There’s clearly a lot of discourse going around the problems the Thais are having with the VT4, some of them are real problems, others are being misreported - first, here’s a summary of the issues according to the Thai army themselves
https://defence-blog.com/thai-soldiers-criticize-chinese-made-vt-4-tank/
Now let’s break them down:
1. The gun barrels: Thai soldiers have pointed out that the guns failed when they were pushed beyond their safe use limit, this is obviously misuse on their part (of the two barrels that have exploded, the first one did so after 200+ rounds of HE were fired through it within a short period of time, the second seems like it took external damage or had a misfire, but that would still point to some weakness in the gun after prolonged use). Even if misuse is present, it should still be pointed out that literally any other tank would have no problem doing this, the Chinese barrels are notoriously shit, they have a barrel life of around 500 rounds max, which is poor to say the least, (for comparison Russian and NATO tanks report 1000 to even upto 1500 round barrel life like with newer M1s). This is one of the reasons Pakistan uses its own barrels, said barrels use formerly French and now locally sourced blanks which are machined at HIT, no Chinese involvement (the major issue is with poor Chinese metallurgy, PA still reports the barrel life as 500-700, but we should expect better performance given we haven’t seen these issues with older PA MBTs using these barrels). Moreover, the VT4 does not have a quick-change (front removable) barrel in 2025, so if the barrel fails there’s no easy way to replace it either, this is incredibly stupid design (one of the other major reasons Pakistan is using its own barrel with said feature)
2: Powertrain breakdown/mobility issues: These issues were noted with the VT4 during Pakistani trials as well, it had an engine breakdown during trials (tbf the Oplot also had its track and sprocket break off). This is one of the reasons (other than better fuel average/range) that Pakistani VT4s are detuned to 1200 HP compared to Thai 1300HP (same engine is capable of upto 1500 HP). This reduces stress on the engine and will hopefully make it a bit more reliable in PA service, but it’s not a fix like with the barrel and failures should be expected, an issue is an issue, no point sugarcoating it. PA has a lot of distance to cover with tanks so the range matters a lot more to them as compared to Thailand. Plus the AK and UD series has excellent range owing to their low torque engines. Keep in mind both options PA tested had issues here, the T84s powertrain is definitely more reliable but it is painfully underpowered for the size and weight of the tank. The Thais again don’t mind this because they’re not moving much, for PA it would be an issue.
3. Weak side armor: Yes, this was noted during trials and remains an issue with not just VT4 but all Chinese-Pakistani tanks, I remember some Chinese members doing a horrible job trying to convince me how side armor wasn’t needed in Chinese armor doctrine (lmao). Regardless of the reasons; The Chinese have never put decent side armor on any of their MBTs and I don’t know why. PA does use ERA on VT4 sides unlike the Thais and PA VT4s have FY-IV so the protection is considerably better, but the issue remains until APS is introduced. The Oplot was noted to have considerably better side armor in both PA and Thai trials.
4. Slow turret traverse: Issues exists with both VT4 and AK series, the hull turns too fast for the turret to keep up, turret snaps into place when turn is complete, not only bad for targeting but also dangerous because of shock loads on components, no fix implemented so far, not too major of an issue but an issue nonetheless.
5. Electronic failures and other reliability issues: These were absolutely noted in PA trials too, and they continue to remain a reality with the VT4, PA hopes to reduce some of these with better QC on HITs part and better maintenance on PAs, (E.g; when the Chinese used to fly the F6 and Q5, their engine and airframe lives were half of what the PAF had, purely because of really meticulous maintenance), some of it has been reduced due to slightly different electrical systems in the Haiders, but by and large these issues remain with the vehicle.
The VT4 is not a perfect tank and is quite frankly a last gen design dressed up with current Gen gadgets (so is the oplot to be clear). PAs decision to buy it obviously involved dozens more factors like a lack of better options; (regardless of what the Thai army says, the VT4 is a generation ahead of the oplot, particularly in terms of FCS, GCS, Control systems, sights, Awareness etc, some of this the Thais have already mentioned), delivery issues that ukraine was facing (even before the war), cheaper prices, TOT, the Oplots size and profile issues (too tall, too big, too heavy) etc.
One of the biggest reasons for the VT4 going through was that despite all these issues, it remains a much better tank than what the adversary fields (Stock T90), even the new modernized Indian T90 only brings it on par tech wise with AK-1 and nowhere near the Haider. I would really like to see the HIT and PA take a proactive approach and actually take meaningful steps to remove these potential issues from the Haider as they indigenize it, we absolutely can do so given most of these problems aren’t hard to fix. They’ve already taken at least some steps, but with a genuinely locally driven effort they can make this a reliable machine.
Hope that clears up some of the discourse around the VT4s performance.
defence-blog.com
Ukrainian-made Oplot-T tank.
