Once again, both points about RWS and APS make little sense.
I’ve been to the border you’re talking about, it’s a standard forest environment. I do not see how not having an APS there is any advantage at all. It is always an advantage. If your position does not call for it, you simply turn it off. Yes, you can do that.
ATGMs can still be very easily deployed there, if anything it’s kind of the perfect place to set up an ambush. Besides, an APS isn’t only stopping ATGMs, the VT5 is a light tank, it can be taken out by much more portable AT weapons too, including RPGs. An APS would help there.
It’s a no brainer that tanks operate differently in different environments, deploying a tank at a strong point to hold it isn’t exactly unique to forest environments, nor is infantry taking cover around a tank. Infantry is supposed to be trained to recognize the threat of Incoming and outgoing projectiles from a tank, removing it isn’t an actual way to fix that. By that same logic, ERA is much more dangerous to infantry around a tank than an APS (which engages projectiles at a distance that would be away from infantry), should we remove that from the VT5 too? And if the tank is hit, you’re losing the crew inside and if the explosion is bad enough or if there’s infantry on the sides or front of the tank they’re getting hurt too, so how exactly is this safer for infantry in any way? If that really is the logic the army applied while buying them then I’d be worried about their planning and training.
About the RWS, yes, line of sight is limited in the jungle, so would it not help to have an RWS which is stabilized and hence more accurate, has its own magnification and WFOV sights with thermals to scan through foliage and can keep the commander safe from enemy sniper fire? The human eye is going to see Jack compared to modern optics in most environments, regardless of the FOV.
And the FOV goes to shit anyways if the commander has to use his vision blocks while remotely operating a normal Turret instead of an RWS, which he is likely to do if the tank comes under fire. Besides, the RWS can be used with the MK1 eyeball too if that’s really a problem.
Both arguments simply don’t stack up. Regardless of the usage environment.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree. VT-5 isn't fitted with ERA. In vegetation there is extra clutter that would hinder APS sensor's operability. And you don’t have to worry about BD Army's training and planning.
The fact that PLA it self doesn't use APS on its tanks yet should tell you something. Those aren't magic shield as advertised. If you look at Hamas-Israel conflict, you can see in many cases APS failed to activate in time when tanks was hit from close range. It was Merkava 4's superior armor that stopped most projectiles.
Besides, they added additional thermal sleeve and fume extractor system to VT-5's main gun. So, I don't think army was short on budget. I am sure they had their reasons.
Last edited: