PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank


ChineseToTheBone

New Member
Registered Member
A tank hit by something that penetrates the hull is almost always dead, and so is the crew.

It is way more important to armor up the tank to make it harder to pen, in that regard the carousel autoloader is more suitable. Type 99s for example manage to have a very good armor to crew member/size ratio which is what would determine survivability.

Next generation tank would be determined by Army needs. Type 99As were built during the collapse of the Soviet Union and potentially also eyeing an American invasion of Korea, in that context a tank that could withstand waves of soviet or american armor was needed, so what they got was a good gun on a hardened platform that sacrifices reload speed from having a dedicated loader for more armor and smaller size.

In 2020 the needs are different. India immediately comes to mind. China might preferably want a breakthrough type tank, maybe even one that can act as troop transport.
Sounds like you are more or less referring to a Merkava, which made design compromises to have as much frontal protection as feasible coupled with rear doors similar to infantry fighting vehicles for better enabling disembarkment of its crew and passengers.

Israel did that all for enhancing the survivability of precious manpower, but most larger countries would probably only go with that kind of design for a complete streamlining of their vehicle chassis lineup between main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.

There are obviously certain benefits to a full standardization of your tracked armoured vehicles of course, where economies of scale in your tank assembly line within just a single manufacturing plant would become more attainable even if you are Norinco for example.
 

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
if 2 crew, then the gunner will likely be replaced with AI, target selected by commander and AI does the rest.
I think that the AI not only will solve the targets (IE actually shooting at them and/or automatically correcting failed shots). I think that the AI through fusing information coming from a multitude of sensors will also serve as the primary spotter for the crew, it will detect possible targets, pass them to the commander for positive identification and selection of ammunition to shoot and then the commander will hand them back to the "gunner AI" to engage them.
This capabilities will provide a leap in efficiency compared to the current "hunter-killer" methods. However these functions are not incompatible for a 3 man crew (T-14 either has them now or will be able to have them in the future) but the benefit of a 2 man design will come at a decreased tank weight while maintaining the same or comparable protection levels and achieving a superior fighting performance to a traditional 3-4 crewman tanks (without AI) or slightly inferior or comparable performance to a bigger crew enhanced by AI.
 

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think that the AI not only will solve the targets (IE actually shooting at them and/or automatically correcting failed shots). I think that the AI through fusing information coming from a multitude of sensors will also serve as the primary spotter for the crew, it will detect possible targets, pass them to the commander for positive identification and selection of ammunition to shoot and then the commander will hand them back to the "gunner AI" to engage them.
This capabilities will provide a leap in efficiency compared to the current "hunter-killer" methods. However these functions are not incompatible for a 3 man crew (T-14 either has them now or will be able to have them in the future) but the benefit of a 2 man design will come at a decreased tank weight while maintaining the same or comparable protection levels and achieving a superior fighting performance to a traditional 3-4 crewman tanks (without AI) or slightly inferior or comparable performance to a bigger crew enhanced by AI.
Tanks are a pretty mature weapon system. Besides AI, maybe new armor materials like graphene? The number one problem with tanks is survivability against atgms.
 

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
Tanks are a pretty mature weapon system. Besides AI, maybe new armor materials like graphene? The number one problem with tanks is survivability against atgms.
We have seen that when armored formations are equipped with APS, their vulnerability to ATGMs is hugely decreased. Now the ball is on the ATGM side, their designers must come up with ideas to overcome the APS. I can think of around 3 ways future ATGMs might deal with APS:

- Overwhelming the APS witch launching more projectiles than it can intercept. For example the Russian Kornet/Bulat/Khrizantema ATGM can launch multiple projectiles in volley to the same target. This will force a 2nd generation of APS to feature multiple munitions ready to fire or a quicker reloading mechanism. This method is the simplest of the three but has many drawbacks including increasing ammo consumption.

- Being able to hit the tanks or detonate from angles beyond the elevation/coverage capabilities of APS. This will force future designs to come up with way to eliminate blind spots.

- Finally and perhaps the more difficult and expensive: make the missiles either less detectable to APS ("stealth") and/or make them able to deploy decoys (like chaff or flares) to prevent the APS to calculate the ATGM trajectory. This method would also be the trickiest to solve, since it would require a step up in the development of sensors for APS.
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think the most likely development will be decoys. Troops might also use lasers or masers to blind the sensors in the tank.
 

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
I think the most likely development will be decoys. Troops might also use lasers or masers to blind the sensors in the tank.
Yes i can also imagine future tanks using their own radars or components of their APS to try to jam the enemy APS for example.
 

Top