ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks


Temstar

Major
Registered Member
Not sure calling it "light MBT" is right - it by definition isn't an MBT. "Light MBT" moniker only makes sense for countries which either center their fleet on that type for geographical reasons, or at least don't plan to ever use them on same battleflields.

By logic and duties, it's simply a medium* ** tank, designed to give some reasonable firepower to infantry brigade combat teams(and, more importantly, restored divisions), making them peer frontline-capable.

*i have problems calling 30t+ vehicles light, especially when it's really possible to make reasonable light tanks at half that weight.
**Furthermore, the mix of qualities possessed by both ZTQ-15 and MPF is really reminiscent of WW2 mediums: adequate gun, good mobility, reasonable chance to survive infantry AT.
I see Type 15 get referred to it both ways in China though, both "轻型坦克" and "轻型主战坦克". It's much heavier compared to the 21 tons of Type 62. Once you stack on ERA and APS it's as well protected against HEAT as a MBT, only really showing a difference when it encounters big direct fire guns, were as with Type 62 and other 20 ton tanks they are in trouble if they run into an autocannon.

It is a bit like a WW2 medium tank, which after all are the ancestor to modern day MBT, so I can see how "light tank" or "light main battle tank" would both work for this class of vehicle.

I question why the US would want a tank like this though. For their own good it better not be a case of "if China has one I have to have one too", would be a big waste of resources at a time they can't afford to.
 

KampfAlwin

Junior Member
Registered Member
I see Type 15 get referred to it both ways in China though, both "轻型坦克" and "轻型主战坦克". It's much heavier compared to the 21 tons of Type 62. Once you stack on ERA and APS it's as well protected against HEAT as a MBT, only really showing a difference when it encounters big direct fire guns, were as with Type 62 and other 20 ton tanks they are in trouble if they run into an autocannon.

It is a bit like a WW2 medium tank, which after all are the ancestor to modern day MBT, so I can see how "light tank" or "light main battle tank" would both work for this class of vehicle.

I question why the US would want a tank like this though. For their own good it better not be a case of "if China has one I have to have one too", would be a big waste of resources at a time they can't afford to.
Oh man your last paragraph gave me a feeling that if in another timeline, China fielded the ZTQ-15 after this tank, it would be called a copy of it.

But anyways, I feel that the ZTQ-15 is superior to it looking at the specs. Doesn't seem to have much armor unlike ZTQ-15 and yet it weighs more, even more than the 36-ton uparmored VT-5.
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
I question why the US would want a tank like this though. For their own good it better not be a case of "if China has one I have to have one too", would be a big waste of resources at a time they can't afford to.
As was stated above - to give infantry brigades some direct firepower.
Before the end of cold war, US "foot" infantry had tanks. Now they're simply getting them back.
were as with Type 62 and other 20 ton tanks they are in trouble if they run into an autocannon.
Well, comparing type 62 is cruel - it's a very old tank in the end.

Technically speaking, it's quite doable to have a reasonable light tank within 20t, even a well-protected one, but there will be inevitable compromises. 35t class vehicles don't need to and can be well-rounded.
 

Maikeru

Senior Member
Registered Member
Oh man your last paragraph gave me a feeling that if in another timeline, China fielded the ZTQ-15 after this tank, it would be called a copy of it.

But anyways, I feel that the ZTQ-15 is superior to it looking at the specs. Doesn't seem to have much armor unlike ZTQ-15 and yet it weighs more, even more than the 36-ton uparmored VT-5.
It's our duty as SDF posters to get on every last US military forum and SM page and accuse the new US light tank of being a copy of Type 15.

The US one is bigger - especially the turret - because it foregoes an autoloader and so needs a 4 man crew. Means it is a bigger target.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It's our duty as SDF posters to get on every last US military forum and SM page and accuse the new US light tank of being a copy of Type 15.

The US one is bigger - especially the turret - because it foregoes an autoloader and so needs a 4 man crew. Means it is a bigger target.
Automatic loaders don’t automatically decrease the size of the turret. The carousel types does as the magazine is in the hull. But with the obvious question of the turret launching skywards.
Most modern western Autoloaders use a bustle automatic loader which yes larger turret but most of the turret is still in the back. Just like the Type 15. Yes the downside more obvious target up side if done properly even if hit the cook off is isolated from the crew compartment.
 

Top