PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I don't think it is particularly difficult or complex, as other users have pointed out the implementation is quite straight forward even with off the shelf equipment. The question is when will the UAV be used? If during battle it will be forcing the commander to focus on multiple things at once, doubly so if the enemy has anti UAV capabilities. If not during battle, then why not someone else?

VTOL capable UAVs rarely have batteries that last longer than one hour, while non VTOL UAVs are going to complicate recovery. If used during battle returning the UAV could reveal the location of the tank, while non VTOL UAVs will require the crew to be in the open for recovery. Unless of course they are disposable.

For starters it will be useful to scout out a location for anti-tank assets before sending armor in! The reason tanks have been sitting ducks in Ukraine is that they have very poor situational awareness.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
For starters it will be useful to scout out a location for anti-tank assets before sending armor in! The reason tanks have been sitting ducks in Ukraine is that they have very poor situational awareness.
Although its a bit too early, I envision tanks to take the same modernisation direction as ships did from WW2 and onwards. From a focus on armor and withstanding hits to avoiding getting hit in the first place.

That's not to say that it will be the exact route, armour will still remain a vital component as land warfare inevitably presents more threats to a platform than in sea, but more focus will be directed to creating an information bubble around the tank, creating as much as situational awareness to the tank commander as possible and intercepting enemy fires before they impact the tank itself

Using drones seems like a good and cheap way to accomplish that. The tank deploys the drone, the drone using AI starts scanning the field on front for potential enemy units and sends the data to the tank commander. This would allow the tank to get a first look, first shoot opportunity.

The Ukrainian conflict has shown that many times, tanks get shot first a couple of times before reacting and start shooting back. And in a lot of cases at these first couple of enemy fires the tank either gets destroyed outright, mission killed, or damaged in such a degree that it has degraded capability.
 

Tanker_MG

New Member
Registered Member
I think the biggest change for any future MBT would be to change the ammunition storage and feed system so that it is separate from the crew compartment and the crew is protected from any potential ammunition fire. The ZTQ15 is the first step in this direction, but from what have seen, the future MBT is not learning the lesson that storing ammunition (that uses combustible cartridge cases) under the turret basket with no provision to separate the crew from the ammunition is not a good idea. The graphic showing the crew positioned in a front section like the T-14 or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is interesting and solves this problem. As you add more capabilities (drones, sensors, etc) crew training becomes more expensive and the investment into the crew should change.
 

by78

General
View attachment 109397
Errrr, I guess that articulated MLRS might have given people ideas.
Norinco presentation, the diagram is future tank proposal, from front to back the different parts are:

Front unit:
turret - heavy firepower unit
crew cabin
computation unit
power unit
propulsion unit
Front unit is made up of crew cabin, communication unit, computation unit, power unit, heavy firepower unit (electric launch), defense unit and propulsion unit, can hold infantry

Rear unit:
turret - support firepower unit
ammo
UAV
UGV
Rear unit is made up of support firepower unit (VLS missile/loitering munition/autocannon), space for infantry, UAV, UGV, ammo and fuel.

Do you have more images from the presentation?

I'm interested to know how NORINCO thinks the support vehicle will fit into the force structure. I personally don't think each tank will necessarily have a support vehicle hitched to it. Maybe they see one support vehicle per platoon is enough, for example.
 
Last edited:

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Do you have more images from the presentation?

I'm interested to know how NORINCO thinks the support vehicle will fit into the force structure. I personally don't think each tank will necessarily have a support vehicle hitched to it. Maybe they see one support vehicle per platoon is enough, for example.
According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, he drew the original for fun. Now that Norinco is using the idea in presentation he can brag about it for rest of his life

I found his art station via google image search, looks like he drew it 4 years ago:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

kenneth-chan-01.jpg

Here's another slide from the Norinco presentation:
007QCHS6ly1hc6afkgzdkj31hc0u0ahc.jpg
 

dasCKD

New Member
Registered Member
According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, he drew the original for fun. Now that Norinco is using the idea in presentation he can brag about it for rest of his life

I found his art station via google image search, looks like he drew it 4 years ago:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 109465

Here's another slide from the Norinco presentation:
View attachment 109466
That is the most gigantic lower glacis I have ever seen. If that tank ever gets put in any tank simulator game, it'll eat more frontal penetrations than even the light tanks.

That said, I definately stan the murdertrain.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
The slide said future Russian tank
In his original post #228 it doesn't say 'future Russian tank'

At the topright of the slide it says ‘2. 发展趋势’ which roughly translated is 'Future development trends', so the point in the presentation is about what might be developed in the future.

As for the blue headline we have '现代战争需要什么样的装甲兵器' ('what kinds of armored vehicles does modern combat need') and the red above the back supporting vehicle being '未来坦克方案设想' ('idea/proposal for a future tank')

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In post #245 the first picture is from a military enthusiast and in that picture, the bottom lineart over a 99a is what's used in the presentation (the picture in post 228).

And the 2nd picture should be another slide from the presentation, different from the slide in the picture of post 228.
In this slide the blue text says: '先进坦克技术的发展现状---坦克强国俄罗斯的未来坦克' ('current cutting-edge tank technology developments --- future tank for the strong tank country Russia')
And the red text is '第38装甲武器装备研究与测试所2020年提出的俄罗斯未来坦克' ('the proposal by 38th institute of armored vehicles research and testing in year 2020 of Russia's future tank').
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
The last slide looks a lot like the T-14 Armata. And I have seen similar proposals from the Russians of adding the trailer vehicle in combination with putting a 152mm gun on the Armata platform. I assume that is what is seen here.

With 152mm shells you have a lot less space in the vehicle if you want to store the same number of shells, hence the trailer. It is still a bad idea, the requirement for a trailer vehicle was one of the reasons for the US cancellation of the Crusader howitzer in the late Cold War period, it increases the cost of the platform quite a lot.

You are basically making two tracked armored vehicles with the capabilities of one. Today ammo reloads are typically carried by much cheaper trucks.
 
Top