Talk:Al-Khalid/VT-1A

message: Which one is it? Does China actually field the tank, or did they just co-develop it?
Cortador (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map lists China as operator, text doesn't

message: I think the T-90 link reference in this article is incorrect.  It should link to a Chinese tank and not a Japanese one.
i agree. there seems to be some confusion as to what the tank is called, but this is the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96
The T-90-II is not T-96.  Added background info on development of T-90-II/MBT-2000.
Adeptitus 23:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-90 link is to a Japanese tank 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nominator.  MBT 2000 is the name being used to market this tank family internationally by China—it refers to a prototype of unknown specifications and undetermined engine type.  Al-Khalid is the name of the specific version being produced and serving in Pakistan, equipped with a Ukrainian-made diesel engine.  This article is about a tank in service, and should be titled by its common name.  For example, we don't title the article about the T-90 tank after one of its prototypes, Object 188 (original prototype) or Object 187 (another prototype whose turret was used for the latest T-90S). —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 19:18 Z
*Support. I support the name change from MBT 2000 to Al-Khalid. The Chinese company Nornico, in partnership with Pakistan, developed MBT 2000, but then sold the rights to Pakistan, who manufactures the modified version of this tank called Al-Khalid. Nornico is not interested in producing this tank any more as they also produce Type 96 and Type 99 for China. This tank is now produced solely by Pakistan as Al-Khalid. See discussion entry below for the title of the article. Raza0007 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This article needs an update. Have the goals mentioned within the article been reached?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.49.160 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs an Update

message: I have a source here calling the tank "Al-Khalid MBT":
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/hit.htm
Apart from that, the original project name was "MBT-2000".
I believe Al-Khalid MBT is the most appropriate title for the article. Thoughts? Hj108 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would help clarify the tank issue that was above.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal - Move article to "Al-Khalid MBT"

message: Before someone adds Morocco as an operator again... can we please, please, please have a reputable source?  Not personal blogs which don't cite where they got the info from, not Chinese propaganda sites, not dead links to non-existent articles.  A few pictures of tanks in Morocco do not a sale make.  Don't you think that something like this would have been put out by a reputable source like Jane's, or one of the many, many other widely read and respected defence news sites or columns?  Or maybe even, say, a reputable Moroccan newspaper?  Or hey, even the Moroccan government?  Crazy thoughts, I know...  - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morocco and the MBT2000/VT1A 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mbt2000iii.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: There would be much struggle to elevate the article to a "Good article". The article would be under construction and improvement for a few weeks. I am putting a "under construction" tag to the article. I request the editors to aid me in this target. We will see Al-Khalid as a good article soon. Faizan 12:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been nominated for GA assessment, after much improvements. Faizan 12:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article status 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 29 external links on Al-Khalid tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/664392.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.military-today.com/tanks/al_khalid.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nation.com.pk/karachi/06-Sep-2009/High-demand-of-AlKhalid-tank-in-modern-warfare
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=191737
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Chinese-Tanks-For-Everyone-5-6-2012.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/20100803.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/pakistan.al-khalid.100701043433.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/single/599/0%3A/1243705%3Amodernisation-of-al-khalid-tank-ukraine-to-provide-technical-cooperation-to-pakistan-envoy/?date=2011-10-20
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.ria.ru/business/20130218/179551243.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/nov/mbt-2000.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_90_II.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pakistanidefence.com/news/MonthlyNewsArchive/2002/April2002.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forecastinternational.com/press/release.cfm?article=89
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.pakistan.al-khalid.malaysia-purchase.2002-05-15.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/pak-played-key-role-in-lankas-victory-over-tamil-tigers/467482/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://2010clr.over-blog.com/article-russia-said-the-sale-of-china-peru-mbt-2000-tanks-may-have-been-blocked-ukraine-48868148.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2001/ff/atdjm/?form=print
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.48/pub_detail.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_4.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.carepvtltd.com/products/products.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/news/621771/locally-produced-gun-delivered-to-hit-for-tanks
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=99597&n_tit=Pakistan%20Produces%20its%20First%20Tank%20Gun
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/addmotor.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/bronetehnika/60-tankovie-dizelnie-dvigateli
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/armaments.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gids.com.pk/ta_Backup/prodetail.php?prodid=195
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/vt1a-main-battle-tank-a-twin-young-brother-of-al-khalid-mbt.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/bangladesh_army_gets_44_new_chine_main_battle_tanks_mbt2000_and_locating_radar_llc-2_1812121.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Qh6UXsn1?url=http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/armaments.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/armaments.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While it has been established there has been cooperation between China and Pakistan in the development of tanks its mostly at the unofficial level, and probably limited to the development of subsystems not tanks as a whole. The Al-khalid tanks in service with Pakistan are very different than the MBT-2000's in service with Morocco. While Joint-ventures like the JF-17 have both countries scoring an export order together, its not the same thing here. The Al-Khalid and MBT-2000 tanks are not inter-operable, they are fundamentally different tanks. A tank built by China does not have a joint work-share agreement with Pakistan, and vice versa. 
The Al-Khalid tanks are not listed under the manufacturer's website under the Joint-Venture product list. 
http://www.hit.gov.pk/product.html
While it is also important to note that HIT is developing upgraded variants of the Tank like Al-khalid 1 and 2 independently without the apparent joint development deal with Norinco. 
An example of a jointly developed tank would be this, which the Al-Khalid and MBT-2000 are not.
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/05/12/Jointly-developed-Indonesian-Turkish-tank-makes-debut/8881494581101/
While it is understandable why some media has listed the tanks as the same, it is best we go by the manufacturer's categorization which has it listed as a independently developed product.
: There are enough independent third party references(,) which state that the tank was a joint development between China and Pakistan. Having a joint share work agreement is different then where it originates from. Place of origin here implies that it was designed together by Pakistan and China. Also, please look at the discussions above which took place to more the article from MBT2000 to Al-Khalid. The article was named MBT2000 originally and moved to Al-Khalid since the design was sold to a Pakistani company. The manufacturer's website only claims that it is not a joint venture which does not imply what you are stating. Secondly, please do not remove China from the article unless you have gained consensus here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at these neutral sources (,,). There is a well established history that this was jointly developed. I don't see any independent sources from your end other then the manufacturer's website which is ambiguous. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: In Wikipedia's view these are reliable sources. Please provide us a reliable neutral source which confirms what you state. In absence of that we have enough sources which claim otherwise. Also read the book carefully which explains in detail the history behind this tank. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Al-Khalid 1 is just a slightly updated Al-Khalid, NOT a new design, but still the same Chinese MBT-2000, while the VT-4/MBT-3000, if bought by Pakistan, will become the new Al-Haider tank (, ) or whatever you want to call it, so I got the numbers slightly wrong, but all of those tanks, including the Al-Haider, are still Chinese designs, and not Pakistani (or Turkish for that matter). And FYI I don't doubt that Pakistan has the capability to manufacture tanks, the problem is that Pakistan doesn't have the capability to develop indigenous tanks, which is why they buy Chinese designs... - Tom | Thomas.W  talk 20:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Gentlemen, let's focus on the sources here, none of which discount the Pakistani additions to the basic Chinese design (itself based on a Russian/Soviet tank). Any manufacturer's website, while indeed a reliable source, must be considered to be a primary source with a bias towards self-promotion and its own marketing prospects. If we take their claims with a grain of salt and cross-reference them with other sources we will have a better chance of representing the facts. It is easy to say that these tanks are similar, but harder to then state how they differ. We need to describe the differences in their design features for each different nomenclature used (all properly sourced of course). From this would follow the degree of how distinct each tank's description is and the provenance of its design, not just which factory/country it was built and/or assembled in. What is not sourced in this article and discussion however, is the details of the original agreement between China and Pakistan regarding future production (and sales) of the MBT-2000 or any of its derivative developments. What was meant by the term 'Joint Venture'? (joint production? investment by one partner in the facilities of another? purchase of technology transfer? unlimited domestic production rights? shared export commissions? etc) As this is all likely highly confidential between the two countries, we are unlikely to learn of any of it in the immediate future. In the mean time, we must stick to the sourced facts. Any discussion of splitting the article can only start after the degree of distinctness between designs/models is established. Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: * Perhaps let's start by splitting the distinction between "design/development/modifying" and "production/manufacture/assembly". No-one anywhere is disputing the fact that the Al-Khalid tank was (and perhaps still is) built at HIT in Pakistan. But in our research for the article, each time a source states the tank's "origin", we must then read (or research) further to determine just what the author is talking about when he uses the word origin. Is it the origin of the design? those involved in early development? those involved in later modifications? where the manufacture occurred? where the the knock-down kits were assembled? etc. It is not up to us to add our own analysis to this. Again, it is all about the (reliable) sources that we can find that answer these questions. In this case, although the location of manufacture (including major sub-assemblies like the engine) is well known, the exact details of the design origin are harder to determine as these details are usually in confidential agreements between the two nations. What little is reliably known is that the original design was Chinese. If Pakistan has since changed the design beyond local modifications, then that is not reliably sourced or described. 'Cheers again, Loopy30 (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: We gone over this multiple times but there is nothing in that article which states that these are distinct enough designs. Can we please stop wasting everybody's time with this again and again. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-merge Al-Khalid and MBT-2000? 

