PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
So it seems that PLA is not going to up armor or up gun the next genration of MBT , trading more weight for more info and digital intergration, better detection.
I wonder if technology today has matured enough to achieve the goal of trading firepower and armor of an induvidial platfro for overall system ability I.E fighting as a joint net of platforms instead of tank on tank ,it reminds me the Idea that US army ASM program was trying to do back in the 90s. Now days the Germans was also talking about the impossibility of putting everything on the same tank and still have it under a managable weight , their thinking is that for the next genration of ground platroms it need to be whole family of system in a company , meaning spliting the capabilites requried of a tank into 4 different platforms.
I wonder if technology today has matured enough to achieve the goal of trading firepower and armor of an induvidial platfro for overall system ability I.E fighting as a joint net of platforms instead of tank on tank ,it reminds me the Idea that US army ASM program was trying to do back in the 90s. Now days the Germans was also talking about the impossibility of putting everything on the same tank and still have it under a managable weight , their thinking is that for the next genration of ground platroms it need to be whole family of system in a company , meaning spliting the capabilites requried of a tank into 4 different platforms.
There are rumors that an heavier tank is in development, like an actual ZTZ99A replacement, Just not sure it will be ready for the parade. Maybe ready for 2029.
Something i wanted to say here for a while, imo this new tank seems to me similar in concept to the american M10. So it's probably not a MBT in the truest sense, especially if it only has a 105mm gun as speculated here, but whatever the M10 is adapted to chinese requirements. Probably it's size/weight is tailored for Y-20 airlifting.
The heavier tank in development as referenced above sounds a lot more like the high end MBT we should expect to appear soon, something in the Armata class but even better/more advanced. .
The heavier tank in development as referenced above sounds a lot more like the high end MBT we should expect to appear soon, something in the Armata class but even better/more advanced. .
That's an odd opinion tbh.
The M10 was more of a 105mm somewhat air mobile tracked infantry direct fire support vehicle.
The ZTQ15 is more of a a genuine light tank by role and chassis and configuration.
This new vehicle otoh, should not only be a little bit heavier than both ZTQ15 and M10, but it is more of a next generation MBT than either of them, and probably in the same weight class as ZTZ96 family, but with a 105mm gun, and likely aimed to fill the billets of the ZTZ96 family.
A heavier next gen MBT with larger calibre cannon than 105mm, sounds like is still in the works, which may replace the ZTZ99/99A family in time.
However, this new vehicle should be considered a true bred MBT. Having a 105mm gun does not change that per se. After all it wasn't too long ago that 105mm guns were the standard for MBTs, and with modern technology a 105mm gun should be much more lethal than their ancestors.
So it would imo be a big mistake to attribute the role of a AFV based merely on the calibre of its main gun. Certainly the M10 itself could not have been said to even be a traditional light tank let alone a medium MBT.
I think US themselves never properly explained what's the difference.
In normal US practice, difference between infantry support gun and tank is assault role; M10 was supposed to perform assaults, i.e. for all intents and purposes, it was indeed a medium tank.
ZTQ-15 was always more or less what M10 wanted to be, but earlier and without weight creep. ZTQX(?) is what M10 didn't even dream to be.
But it shouldn't be any less deployable than ZTQ-15; i.e. it's most likely its direct replacement on the conveyor.
The difference indeed is that new layout allows to get much more from the same form-factor.
That's one reason why I don't like the M10 booker comparison, partly because it seems even now no one really knows what exactly it was meant to do.
And mack8's post seemed to really just conflate it based on them sharing the same calibre main gun as the point of commonality.
In terms of weight, this new tank may be somewhat heavier and approach a true "light" end of a MBT in weight class rather than a genuine light tank like ZTQ-15.
In terms of deployability, I have no major comment, but I wouldn't be surprised if there remain some domains where ZTQ15 is preferred to this thing, and vice versa.
I wonder though , what would be the required doctrin capability would you want from a ground platfrom, I mean what necessitate a 70ish ton heavy MBT ? it seems to me that it's role can be filled with a family of lighter 50ish ton platfroms .
Cause for a direct fire support role I.E assult gun , 105mm is perfectly acceptable, then need for a 140mm or a 130mm is for anti armor role , but these day , tank to tank engagment might not be the desired outcome, meaning you have enough ways to engage a enemy tank way before your tank will run into the other tank , and in a skirmish a lighter but more info connected tank might still win just because it can hide and maneuver better.
Also , history have proven that bigger gun isn't the deciding factor in tank to tank engagement , first shot is , most tanks are killed by a enemy they didn't know were there, so what would be the need for a havier platform ? I would love to hear the counter argument.
Cause for a direct fire support role I.E assult gun , 105mm is perfectly acceptable, then need for a 140mm or a 130mm is for anti armor role , but these day , tank to tank engagment might not be the desired outcome, meaning you have enough ways to engage a enemy tank way before your tank will run into the other tank , and in a skirmish a lighter but more info connected tank might still win just because it can hide and maneuver better.
Also , history have proven that bigger gun isn't the deciding factor in tank to tank engagement , first shot is , most tanks are killed by a enemy they didn't know were there, so what would be the need for a havier platform ? I would love to hear the counter argument.
This is getting off topic into armoured warfare doctrine matters.
I would just say when one entertains the idea of future next gen heavy MBTs, it doesn't necessarily mean a 70ton monster.
It could be 55-60tons; something in the weight class of ZTZ99/99A.
In fact, 105-mm guns are really puzzling, since large-caliber guns have an advantage in the power of HE and gunshoot missile, which are the most commonly used types of shells.