ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

[RichardGao]

............

Stop arguing over the firepower of ZTQ-15 while you only quote unclear official statements...

On topic, if 220mm RHA penetration @66.42°, achieved at 2km translates roughly to 342.26mm RHA @0°, 2km, that's pretty useless against modern 3rd gen MBTs. At least at any significant range. Guess Richard is right, Type 15 isn't for anti-tanking and its APFSDS won't be good enough to take out modern MBTs.

No it is indeed 550. 220/cos66.42° instead of sine. That's for 105III, 105IV exceeds that. And I meant 15 was not mainly for anti-tank is more in the strategic sense rather than tactical. Just because we have more effective and efficient ways of anti-tank, but that at the same time doesn't necessarily mean 15 is bad at it... It's just too risky and the range of APFSDS aren't as large as artillery or drones or HJ-10s. It doesn't mean it's weak, it's potent enough but many safer alternatives restrict it from being the main anti-tank method... Just that. Not because 105 APFSDS is weak, just because we have a wide system of anti-tank to choose from, and the ranges of many (if not most) of those exceed the ranges of 105 APFSDS, but they might not one-shot tank like APFSDS can. (for example very long range artillery coverage)

Then why still an APFSDS? First long range firepower doesn't necessarily clear the square, so we need an agile armored vehicle with enough firepower to clear the rest... Second is simply technological reservations.

Also 15's APFSDS is now more focused on destroying other targets, as you quoted my quote of the official description of 15's APFSDS, it can penetrate 1.5m of steel-concrete. Therefore it is also focused on highly fortified fortifications, which other firepowers might have trouble destroying due to it's good camouflage and concrete structure.

Don't worry about 15's firepower system, I can say it covers all the functions that 99A's 125 does. While the scale is smaller, it is more suitable for 15 and the system is more complete compared to India's 125.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Come to think of it, ZTQ-15 really reminds future American MPF by specifications, essentially fitting between two contestants, +adding high altitude requirement on top.
Or, given the time frame, you can say MPF prototypes remind this one.

Drawing apologies between different armies is a dangerous business, but american ones are specifically meant to support IBCTs w/o significantly hurting their strategic mobility.

 

[Inst]

I'm emphasizing that using a 105mm ATGM vs a T-90 to kill it isn't necessarily the point. With typical ATGM ranges, you can outrange the T-90, #1, #2, the standard option for a ZTQ-15 that runs into a T-90 is to run and call for fire support from WZ-10s and ATGM IFVs. Now you can shoot the T-90, then run, and hopefully the T-90 is too distracted with surviving the ATGM hit to chase you.

When you consider #2, that's why laser-guided ATGMs are a bad idea, because you don't have the shoot and scoot option available to you. You have to maintain the laser lock from the ZTQ-15 the entire time the missile is traveling, whereas with a fire-and-forget option the missile is a distraction while you try to find cover and get away.

 

[RichardGao]

So Inst what are you trying to say in this post? I don't really understand your points

I'm emphasizing that using a 105mm ATGM vs a T-90 to kill it isn't necessarily the point

Yeah, so why bother use 15's ATGMs when you can use APFSDS? Do you HAVE to have a top-attack 105mm gun-launched fire-and-forget ATGM for 15 to destroy tanks? No, I already said 15 has five options of firepower including APFSDS, HE, ATGM, AF and HEAT, 4 of which can be used for anti tank, and HE can even reach an effective range of ~15km with smart indirect aim. So why insist on using ATGMs? Weird.

With typical ATGM ranges, you can outrange the T-90, #1

With 15's APFSDS, you can also outrange the T-90. In the meantime, 15's HE can also well outrange its own ATGM. \ツ/

#2, the standard option for a ZTQ-15 that runs into a T-90 is to run and call for fire support from WZ-10s and ATGM IFVs. Now you can shoot the T-90, then run, and hopefully the T-90 is too distracted with surviving the ATGM hit to chase you.

I'm not sure if 15 can really run into T-90s unless in urban areas or such places with a large number of obstacles.

If 15 encounters a T-90 without it being already destroyed by artillery/MLRS/HJ-10s, then it means it hasn't been scouted. Now, there are two possibilities:
#1, The 15 drove into some place without even doing air reconnaissance beforehand, which is basically impossible. Nobody would drive into unknown territory, or command others to do that, unless he's an utmost moron. (lol

#2, Which actually is a rare event, is that the 90 is within blindspot of reconnaissance, which makes support firepower basically impossible to hit. In that case the 15 is on its own: either to escape and lure the T-90 out of the blindspot of supporting fire, or just use its outstanding enemy detection and destruction capabilities to just fire an APFSDS and destroy it. If it doesn't, then at least supporting fire knows the location of the tank and can prepare for a siege, or try other methods to destroy the tank. BUT these two possibilities never end up in your assumption.

You have to maintain the laser lock from the ZTQ-15 the entire time the missile is traveling

So why insist ATGM? Gun launched ATGMs are not as powerful as specialized ones like HJ-10 and tanks have APFSDS to do anti-tank jobs. Meanwhile I advise you to go an have a look of how HJ-10 is guided.

whereas with a fire-and-forget option the missile is a distraction while you try to find cover and get away.

So why not APFSDS?

 

[Inst]

Because an APFSDS has no chance of a kill vs the frontal armor of a modern MBT when you're doing 105mm?

Of course you can flank the T-90 and hit the carousel from the side. But that implies you have superior numbers to pin down the T-90, and given the number of T-90s the Indians have, as well as the lightness of the ZTQ-15 armor, this isn't going to work.

 

[RichardGao]

Because an APFSDS has no chance of a kill vs the frontal armor of a modern MBT when you're doing 105mm?

So you think ATGM has a better chance eh? You think tanks now are better at protection against kinetic projectiles? Then if APFSDS can't even do the job it's meant to then why not discard it? Moreover, can you name a gun-launched top-attack fire-and-forget ATGM used by tanks?

But that implies you have superior numbers to pin down the T-90, and given the number of T-90s the Indians have, as well as the lightness of the ZTQ-15 armor, this isn't going to work.

So just read my post above. I'm not getting the point how you think your logic makes sense.
And for your sake I'm just gonna help you quote that:

If 15 encounters a T-90 without it being already destroyed by artillery/MLRS/HJ-10s, then it means it hasn't been scouted. Now, there are two possibilities:
#1, The 15 drove into some place without even doing air reconnaissance beforehand, which is basically impossible. Nobody would drive into unknown territory, or command others to do that, unless he's an utmost moron. (lol

#2, Which actually is a rare event, is that the 90 is within blindspot of reconnaissance, which makes support firepower basically impossible to hit. In that case the 15 is on its own: either to escape and lure the T-90 out of the blindspot of supporting fire, or just use its outstanding enemy detection and destruction capabilities to just fire an APFSDS and destroy it. If it doesn't, then at least supporting fire knows the location of the tank and can prepare for a siege, or try other methods to destroy the tank. BUT these two possibilities never end up in your assumption.

Don't you tell me all those T-90s can be instantly deployed on the battlefield while not being demolished by artillery and HJ-10s and WZ-10s first. lol.

 

[Gloire_bb]

all those T-90s can be instantly deployed on the battlefield while not being demolished by artillery and HJ-10s and WZ-10s first. lol.

They can't?

 

[RichardGao]

Moreover, if PLA really encounters large numbers of T-90s, that's gonna be at lower altitudes which means the front is advanced far into Indian territory. If that really happens, why not use 99As to counter T-90s instead.

They can't?

I said instantly. You gotta go by train to mobilize the tanks to high ground, not to say the preparation time, meanwhile how should you mobilize nearly 1k+ tanks deployed in various areas in one shot. Then all that tank needs to drive themselves to the front, in that time there's plenty of room for MLRS, artillery and ATGMs to be of use.

 

[Inst]

The Israeli Lahat ATGM which fits in their 105mm gun can penetrate about 800mm RHA after the first layer of ERA is blown.

The penetration numbers I've seen for 105mm APFSDS are around the 600mm range RHA, including ones that use DU.

The T-90's armor on its front can reach the equivalent of 850mm RHA based on kinetic energy.

 

[Inst]

Moreover, if PLA really encounters large numbers of T-90s, that's gonna be at lower altitudes which means the front is advanced far into Indian territory. If that really happens, why not use 99As to counter T-90s instead.

The same reason the ZTQ-15s are used, as opposed to 99As. The logistics and terrain of penetrating deep into India across the Himalayas is a nightmare.

Look, the point being made is that the 105mm gun on the ZTQ-15 is likely inadequate for penetrating T-90M frontal armor. That isn't such a big deal, given that the ZTQ-15 is not a tank destroyer or full MBT. The solution being proposed is a good, modern top-attack ATGM that can be fired from the ZTQ-15's gun.

The benefit being sought isn't that the ZTQ-15 would all of a sudden become capable of countering the T-90M, but that the ZTQ-15 could hold its own, giving a battlegroup comprising ZTQ-15s, IFVs with anti-tank guns, and WZ-10 tank hunters a bit more anti-tank firepower and a bit more flexibility.

ATGMs, from the looks of it, seem relatively simple to design, as the Chinese have both a HJ-12 and HJ-10 in operation, one being laser or wire-guided and the other being fire-and-forget top-attack.

===

The entire point you want flexibility is that flexibility is redundancy. You're assuming T-90s would be slaughtered first by artillery-launched anti-tank munitions, but that's assuming the artillery is working and isn't taking airstrikes. Helicopters, likewise, are vulnerable to ground-based anti-air missiles as well as any type of fixed wing plane.

If the PLA somehow ends up losing air superiority, the ZTQ-15s are now up to the plate for anti-tank roles, and while they're not optimized for it or likely even good at it, it's better than nothing.