ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

The Observer

Junior Member
Registered Member
Rewrote parts of it, the original is still a bit hard to read. Edit time expired, very sorry for posting such a large chunk of writing again.




Yes, I know. And I'm trying to make it vague and not talk into the details, but since you asked I'm just going to explain a little. BTW official media also never talked about the differences, so all this is basically personal speculation.


Yes, "lighter breed of MBT" is exactly what VT-5 is. It's designed for terrain like muddy crop fields, land with rich water systems and so on, where heavier MBTs have problems passing easily. That's why countries like Bangladesh would buy it.



Type 15 on the other hand, is especially designed for high-risk areas at higher altitudes, for e.g. the India-China boundaries, and Tibetan regions that need stronger anti-terrorism weapons. The lighter weight brings both better tactical mobility and rapid-reaction capabilities, as well as faster deployment and better traversing capabilities.

The Type 15's engine is also specified for lower atmospheric pressures, at an extent which, in 15's trial tests, enabled it to have extremely good mobility numbers (speed reduction of merely x kph, and engine power reduction of roughly 5%.) The ability to fight in muddy terrain is in fact an additional advantage a result of the lighter weight.

What official media commented about the capabilities of 15 was: an all-terrain-mobile vehicle capable of high mobility, diverse array of striking methods, high survivability, and high informational abilities. And is mainly used for rapid-deployment, mobilized assault, and capturing strategically important locations.

Thus, a reasonable scenario of combat with PLA on the plateaus would be: you having only infantry and light gear, while PLA on the other hand, has access to an army of numerous tanks, that can destroy artillery formations and occasional tanks and IFVs (that has poor performance on such altitudes), kill infantry, and also assault strengthened fortifications.

Therefore, unlike the VT-5, Type 15 faces no powerful tanks, instead being more exposed to firepower like artillery strikes, autocannon fire, and infantry-carried ATGMs. Therefore Type 15 doesn't need to be as protected against anti-tank firepower like APFSDS, so more protection is required against the other threats mentioned.

Instead of using composite armour, Type 15 is freer to use heavy ERA (such as the FY-5) with high post-strike survivability. (Good ERA actually has equal/better survivability than composite) The leftover weight can be used to increase ammo load, increase mobility, install heavier electronics and auxiliary devices, and most importantly, strengthen top-protection, against those pesty artillery and top-attack ATGMs, especially against EFP projectiles. That's in my opinion why VT-5 has composite, but 15 doesn't.


Well, that's purely science fiction. I can't believe people actually make up stories like this lol. o_O



Personal opinions, if there's anything wrong please help point out thx.

So is VT-5 the case of Norinco adapting the concept of Type 15 as a light tank, removing the requirement for the high altitude operation, and turning it into a lightweight MBT?
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
hi RichardGao

The Type15 105mm anti tank shell , the penetrating rod is kinda long, is this the new round you talking about? Im not an expert but looking at it, looks like it can penetrate all tanks in India inventory except for the new T90 MS.



by78 said:
Loading ammo through the bustle hatch. The third image shows off the bustle overhang nicely.


50021105307_1fb031b2cd_o.jpg


50020850546_a2c02413d0_o.jpg


50020853011_6758c15aca_k.jpg
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
hi RichardGao

The Type15 105mm anti tank shell , the penetrating rod is kinda long, is this the new round you talking about? Im not an expert but looking at it, looks like it can penetrate all tanks in India inventory except for the new T90 MS.



by78 said:
Loading ammo through the bustle hatch. The third image shows off the bustle overhang nicely.


50021105307_1fb031b2cd_o.jpg


50020850546_a2c02413d0_o.jpg


50020853011_6758c15aca_k.jpg
No the ones with the ballistic caps and such a silhouette are DTC02-105s (development started in 90s, very old ammo), or we call it the "105III" by generation. The new one I'm talking about is much newer. Also 105III is not very potent (relatively) when facing ERA, even old Kontakt-5s. The penetrator is kinda long and thin u know.
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
No the ones with the ballistic caps and such a silhouette are DTC02-105s (development started in 90s, very old ammo), or we call it the "105III" by generation. The new one I'm talking about is much newer. Also 105III is not very potent (relatively) when facing ERA, even old Kontakt-5s. The penetrator is kinda long and thin u know.
Hi RichardGao

Thanks for the info, I know it should be ask in PLA MBT thread, since you're here, There are rumors that PLA will stay at 125mm and use a single shell ammo type instead of binary and also will upgrade its IFV using 40mm.
 

Mt1701d

Junior Member
Registered Member
Got a quick question, appreciate it if anyone got any info or thoughts.

I have been noticing that the turret designs for PLA frontline ground vehicles have to tending towards a cut out of the front sloop for the gunner sight, I noticed this for Type 99a, Type 15, VTL 11, and very prominently on the new prototype assault gun recently posted on the IFV thread, tho I am not sure if it’s true for all others as well, I am kind of losing track of all the vehicle types.

My question is wouldn’t it introduce a bigger weak point on the front of the turret as compared to Type 99 or Type 96, which has the sight sitting on top of the turret and not affecting the front sloop of the turret?

Not sure if this is the right thread to ask but since it involves the type 15, thought I would ask here
 
Last edited:

by78

General
Got a quick question, appreciate it if anyone got any info or thoughts.

I have been noticing that the turret designs for PLA frontline ground vehicles have to tending towards a cut out of the front sloop for the gunner sight, I noticed this for Type 99a, Type 15, VTL 11, and very prominently on the new prototype assault gun recently posted on the IFV thread, tho I am not sure if it’s true for all others as well, I am kind of losing track of all the vehicle types.

My question is wouldn’t it introduce a bigger weak point on the front of the turret as compared to Type 99 or Type 96, which has the sight sitting on top of the turret and not affecting the front sloop of the turret?

Not sure if this is the right thread to ask but since it involves the type 15, thought I would ask here

The gunner sights are periscopic, meaning the gunner sits considerably lower in the turret so that he's securely behind the frontal turret armor. The commander requires greater situational awareness, so his sight sits higher (and rotates) to allow an unobstructed 360-degree view.

The reason gunner sights are recessed in a 'cutout' on Type-99A is probably because the height of the turrets is considerably greater than that of Type-99, that and increased top protection makes the gunner sight appears more recessed.

As for the other turrets you mentioned, the same applies: so long the gunner sits behind the frontal armor, he's ok.
 
Top