How do the next generation of Asian tanks compare?

In fact, this thing is an MBT, but more than that, it's not convenient for me to say.
Just a reminder, AESA is not only used for active defense. Armor-piercing resistance is not the main design concept of this vehicle. Based on the results discussed over this period, there's a joke that claims it like this.
"The sensors on this vehicle might be more than a platoon of T-14s"
The last they should be the first batch of trial-installed equipment, but the specific time it was equipped, I have to keep it a secret until after September 3rd to say.
Based on the available information, this one isn't cheap.
I suggest everyone has certain expectations for September 3rd, as there will be a lot of things this time.
 
This is the closest thing I could find to a VT-4 thread, so it might be a slight OT. Let me know if this has to be moved.

Slightly suboptimal

20251213_064822.jpg
This is the 1st picture of its kind, a RTA VT-4 MBT with its barrel blown clean off and damages to both optics (part of the FCS) and laser warning system.

It is unknown what happened to the VT-4, but these aren't quick / easy to repair battle damages.

Thai sources claim the barrel overheated.
 
ComradeVortex said:
This is the closest thing I could find to a VT-4 thread, so it might be a slight OT. Let me know if this has to be moved.

Slightly suboptimal

View attachment 794931
This is the 1st picture of its kind, a RTA VT-4 MBT with its barrel blown clean off and damages to both optics (part of the FCS) and laser warning system.

It is unknown what happened to the VT-4, but these aren't quick / easy to repair battle damages.

Thai sources claim the barrel overheated.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1999478452089684191
View: https://x.com/i/status/1999478452089684191
 
It's currently unclear what this VT4 has gone through. If I remember correctly, the barrel life of the VT4 is basically 500 rounds. Considering that the first batch of VT4s was delivered in 2017, if it really underwent high-intensity and high-frequency firing without timely maintenance, this kind of failure is to be expected. There's still too little information at the moment.
 
DWG said:
WRT the launchers tucked under the turret front, they're in the same position on the turret of the MICV, which doesn't seem to have another set of smoke grenade launchers, so I think it's a reasonable bet they're a second set of smoke grenades. Note that the set inset in the turret roof of the tank appear aligned to fire to the sides/rear, there's no front coverage unless the ones on the turret chin cover that.
Click to expand...
I agree. There is no logical reason to believe these are part of an APS.

The only APS with such is the T-14's Afghanit but that was an experimental design and not meant to intercept relevant threats.
SUPER=BUG said:
It's currently unclear what this VT4 has gone through. If I remember correctly, the barrel life of the VT4 is basically 500 rounds. Considering that the first batch of VT4s was delivered in 2017, if it really underwent high-intensity and high-frequency firing without timely maintenance, this kind of failure is to be expected. There's still too little information at the moment.
Click to expand...
It makes sense if the barrel pops because of an unexpected blockage, which happens.
If it's from steady wear of the barrel then that's incompetence on some level. Either logistics or QC but it's more a Thai failure than a Chinese one no matter how you twist it.
If the barrel has 50 shots left in it and you still send it - that's a calculated risk.
If it failed 100 shots too early, you activate your warranty and get a replacement barrel and turret.
If it happens consistently you should replace the tank before that happens.
 
ComradeVortex said:
This is the closest thing I could find to a VT-4 thread, so it might be a slight OT. Let me know if this has to be moved.

Slightly suboptimal

View attachment 794931
This is the 1st picture of its kind, a RTA VT-4 MBT with its barrel blown clean off and damages to both optics (part of the FCS) and laser warning system.

It is unknown what happened to the VT-4, but these aren't quick / easy to repair battle damages.

Thai sources claim the barrel overheated.
Click to expand...
According to the artillery development path here, Chinese tanks for export have three artillery options. Thailand chose the worst one at the time—but it was still 125mm caliber, with a relatively shorter lifespan.
Although it has been a while since the post was made, the information I received back then was that they were squatting near the ammunition depot and fired two hundred rounds with this vehicle as self-propelled artillery, possibly without even cleaning the barrel during that period.
The last time there was an issue after firing 200 rounds in a day was with the Pzh2000. You can’t expect developing countries to have a high level of understanding of main battle equipment. After all, Indians have also crashed quite a few Rafales and Su-30MKIs. As Mao Zedong once said long ago: "In war, the decisive factor is people, especially their subjective initiative, wisdom, and courage, not merely the advanced level of weapons and equipment."
Their maintenance personnel might have started working on such large and complex equipment without even finishing high school, which is bound to lead to various unexpected problems.
You can’t walk into a bar and ask the bartender to serve you a plate of edible fried rice, just as you can’t expect a group of NATO officers who haven’t systematically studied information-based warfare to lead Ukrainians in physically resisting FPV drones.
NATO officers not the General Brasch,Ukrainians also not the helldiver.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom