Bangladesh receives VT-5 tanks plus other equipment

[The Ronin]

Oh man I’ve misinterpreted both of your messages. Sorry about that.

Yes I agree that they camo is indication that the tank is bound for Bangladesh.

P.S. found confirmation on Weibo that they are bound for Bangladesh.

Yup it's ours. Btw now new question can it be fitted with 125mm gun? Could you find anything in Weibo? And do share more pictures if you find there.

Customized as per our requirements. 125Mm gun instead of 105 of pla . armour also change from FL2 to FL-14 level. Frontal have 500 mm composite armour.

It was just probably one Chinese article that talked about 125mm gun. Probably messed up google translation. Never saw anything anywhere else about it. Let's see what army says about it during induction ceremony/ISPR release.

 

[Beast]

Yup it's ours. Btw now new question can it be fitted with 125mm gun? Could you find anything in Weibo? And do share more pictures if you find there.



It was just probably one Chinese article that talked about 125mm gun. Probably messed up google translation. Never saw anything anywhere else about it. Let's see what army says about it during induction ceremony/ISPR release.

125mm gun for such small tank? How many rds can it carry? Will the 35tons weight handle the recoil?

 

[Destranator]

I didn't say it's MBT-3000, i was talking about the camo. If it's really our's then army chose the same camo of MBT-3000 for our VT-5. The "leopard" artwork on side of turret of the Chinese Type-15 indicates that the first photo i shared could be our VT-5's.

Mama, amago gula MBT-2000, 3000 na.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464468283156054022

 

[bluesky]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464468283156054022

Specifications for the VT-5 Light Tanks:

Army Guide

Army Guide - information about the main battle tanks, armoured vehicles and armament of the land forces and also the information concerning other army subjects - VT5, Light tank, Armoured Vehicles

www.army-guide.com

 

[KampfAlwin]

There’s like 4 different versions of the VT-5, it seems Bangladesh went for the version without heavy armor.

 

[bluesky]

There’s like 4 different versions of the VT-5, it seems Bangladesh went for the version without heavy armor.

What information do you have to think that BD bought VT-5 tanks without armor to protect itself when it is the main protector of tanks in a war?

 

[Bilal9]

What information do you have to think that BD bought VT-5 tanks without armor to protect itself when it is the main protector of tanks in a war?

Either that or perhaps there will be non-Chinese ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) fitted after the fact instead of heavy armor plating. These agile tanks are supposed to be used in mountain areas, so weight may be an important factor.

When Bangladesh fabricated new turrets for the Durjoy tanks locally, they bought ERA separately, as to which vendor that escapes me at the moment.

 

[PoondolotoPandalum]

What information do you have to think that BD bought VT-5 tanks without armor to protect itself when it is the main protector of tanks in a war?

VT-5 is a "light tank", which isn't far off the weight of our most numerous tanks in service (type 59 and 69 variants, all based on Soviet T-54 of late 1940s vintage)

For a light tank, it's insanely well protected. But it's designed to stop chemical warheads, a certain type of RPG's and some small anti-tank missiles. They cannot stop any armour piercing sabot shot fired from any tank. It'll punch through the front, and go out the back, piercing everything in between (crews to the engine block). Whatever not pierced will likely get vaporized by the enormous shock waves caused by the kinetic energy penetrator, as it penetrates inside the tank. Actually, the armor is so thin, the APFSDS round will likely punch through so clean, it'll probably cause minimal damage. But I won't count on it as a survival feature

It's not really designed to fight in the front line, capture or defend positions etc. It's supposed to be used opportunistically, using its very low ground pressure (useful in our terrain) to get into the least expected positions of ambush.

Bangladesh cannot rely on heavy tanks for its armored doctrine, terrain just says no, But it'll rely on a mass network of ATGM's, and the swampy riverine nature of its terrain to force an enemy mechanized force into specific kill zones, which can fall prey to our highly mobile light tanks (or even more ATGMs)

 

[bluesky]

Either that or perhaps there will be non-Chinese ERA (External Reactive Armor) fitted after the fact instead of heavy armor plating. These agile tanks are supposed to be used in mountain areas, so weight may be an important factor.

When Bangladesh fabricated new turrets for the Durjoy tanks locally, they bought ERA separately, as to which vendor that escapes me at the moment.

It means the BA will retrofit the armor locally in BD. Is it? If so, it is another way of casing the tanks with lightweight armors. But, how about the strength of this armor? Is it good enough to take the incoming shells?

 

[KampfAlwin]

What information do you have to think that BD bought VT-5 tanks without armor to protect itself when it is the main protector of tanks in a war?

The picture of the VT-5 in Bangladeshi camo vs this picture. You can clearly see it's more armored. I mean, it's not a problem for BD because you can just swap out the modules with this if the environment demands it. It is after all, a modular tank.

 

[Destranator]

Bangladesh cannot rely on heavy tanks for its armored doctrine, terrain just says no, But it'll rely on a mass network of ATGM's, and the swampy riverine nature of its terrain to force an enemy mechanized force into specific kill zones, which can fall prey to our highly mobile light tanks (or even more ATGMs)

^^^This, thank you. I can't get this through the skulls of some boneheaded people - Bangladesh is mostly untankable. While light tanks are fine, investing in heavy MBTs is an absolute waste of time. If past wars have taught us anything, it is that the more mobile side (not necessarily the better equipped side) wins wars in our terrain. Bangladesh Army should focus on making themselves as mobile as possible through procurement of attack helicopters, more armed combat support helicopters (medium and heavy), transport aircraft, amphibious tanks and IFV's, hovercraft, ATV's, sufficient ATGMs to arm every infantry platoon, more airborne brigades, comms, etc..

Infantry platoons should be ready to survive for weeks without reinforcement or comms.

 

[Beast]

What information do you have to think that BD bought VT-5 tanks without armor to protect itself when it is the main protector of tanks in a war?

To reduce weight for soft soil of south Asia. There is reason for procurement of light tanks.

It means the BA will retrofit the armor locally in BD. Is it? If so, it is another way of casing the tanks with lightweight armors. But, how about the strength of this armor? Is it good enough to take the incoming shells?

Good enough to take RPG and 100mm recoilless gun.

 

[Bilal9]

VT-5 is a "light tank", which isn't far off the weight of our most numerous tanks in service (type 59 and 69 variants, all based on Soviet T-54 of late 1940s vintage)

For a light tank, it's insanely well protected. But it's designed to stop chemical warheads, a certain type of RPG's and some small anti-tank missiles. They cannot stop any armour piercing sabot shot fired from any tank. It'll punch through the front, and go out the back, piercing everything in between (crews to the engine block). Whatever not pierced will likely get vaporized by the enormous shock waves caused by the kinetic energy penetrator, as it penetrates inside the tank. Actually, the armor is so thin, the APFSDS round will likely punch through so clean, it'll probably cause minimal damage. But I won't count on it as a survival feature

It's not really designed to fight in the front line, capture or defend positions etc. It's supposed to be used opportunistically, using its very low ground pressure (useful in our terrain) to get into the least expected positions of ambush.

Bangladesh cannot rely on heavy tanks for its armored doctrine, terrain just says no, But it'll rely on a mass network of ATGM's, and the swampy riverine nature of its terrain to force an enemy mechanized force into specific kill zones, which can fall prey to our highly mobile light tanks (or even more ATGMs)

Excellent comment and analysis, my thoughts exactly. The days when you could depend on rolled steel armor alone for "protection" is sadly gone. You can depend on ERA armor and smoke grenades for protection to some degree, but once you are hit with Sabot rounds, you are toast, even if you have ARJUN or LEOPARD tanks with "heavy" armor.

In fact these VT-5 light tanks do have special rounds that are exclusively used for hunter-killer roles designed to disable tanks. If a conflict breaks out in Galwan using these tanks (hope not), we will see for ourselves how these tanks fare, I don't know if Arjuns can be deployed that high up.