message: Take a look at both Tanks:
Here is a picture of the Chinese built Bangladesh MBT-2000-https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/543064_486522441388362_1247405859_n-jpg.385122/
Here is a picture of the Pakistani built Al-Khalid Tank-https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/epa000275117-pakistani-made-armoured-tank-al-khalid-on-display-during-fewpcf-jpg.385123/
Both Images can be found on the internet and taken from relatively the same angle, as you can see they still have the watermark so I didn't make any changes. 
* The triangle Armour plating on the front of the turrent head his tri-tiled on the AK and dual-tiled on MBT-2000.
* The tank sight on the right, where a machine gunner is placed on the AK is different than that on the MBT-2000.
* The Optical periscope on the left, if you look is different on the AK than that on the MBT-2000. 
* The front Armour plating that's between the two front head lights is different on the AK than that on the MBT-2000.
* The side of the turret head next to the six smoke grenade canisters on the AK is plated while grilled on the MBT-2000. 
* On the turret head above the main gun is armor plated on the AK while that is not present on the MBT-2000. 
* Other redesigns and differences in manufacture are also present
These are just the external redesigns and design differences on the tanks, Inside - there are FAR more differences rendering them different machines. 
While in the general sense the design is similar for example: the 125mm gun is the exact same on both tanks, however this main gun is also the exact same found on the T-72 main battle tank, on which both tanks are based on.(why is USSR not country of origin? VERY hypocritical from some editors)
It can be said both countries worked together in certain areas including basing their tanks on the roughly same designs but, They have taken different development paths for their tanks. 
China is now producing the MBT-3000 while Pakistan is producing the AK1 and AK2 which are listed as different tanks and defence projects. 
Any official joint-venture or "licence built" agreements cannot be reliably sourced. (if it was it would be known because there are many examples of this between china and pakistan)
What can be sourced reliably from the manufacturers website and other reliable media sources(army rec, quwa), is that the tanks are different in company for project development, country of manufacture, and even in design.
Thus I am set to ummerge the article(i have provided the evidence), if you disagree please say so.
:If you want to split the article, please make a split proposal, and build a consensus for it. Otherwise you will be reverted for being disruptive. - BilCat (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you are presenting here is Original Research (on your part) and references from a blog(defence.pk) which are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Are there neutral reliable sources which state what you have stated? Unless that is available the pictures are meaningless. As was evident in the earlier discussion, you only kept talking about one reference from the manufacturer's website (which does not claim what you want to do here). Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Please see the discussion above. There are enough independent reliable sources which state that Al-Khalid and MBT2000 are the same design. I don't see anything new in the link you have provided which states otherwise. Please try to keep this argument cogent and other editors will reply. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: MBT-2000 design was modified to meet Pakistani requirements and the Al-Khalid evolved. It is the variant of MBT-2000 which was produced in greater numbers (than the others). Hence, the name of this article.--Maxx786 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design differences  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Khalid tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/single/599/0:/1243705:modernisation-of-al-khalid-tank-ukraine-to-provide-technical-cooperation-to-pakistan-envoy/?date=2011-10-20
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Qh8A2kUu?url=http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/addmotor.php to http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/addmotor.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104210809/http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/addmotor.php to http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/addmotor.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such link. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The operators section needs to be updated with the latest information. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates needed 

message: Is this the same tank as the VT-4 that Pakistan ordered last year? 15:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Khalid II 

message: As written anyone has a idea which numbers are correct? In the German Wikipedia article which brought me here for example we have a third range, the source for the range here seems to have been updated over 12 years ago for the last time and doesn't show any combat range and nothing about 500km, so whats going on? I mean this is the "Top Tank" which is planned to replace the at least 1200 tanks which were operational/in service known as Al-Zarrar (based on the chinese obsolete Type 59), but even after their Upgrade/Introduction these were largely obsolete themself because of the high age of the chinese Type 59.  
Weight, Range, different autoloaders and the chinese Type 90-II slower with a 50km lower "Cruising range" than a 50km higher "combat range" for the Al-Khalid, 48t (Type 90-II) vs 46t (Al-Khalid) shouldn't make such huge differences? Same with the maximum speed of 70km on road for the Al-Khalid and 65km/h for the Type 90-II, which should offset the, if existing at all, 2 tons different weight, but slower with a lower range because of a less than 5% higher weight? Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found the reason I think. There seem to exist 3 variants, the Al-Khalid from 2001 with 1,200hp, the Al-Khalid II with 1,500hp, a bit increased weight and other improvements and than a "V1A" called version powered by a chinese 1,300 hp engine which seems to have been exported to Morocco and Myanmar while Bangladesh received one or the earliest version based on the P1 Prototype, like the Al-Khalid also called MBT-2000 just with some parts from other companies/countries... so an Infobox for all these versions is not possible. I will keep it in the german Wikipedia than as it is as the other countries which orderes the tank like Malaysia, Peru and Sri Lanka didn't receive any until 2015 or later and its unlikely they will buy it and the Saudis already in 2006 tested the tanks without any orders following Kilon22 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight, Range, different autoloaders and the chinese Type 90-II slower with a 50km lower "Cruising range" than a 50km higher "combat range" for the Al-Khalid? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: To be honest this article gets kinda confusing looking at the mixed MBT 2000 and al khalid stuff. I suggest we should make seperate articles for MBT2000 and Al-Khalid while keeping in mind that Al-Khalid was developed from the MBT-2000.
Also the up coming Al-Khalid 2 will have changes in it's design so i think the above mentioned suggestion should be looked into. Xtreme o7 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make seperate article for the Type-90/MBT-2000 

message: This article does not seem to meet the Good Article criteria. I am considering bringing this WP:GAR. Schierbecker (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article status 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion