' sight, it is not a general term). This features a daylight channel, a laser rangefinder and a third generation thermal imaging system.
Depends on the production batch. Original T-90 tanks (cast turret) and some of the earliest T-90A tank had either no thermal sight (but the Buran passive night sight) or a first generation thermal imager. The rest of the T-90A and most T-90S tanks use the French Catherine-FC second generation thermal imaging system. The T-90M uses either the Catherine-XP or TPK-K thrid generation thermal imaging systems.
T90M uses third gen thermals
As of somewhat recently, it can be equipped with [hardkill APS and a RWS.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/yfcham/newly_upgraded_variant_of_the_chinese_vt4_export/)
> I mean considering it has a third gen CITV and Gunners thermal camera and the inside digitalization of different systems is pretty comprehensive id say it looks pretty good Thai VT-4 tanks have second generation thermal imagers, IIRC.
For both gunner and commander ? Wow 😯
Couldn't say without taking it apart and seeing in function.
Handsome, though might not be the best deal around. It's for the most part a frankenstein of Type 96A & Type 99A subcomponents (96A lineage hull & gun + brand new welded turret + 99A derived powerpack, electrical outfit, sensors, etc) The main gun is still ZPT-98 (Chinese variant of the old 2A46), so most likely going to be less accurate than newer 2A46M. Other than that, it appears to cover every modern tank requirement (Quick change powerpack, neutral steering, hunter-killer ability, ROWS, optional APS, etc.) However, knowing it still use older gun design, subcomponent performance and integration remains a question mark. P.s. For PLA itself, their best MBT (Type 99A) have moved on to the Chinese variant of updated 2A46M, though the more numerous Type 96A still use ZPT-98.
> The main gun is still ZPT-98 (Chinese variant of the old 2A46), so most likely going to be less accurate than newer 2A46M. The ZPT-98 is developed based on the 2A46, but so is the 2A46M. Both have technical differences and are not carbon copies of the 2A46.
>ZPT-98 (Chinese variant of the old 2A46) Only the old ZPT-88 on Type 85s and early ZTZ-96 batches are 2A46 copies. The ZPT-98 is a scaled-up version of the PTZ-89 120mm gun, modified to use the 2-piece 125mm. Modernized ZPT-98 are also equipped with new MRS and thermal sleeve, so its competitive to even the 2A46M5.
Can you elaborate on ZPT-98 being a scaled-up version of the PTZ-89 120mm gun? I've tried to find the PTZ-89 gun design, but no luck. From all the resources I can gather ([Tankograd](https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html#2a46) & [CCTV video](https://youtu.be/hPXkV2vXT3k?t=675)), I'm pretty sure ZPT-98 is a variant of 2A46. I think the breechblock design, as well as the recoil buffer and recuperator layout, are all indicative of a 2A46 variant. It might have some upgrades (like electro-slag remelting steel & autofrettage process), but the CCTV video didn't elaborate enough.
What style of autoloader does it have?
Russian style turret bottom autoloader.
Oh dear.
dont worry just buy the vt-5 instead
Pretty good looking, like most modern Chinese vehicles they have a certain clean, modern/slightly science fiction look to them that I appreciate. Though I still like the Type-99 better.
Modern Chinese stuff looks great, along my favourites visually
They don't have the character of Russian gear, but- with some exceptions- everything looks like it *should* look, if that makes sense. Tanks, IFVs, warships, aircraft.
Amazing what happens when it's not sitting in a field for 40 years.
No, this is also true for new-build Russian equipment
Yea I know? my statement still stands, amazing what happens when it doesn't sit in a field for 40 years.
I know right? They seriously do look really good.
I am from Thailand, an army boy, and here are some of the compliments the tank boys gave me. > AC runs very cold, good for our climate > Good electronics and FCS. Better than the T-84 Oplot-T > Easier to start the engine up than the T-84s (Apparently Ukraine had difficulty with the battery so we used our own battery instead) To me it sounds like they like them and considering the procurement cost, yeah it's not a bad deal.
> AC runs very cold Honestly that'll make all the different in the world. Knew an M1 tanker who went to iraq, and 4 guys in a hotbox having to go days without bathing is just something I never want to experience.
My Thai brotha, I was just there for cobra gold, wish the U.S. did more training with Thailand. Loved Thai soldiers and your country. I want Thailand We have Thailand at home -Philippines
How much does a single vt-4 cost? According to wikipedia (obviously not very reliable) its 4.9 million dollars for a single unit
To be honest, I do not know. Though as far as I can gather, the first batch of 28 cost around 5.1 million dollar each (with supported equipment and machinery included), the second batch of 20 for around 3 million dollar each (with upported equipment and machinery included) So yeah that figure of 4.5 million per unit might be true actually. They probably don't include support equipment cost in the number.
Good enough. You should really look at Thai army's video on their VT-4s, the interior look excellent, CITV, BMS, FCS and comms are quite capable. It can also be enhanced with FY-4 ERA packages, which are Chinese equivalent of Relikt, like shown on the OP, and GL5/6 APS. IMO the biggest difference is the muzzle velocity radar that's standard on ZTZ-99s and VT-4s. The VT-4A1 is upgraded with a mortar that shoots out loitering munitions, GL6 APS, driver's FLIR, and new electronics. That's quite competitive with systems like the K2 or Leopard 2A7. It is limited by its firepower and the lack of blowout panels, though combat experience in Nigeria suggests its not detrimental to its capabilities in the hand of a capable army. So yes, its darn good.
It's certainly a tank.
no its a pancake
There's nothing wrong with it
Carousel?
Wait, nobody brought up the "a10 goes brrttt" ? Are we getting more civil?
Considering the operator, VT-4's metrics should be compared against Indian T-90 in most situations.
T-90S or T-90MS?
India currently only has T-90S tanks.
Oh got it. Thought they had MS.
Well the countries that bought them seem to like them. They must be decent at least.
Like other modern Chinese MBTs, looks fairly solid on paper, although it still follows Soviet-era design philosophy so it inherits some aspects I'm not convinced about. The interior seems cramped (the vehicle certainly isn't large), and the carousel autoloader is still not ideal. It does come with modern electronics, presumably modern ammunition and decent armour, so it's probably a good choice for nations that want something cheaper if they can politically afford to buy from China.
Have to check it out on WarThunder first, then I’ll get back to you.
Love it
Can’t help but think they’re a just warmed up t72
It isn’t based on a t-72
The Chinese mbt's are completely different, theyre completely designed from the ground up
Aren't they based somewhat on the T-62 platform? Like in a very very very vauge way
China secrectly aquired a single T-72 ural-1 from romania by trading chinese fighter aircraft technology in return, romania shipped the fully dismantled T-72 in parts to china without alerting the soviets. the tank was codenamed "Model 64" in China and was completely evaluated, the chinese figured out that the T-72 better suited their needs than the M48 however they also noted that the tank was far behind the west when it comes to eletronics and FCS. They did like the 125mm gun and reverse engineered it. I dont think china ever had T-62's or anything based on it From my views it seems the chinese only took the low profile design and gun of the T-72 but everything else is their own developments
They apparently [captured a t62 in 1969 and studied it.](https://web.archive.org/web/20100905205805/http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type69.asp) “In March 1969, during an armed clash between the PRC and the Soviet Union along the Ussuri River on Damansky Island, the Chinese troops captured a Soviet T-62 tank. The tank was carefully examined by Chinese engineers and its night vision and other components were copied and integrated into the Type 69 design. The Type 69 was finally certified for design finalisation in 1974”
Thx for the correction, learned something new. From the outside i always assumed the Type-69 to be more of a T-55 copy than a T-62 one
The type 69 comes from the 59, which is a T-54 copy (under licence). After the capture of the T-62, a lot of the changes for the type-69 were internal and smaller components, the IR lamp next to the gun is one of the clearer upgrades. The captured T-62 is in a museum in Beijing.
Yes they did, they pulled one over the border during a skirmish with the soviets.
No. You’re confusing T-62 No.545, which was captured in 1969 during the Sino-Soviet border conflicts. I’m not sure where the other commenter got their information from. The only reference to the Model 64 and the whole Romania deal I could find was on the War Thunder forums, which referenced some Chinese language articles which didn’t seem to make any mention of it. ‘Modern’ (or more accurately, modern domestic design of) Chinese MBT’s were based on the Type-59, 69, 79 and 88, which were all extremely similar in that they were glorified T-54’s or direct copies of the T-54. The Type-85 was developed domestically for export to Pakistan (and others) by NORINCO in 1988 but wasn’t accepted for service until examination of captured Iraqi T-72’s in Iran, which impressed upon the PLA the need for superior armour. All evolution came from the Type-88 essentially, with a welded turret and 125mm for the Type-85 eventually evolving into the ZTZ-96. The ZTZ-99’s are all evolutions of the ZTZ-96. It’s a common misconception that China outright copied the Soviets in tank design, when in reality they came to a lot of similar conclusions while evolving the T-54 but ended up with superior tanks. Which is pretty funny if you ask me.
>they came to a lot of similar conclusions while evolving the T-54 but ended up with superior tanks. They have money and their tank development wasn't de facto aborted in 1991. This is the outcome of those two things.
How are they truly superior if they copy the carousel autoloader. Seem like T-72/90 series equivalents. Aee the remaining rounds in armored bins at least.
That is a design relic, but the newer ZTQ-15 (light tank) features a cassette style autoloader which does indicate that they've moved away from carousel autoloaders. The ZTZ's are generally superior in that most, if not all, of the 96's have been upgraded to the 99 standard. That means a better FCS, Gunner thermals and communications. The 99's also actually feature CITV's and LWR's as standard, with a laser defence system mounted on the turret roof which seems to be successful enough that they kept it around for the ZTZ-99A, which is the capstone MBT of the PLAGF. This is what makes them better than Russian equivalents. Plus the ZTZ-99A has actual reverse gears, meaning it can reverse at a max speed of 36km/h, far better than 4km/h and 10km/h speeds offered by the T-72/90 and T-80 respectively.
T-90 has a LWR.
So basically bar the newer tank all the rest have the same Russian style layout right. The Indian T-90s are getting drop in thermals for the Russian Commanders sight and are upgrading their FCS as well.
They’re newest ones to look that way.
Chinese mbts started to deviate from soviet designs since type-88
Visually clean but what really matters if it can resist an INVAR shot. That's the primary armament of the Indian T-90s. And whether it can kill them in turn (head on).
Does it come in green. Asking for a friend.
As always, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of fight i the dog. China has learned a lot from post Cold War tank development - this looks good. Lessons from the T-90 and the Abrams - so a little from Column A and a little from Column B. What the PLA needs is the doctrine and logistics to go with it and their tanks like it.
Looks like a tank, sounds relatively modern, but we'll never know what it's really capable of until Pakistan or one of its other users gets into a fight using them. And in any case it's probably still inferior to the current Type 99, or China wouldn't be exporting it.
I think it looks cool, I don't usually like Chinese tanks/planes but damn I love how the ERA looks on the Chinese tanks
Impressive. Very nice. Let's see a western MBT...
Look at that subtle off tan desert camo, the tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God, it even has a water heater.
That thing is good but I don’t thing it’s going to last against any western mbt and I think a javelin might do the trick too
It’s a hell of a lot better than anything Russia has but that’s not saying much. Pretty much an upgraded T72 that takes some things from western tanks but still suffers from the same issue that the ammo isn’t separated from the crew that all soviet-family tanks. It’s problems are exacerbated by a lack of any additional armor on the sides which is a particularly weird choice by the Chinese. It actually has good reverse speeds unlike Russian tanks. It’s got great optics, a pretty good new engine that isn’t and a decently roomy turret but it’s still kinda cramped. Recently what I’m assuming is going to be a new turret/ERA layout for the VT4/Type 99 was seen on top of a T-72 chassis: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/11oa9iz/a_chinese_upgrade_for_an_unknown_countrys_t72s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 It still doesn’t fix some core issues with soviet tank design though, like the poor gun depression. Considering China has already made its own cassette autoloader for the VT5 I don’t know why they don’t make a 125mm cassette autoloader and a new turret ass it quite honestly would solve a lot of the problems with soviet tank design. Overall it’s a hell of a lot better than pretty much all other soviet-family tanks in service but I’d say it’s still a ways behind western tanks, really the only improvements I think they could make would basically just redesign the whole tank since a lot of the issues with soviet tank hulls were addressed with the Object 187 meanwhile the turret would probably be most similar to the black eagle. Like all tanks it does need APS though.
Well, the extra side armour is probably going to come as paid DLC (« City fighting Module, 19999,99$ »), and it apparently does indeed have APS on it.
They have an APS system developed but it hasn’t shown up on any yet.
[Unless you specifically mean in service](https://old.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/yfcham/newly_upgraded_variant_of_the_chinese_vt4_export/) it was shown off at the 2022 Zhuhai expo. Since it's an export tank you won't see it in service until new deals are signed.
Oh my bad, then.
>The cassette autoloader's greatest advantage is its fast rate of fire. The disadvantage is that it is set with the turret that is most likely to be hit, so if you want to protect it, the defense of the turret front and the heading Angle are important. For the Type 99A, the equivalent thickness at the thickest point of the turret front was about 1050mm, but the heading Angle protection was too weak to protect the cassette autoloader, so it was placed in the hull with a lower hit rate. However, for light tanks such as Type 15 and VT 5, which are not strong in defense anyway, it is better to maximize their firepower, and naturally adopt the cassette autoloader
>It’s a hell of a lot better than anything Russia has but that’s not saying much. It is not "a hell of a lot better" than a T-80BVM or a T-90M. It is even debatable that the VT-4 is better than some older/weaker tanks, given that it lacks behind them in some respects.
Not top of the line but still be able to face most type of mbts that being used in majority regions in the world (T-72/90A etc.). Seeing it being operated by Thailand is very understandable to me. They have quite low threats around them which are T90 from Vietnam and PT91 from Malaysia are the best that they could face while Myanmar is operating VT-2/T-72 and, Cambodia / Laos are using T-72/55. Moreover, they have Oplot Ts that seem to be slightly better. The look of it is pretty cool, modern CN MBTs are visually attractive to me. Sum: Cheap, reliable, be able to fight those widely used Russian/Soviet MBTs, and looking attractive. Three ☑ to me 😊
whys the driver hatch off-center jfc
Maybe to clear the transmission?
Does it actually say made in China on the bottom?
[удалено]
Its export tank mate... I think feedback is pretty important if you're trying to sell someone something...
You're on Reddit and you're saying China doesn't get the same critical feedback as the west? Interesting...
I don't think he's referring to public opinion. Manufacturers do NOT care or redesign based on social media opinion. I think he's referring to totalitarian regimes and the lack of dissenting opinions inherent in their system. If no one questions the parameters or design, then manufacturer doesn't get the feedback they need to re-evaluate their method.
China is really only socially totalitarian. Economically it's half half. They understand the importance of competition.
Agree that it's half-half, but I think the competitive sector is the "private" sector (as far as Chinese businesses are truly "private"). I'm not familiar enough with their military industrial complex though, but it seems in some fields, where dominated by the Party's influence, there is a one-party opinion that is somewhat forced upon all. I'm assuming the military is going to be one of these fields.
With procurement, they compete with many designs and have to win contracts. Designs that don't win end up being developed for the export market. The VT-4 is one of those designs that didn't win. J-31 was even one of those designs for the J-XX program until losing to the J-20. With training, there was a huge anti corruption campaign Xi went on. Xi created the 195th brigade out of the most experienced soldiers in the military and basically had all existing units take their turn in getting their asses whooped in simulated combat and exposed the Soviet style leadership and training corruption. Basically, if you aren't a good commander, there is a very good incentive to train well or risk public humiliation.
>I think the competitive sector is the "private" sector (as far as Chinese businesses are truly "private"). I'm not familiar enough with their military industrial complex though, but it seems in some fields, where dominated by the Party's influence, there is a one-party opinion that is somewhat forced upon all. I'm assuming the military is going to be one of these fields. China's military industrial complex - just like the Soviet Union's one - has several design bureaus competing against each other. E.g. the VT-5 light tank that is offered for export was originally developed for the PLA but lost an internal competition to what would become the ZTQ-15.
yes, but once something is selected, is there room to criticize the decision or show something is wrong and needs to be redone? That's hard even in western "open markets", and we don't execute people for bad business decisions...
That shouldn’t have to be explained….
I agree, but here we are, lol.
Not banging on you, comment was meant for the other guy. You’re good.
No worries at all, I agree with your comment completely.
The Florks have been here.
It's a T-72 in drag.
Untested……
Type99 / Type90 / Leclerc / Type10 / K1-2 and plenty of MBTs are 'untested'. Judging it by paper-specifications, price, and design isn't a crime.
Leclerc has seen combat in Yemen and was also used by France's peace-keeping forces in Africa.
I mean VT4 has seen combat in Nigeria apparently.
Commenting untested is neither a crime….. What’s your point?
Love how these comments never come up on South Korean armor
I don’t see SK armor lol
It’ll be broken down in 6 months and probably made out of plastic.
That narrative is old and dead. China is more than capable of producing high-quality products by now, as it has done for quite a while.
I disagree
Feel free to open any made in Japan/Germany/US product, and look it's actually a bunch of Chinese components...
Alright buddy go China go!
China produces large quantities of high-precision computer chips and such but yet you believe they can’t make a decent quality tank?
Taiwan's chips are better!
All tech that they have stollen
But that they still produce at a high quality. It doesn’t matter who invented the technology if the one who stole it can still produce it at a high enough quality.
For example? Or you mean Taiwan?
Cheap low grade steel and terrible construction methods, missing weld joints, generally poor fit and finish. But y’know. Someone will defend it.
[удалено]
How is it a copy of the Leopard? they don't even look the same
Leopard copy? I must be blind.
Knock off M1, but with ERA
[удалено]
It does though, you can see it in the pic on top of the turret.
This picture doesn’t have the vt-4 with hardkill APS. [This is what it should look like](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/ydd7ey/recent_pictures_of_the_vt4_export_ztz99_with_aps/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
Ah, yea the side view helps. It looks like a APS from the front. What is that then, a RC MG turret? Looks too big for just optics.
[удалено]
The West is really gambling on this 'poor quality manufacturing' cope. We should probably wait to see how China's military fares in a campaign first. The missile they made and destroyed a satellite with seemed to work just fine. They also have hypersonic weapons.
>The West is really gambling on this 'poor quality manufacturing' cope. Yea, saying that China manufactures equipment for pretty much everyone in terms of electronics and mechanical components - I think the argument that Chinese stuff will be jank is a couple decades past its point now... The Chinese will likely face the issue that Middle Easterns have with their social system, where peoples political/social standing is more important than tactical/strategic ability.
The US had plane-carried ASAT missiles in 1985 so its not exactly some big thing today, ASAT weapons are also just a horrible idea because of Kessler syndrome. Hypersonic is just a buzzword, Mach 5 is fast but missiles have carried better payloads at higher speeds and been deemed impractical.
[удалено]
That's a silly incident to bring up. America is still a hyperpower, despite being embarrassed by Vietnamese farmers and Afghan herdsmen.
[удалено]
🙄
[удалено]
> Said Chinese tanks have never seen combat and are as if this moment only used in training China isn't fighting a major war right now, and that's probably why they *haven't* seen combat. The fact that a tank has not seen combat does not automatically equate to the tank being bad. For example, the M1 didn't see combat..... until it did, and proved itself to be an excellent vehicle > Lord forbid the west actually finds out how bad the tank in question actually is For one, I highly doubt the west is completely oblivious to the capabilities of modern Chinese tanks. Secondly, the only point you actually make against Chinese tanks is an incorrect one about gun stabilization. I'm not going to claim that I know for a fact that Chinese tanks are superb, or even all that good, but you haven't demonstrated why they're as terrible as you claim them to be. > From videos released by the Chinese government themselves we can easily tell said tanks don’t have a proper barrel stabilizer, that’s the thing that stops the gun from wobbling all over the place when the tank is moving Stabilizers *are not always turned on*. In fact, they are often *left off* to prevent components from wearing out. You can't just look at a single video and then conclude that a tank doesn't have a stabilizer. The assertion that modern Chinese MBTs don't have stabilizers also runs counter to the basic history of Chinese tanks. Even T-55, which China had access to decades ago, were equipped with hydromechanical stabilizers. All of this is in addition to the fact that we actually *do* have footage of Chinese tanks using their stabilizers.
No free healthcare?
[удалено]
This is reddit my dude, opinions aren’t very popular here
He’s not entirely wrong though
[удалено]
Warhammer players try not to be insufferable challenge (impossible)
Doesn’t have any ERA
No, it's just not as poorly applied as the ERA on some other tanks.
Well, it's more the case that the ERA is exactly made for this tank
Moreso that the tank is made for the ERA (made to allow easy integration of ERA). It would be extremely logistically taxing and completely unnecessary to make unique ERA for new tanks as long as the old ERA provides sufficient protection. But even if neither the tank nor the ERA were explicitly made for each other, you can still apply ERA to a tank in a way that has less gaps than what the Russians did on some of their newer T-72s. You can just compare the ERA coverage on the turrets of T-72B2 and T-72B3 for an example of a higher cost solution with cleaner ERA coverage (T-72B2) and a lower cost solution with comparatively worse ERA coverage (T-72B3).
There’s ERA all over the hull
Are you blind?
Feels like a mixture of ZTZ 99 and ZTZ 99A
I think it looks modern. Just wondering... why make a completely different tank for export.
It’s like what they did with the jf17 where they already had the j10 to fill the role so they are purely exporting
The VT-4 tank is a good budget option, particularly for countries with a surplus of 125mm guns and ammunition. Tbh I would recommend VT-4 over T-90MS. However, if the caliber is not a deciding factor, I would recommend purchasing the K2 Black Panther instead of the VT-4.
Looks real cool
bz176 shooting gold solos
Looks neat and can do its job but the VT4 is similar to the Type 99G which is currently in service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA), but has downgraded capabilities such as sights, engine and gun... it might be the best Chinese tank for export but it's no match compared to European tanks or U.S tanks...
🦀
It looks cool and has some interesting features. Don't know much about it from a technical standpoint though.
It looks more capable than the T-90 ?
But how good is it really? Armor is suspect, Chinese electronics usually suck
Well damn they made the BAzoomba BZ-176 for real....
It’s probably good enough
Obsolete junk. It's basic design was taken from the Soviet T-72 which means it has the autoloader carousel in the turret. When the top of the turret is penetrated, the ammunition stored in the carousel detonates and launches the turret into orbit. We've seen this so often in Ukraine that it's become a meme. I feel sorry for any army that buys this model. You sacrificed safety to save money.
Its Ok I guess.