Ultimately, like you said, success in tank battles will depend on sophistication of rounds, whether fired from ATGMs or Tanks themselves, and/or the skill/training/guts of the army personnel operating them. I hear the VT-5s (with NATO-compatible 105mm rifled barrel) can even launch guided shells with range in excess of 5 KM.

Now that will be a game changer.

It means the BA will retrofit the armor locally in BD. Is it? If so, it is another way of casing the tanks with lightweight armors. But, how about the strength of this armor? Is it good enough to take the incoming shells?

Ultimately heaviness of armor in a light tank is a compromise between agility and protection, the latter nowadays less critical because no armor however heavy can really stop a modern/sophisticated sabot (APFSDS) round other than reactive armor, there are sabot rounds that even reactive armor cannot even stop (successive burst rounds). @PoondolotoPandalum bhai stated this very clearly already. VT-5s are lightweight companion tanks, not Main Battle Tanks, so agility is more important from an ambush perspective. The MBT role goes to MBT-2000 in Bangladesh Army arsenal and that one has I believe more sophisticated traditional and reactive armor.

 

[PoondolotoPandalum]

Excellent comment and analysis, my thoughts exactly. The days when you could depend on rolled steel armor alone for "protection" is sadly gone. You can depend on ERA armor and smoke grenades for protection to some degree, but once you are hit with Sabot rounds, you are toast, even if you have ARJUN or LEOPARD tanks with "heavy" armor.

In fact these VT-5 light tanks do have special rounds that are exclusively used for hunter-killer roles designed to disable tanks. If a conflict breaks out in Galwan using these tanks (hope not), we will see for ourselves how these tanks fare, I don't know if Arjuns can be deployed that high up.

Ultimately, like you said, success in tank battles will depend on sophistication of rounds, whether fired from ATGMs or Tanks themselves, and/or the skill/training/guts of the army personnel operating them. I hear the VT-5s (with NATO-compatible 105mm rifled barrel) can even launch guided shells with range in excess of 5 KM.

Now that will be a game changer.



Ultimately heaviness of armor in a light tank is a compromise between agility and protection, the latter nowadays less critical because no armor however heavy can really stop a modern/sophisticated sabot (APFSDS) round other than reactive armor, there are sabot rounds that even reactive armor cannot even stop (successive burst rounds). @PoondolotoPandalum bhai stated this very clearly already. VT-5s are lightweight companion tanks, not Main Battle Tanks, so agility is more important from an ambush perspective. The MBT role goes to MBT-2000 in Bangladesh Army arsenal and that one has I believe more sophisticated traditional and reactive armor.

Bhai, a lot of ERA or NERA packages are designed to deal with kinetic energy projectiles, in addition to shaped-charged warheads. The first of such ERA was the Soviet Kontakt-5, fielded in the mid-1980s. More modern Russian eras like Kaktus, Afganit, Relikt have an even better performance against kinetic energy projectiles.

However, these era/nera packages are designed to function alongside a tank's armor. I think Kontakt-5 (as used in T-80U, T-90 series etc) degraded the penetration capacity of a projectile by 30%. After that, the main armor of the tank's hull/turret would be enough to stop a round from penetrating. So once can't simply place even the most capable era/nera blocks ( the Afganit system, as fitted on Armata) onto APC's, IFV's, or light tanks, and expected similar protection level of an MBT. The VT-5's base armor (according to publically available data, the tank is open for export after all) is steel, with some composite elements around critical areas. It's enough to stop autocannon fire, but nothing larger then that.

Overall, I'm really happy the army bought them. It's a very niche vehicle, probably the best overall light tank on sale right now, but Bangladesh has niche requirements. I wouldn't expect it to fight on equal terms against MBTs, but it makes an excellent ambush vehicle. Chicom fire control system and electronics are on par, as demonstrated multiple times at the International Tank Biatholons held in Russia. Their FCS outperformed Russian ones more often than not!

I think the army generally makes wise and rational procurement. This, along with the Nora-B52, are probably amongst the best procurements they've made in the decade, from a cost-effective vs capability perspectiive