PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

[Gloire_bb]

Heavy MBTs are suitable for neither mountainous terrain, beaches, nor jungles. Heavy MBTs also tend to have a much larger logistical footprint, which isn't ideal if your ground forces require transport via sea or air.

They aren't as relatively restricted as people tend to think.
Most of warfare ultimately happens along human life, and humans at large don't live in mountain monasteries. We live along infrastructure, and when such infrastructure doesn't support heavily equipment at wartime - units are equipped to deal with it.

Korean war, as well as ground fighting of the Pacific war, shown that heavier armor=better. If one opponent neglected armor (Korea, Malaya), blitzkriegs happened.
All sides brought whatever they had at hand.
It's one thing to limit weight of tank meant to keep up with lighter units; it's very different when we talk about the opponent.
Previous Korean war wasn't decided by Korean armies, despite DPRK one being very good. It was good, massive better than Southern one. It didn't get to finish it's job, and at large didn't even survive till the end of 1950.
Army in this case is a contingency plan, "what if". DPRK is North Korean ally, South Korea has US units. And, on the opposite, there's need to keep a good force, just to (1) have South/US(which train non-stop for an invasion) it in mind, as well as keep it in Pyongyang (I wonder we really want massive nuclear warfare a few hundred miles from Beijing, which will be happily brought over by summer winds).
=there's an always present nascent risk to end up fighting against Ks and Abrams.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Korean war, as well as ground fighting of the Pacific war, shown that heavier armor=better. If one opponent neglected armor (Korea, Malaya), blitzkriegs happened.
All sides brought whatever they had at hand.
It's one thing to limit weight of tank meant to keep up with lighter units; it's very different when we talk about the opponent.
Previous Korean war wasn't decided by Korean armies, despite DPRK one being very good. It was good, massive better than Southern one. It didn't get to finish it's job, and at large didn't even survive till the end of 1950.
Army in this case is a contingency plan, "what if". DPRK is North Korean ally, South Korea has US units. And, on the opposite, there's need to keep a good force, just to (1) have South/US(which train non-stop for an invasion) it in mind, as well as keep it in Pyongyang (I wonder we really want massive nuclear warfare a few hundred miles from Beijing, which will be happily brought over by summer winds).
=there's an always present nascent risk to end up fighting against Ks and Abrams.

Generally, I find your wording clear and easy to comprehend, but in this case I am actually having a bit of difficulty deciphering your meaning.

If North Korea is invaded from the South, then using armor to fight an armored invasion head-on would be the worst strategy, given the confined geography and terrain of North Korea. A much better strategy is to use the terrain and entrench infantry and artillery on high ground and blast enemy armor as they try to maneuver through the valleys and mountain passes. PLAAF will have air superiority, making it even more suicidal to invade the North with heavy armor. The PLAN will also be securing the entirety of the Yellow Sea and be providing supporting fires as well. There is no need for the PLA to send ground forces, apart from small units of air defense, electronic warfare support, engineering, logistical support and long range artillery. The KPA will be provided with real time battlefield intelligence by PLA ISR assets and be supplied with sufficient munitions and supplies by the Chinese MIC, including endless streams of drones. There is no need for PLAGF units to participate in frontline combat.

I am a bit confused by your wording: are you suggesting that in the event Kim gets trigger happy about using his nukes - then the best Chinese contingency plan is to cross the Yalu with heavy combined arms brigades and race for Pyongyang? Wouldn't that just guarantee that Beijing will only be getting a much larger and direct dose of the radiation?

For just in case scenarios, there is a reason that the Type-99s are all deployed to the 4 most northeastern provinces. The 99s are being continually upgraded, and are around in more than sufficient numbers to tango with Abrams and K1/K2s if the situation arises. Type-99 successor is in the pipeline, it is just a lower priority than the primary MBT project.

Lastly, remember the MBT evolved from the medium tank. It was the versatility of the medium tank that reigned supreme in WW2. The latest Western MBTs resemble the Tigers and other heavy tanks of WW2 much more than the medium tanks which actually won WW2.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

Lastly, remember the MBT evolved from the medium tank. It was the versatility of the medium tank that reigned supreme in WW2. The latest Western MBTs resemble the Tigers and other heavy tanks of WW2 much more than the medium tanks which actually won WW2.

Isn't a 40 tons range modern tank actually in the WW2 heavy tank weight as well lol.

Although, things are of course that directly 1-1 comparable, but i completely agree with you that lots of modern tanks going into the 55+ (often 60-70) tons are too heavy (logistics, terrain usability problems etc.)

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Isn't a 40 tons range modern tank actually in the WW2 heavy tank weight as well lol.

Although, things are of course that directly 1-1 comparable, but i completely agree with you that lots of modern tanks going into the 55+ (often 60-70) tons are too heavy (logistics, terrain usability problems etc

Tanks also gained weight throughout the war. Late war Shermans were 35-40 tons, T-34-85 was 35 tons, and the Panthers were nearly 50 tons. As for heavy tanks, IS-2 was just over 50 tons while Tiger IIs were over 75 tons.

Modern T-90 weighs in at around the same as a Panther while Abrams approaches King Tigers in weight.

 

[Tomboy]

Would there be any PLAGF use for assault tanks like the new Russian one. Perhaps with a LP 155mm cannon, optionally manned and all around armor with APS, high mobility and specialized RWS with 30mm for both anti drone and anti personnel for urban combat.

Guancha trio seems to be hinting at that PLAGF might be moving away from the MBT concept and be building specialised tanks for specific roles/conditions.

 

[alanch90]

Would there be any PLAGF use for assault tanks like the new Russian one. Perhaps with a LP 155mm cannon, optionally manned and all around armor with APS, high mobility and specialized RWS with 30mm for both anti drone and anti personnel for urban combat.

Guancha trio seems to be hinting at that PLAGF might be moving away from the MBT concept and be building specialised tanks for specific roles/conditions.

Thats not the right question. The right question is why the Russians would be using such a specialized tank and in what manner. Then explore wether that makes sense within the Chinese doctrine.

 

[Derpy]

Isn't a 40 tons range modern tank actually in the WW2 heavy tank weight as well lol.

Although, things are of course that directly 1-1 comparable, but i completely agree with you that lots of modern tanks going into the 55+ (often 60-70) tons are too heavy (logistics, terrain usability problems etc.)

"Modern" western tanks were originally designed during the cold war and the intended battlefield was the plains of Europe close to allied logistics. These favorable conditions allowed for a heavier design to give an edge against the numerically superior Soviet forces.
Similar good conditions was present during the Iraq war (uncontested logistics allowed to set up just across the border for months and the terrain being mostly flat desert) so the Tanks performed very well. This success lead many to believe that the heavy 60-70+ ton size is superior to lighter designs.

 

[qwerty3173]

Ultimately although better designs and extra horsepower may improve mobility, in many terrains operating ultra heavy vehicles is just straight up impossible. No matter how advanced technology gets, the same watery beach or muddy slog does not suddenly get extra supportive strength to keep you from sinking in. In WW2 the black panthers weighing 45tons mobilized well with many terrains but Tigers at 55tons often get stuck in mud. Tiger 2 weighing close to 70 tons breaks the ground wherever it goes.

 

[Tomboy]

Ultimately although better designs and extra horsepower may improve mobility, in many terrains operating ultra heavy vehicles is just straight up impossible. No matter how advanced technology gets, the same watery beach or muddy slog does not suddenly get extra supportive strength to keep you from sinking in. In WW2 the black panthers weighing 45tons mobilized well with many terrains but Tigers at 55tons often get stuck in mud. Tiger 2 weighing close to 70 tons breaks the ground wherever it goes.

Tanks like T-90M(51 tons combat weight) still prove to be mobile and not prone to being stuck on the plains even with a weak engine and with modern technology you could build a tank that weighs only ~50 tons but have easily more armor and firepower than even current super heavy western MBTs. As an example Obj 477 and 195 are both MBTs with extreme frontal armor and firepower yet are estimated to weight about as much as a T-90M. With modern technology they could probably achieve even more weight reduction via more advanced composite/ERA, lightweight gun and high automation allowing a 2 man crew hence less armored volume required. Modern hybrid powertrain allow extremely high power to weight ratio for mobility as well.

Alternative MBT design also exists like the Object 299 which was basically part of the soviet FCS system, this tank would've had a front mounted engine and thick composite armor at the front of the wedge and a extremely low profile 152mm armed unmanned turret, it was also to be manned by only two crew members. All of these designs could provide extreme protection and firepower while also being light weight.

Thats not the right question. The right question is why the Russians would be using such a specialized tank and in what manner. Then explore wether that makes sense within the Chinese doctrine.

The Russians are planning to use this as a urban fighting and assault tank, this could fit into PLA planning considering a specific contingency will require all of that. Plus we know the known next generation tank will likely have only a 105mm with limited antifortification and anti infantry potential. Such a specialised tank could prove useful.

 

[alanch90]

The Russians are planning to use this as a urban fighting and assault tank, this could fit into PLA planning considering a specific contingency will require all of that. Plus we know the known next generation tank will likely have only a 105mm with limited antifortification and anti infantry potential. Such a specialised tank could prove useful.

Well for starters its not entirely clear whether the "Shturm" optionally manned tank is the most efficient answer to the problem from the Russian POV. The project predates the war in Ukraine by many years. I suspect it was envisioned as a way to give some use to the then huge reserves of stored T-72, against the background of the vast adoption of the Armata platform. Nowadays the Armata program is delayed and won´t be aquired in large numbers at least after the end of the war and the T-72 stocks on the other hand have diminished significantly.

Now, from the Chinese POV the situation is very different. I guess the most efficient solution would be to take this new 40 ton tank and change its turret and armament for what is needed at the moment, and also developing several kits of add on armor with different weights and protection capabilities. I suspect much of this (especially add on armor kits) has already been done. But for example, if they deem the 105mm insufficient for urban combat, just develop a turret with a shortened 125mm with higher elevation angles and modified bustle autoloader to fit these rounds, to be installed specifically for assault missions on urban aglomerations.