ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

Kaplan has less hull armour than Type 15, no ERA, probably less turret armour just based on weight comparisons.

Kaplan has a 700 horsepower engine compared to the Type 15's 1000 horsepower.

Kaplan has a 105mm like the Type 15... no indication on material, chamber pressure, muzzle velocity of comparable rounds but should be roughly close.

Type 15 probably features next generation ERA with electromagnetic pre-contact detonation.

Same layout of sensors and generation of sensors.

Type 15 has been in service for months at the very least now and the program involved multiple tank designs.

Type 15 would eat the Kaplan alive with zero rounds of ammo in the tank because the Kaplan still isn't in service.

There you go... quick comparison done that Turkfan avoided because his in testing tank is superior and "don't even go there" LOL

If you disagree prove it with facts like members above have done. Don't just say it's better. KFC ... I mean... TFX is also mightier than J-20 too no doubt right? Don't even go there. TFX would also "own" J-20 like it'll own everything in the skies that's not called F-22. More Twitter stronkist fanboys. There are literally millions of these wankers online. If only you guys can just enlist and have your bits blown apart and spare us your BS.

The guys here comparing the Type 15 with the Kaplan is doing the Kaplan a much undeserved attention. Like comparing an existing tool already being used to one that features less and is still in testing. The Kaplan looks like it centre of gravity is much too high with a 1930s gun mounted on it. I've seen IFVs and APCs with turrets that look more formidable and designed by people with an actual idea of how a tank should be designed.

ougoah said:

Kaplan has less hull armour than Type 15, no ERA, probably less turret armour just based on weight comparisons.

Kaplan has a 700 horsepower engine compared to the Type 15's 1000 horsepower.

Kaplan has a 105mm like the Type 15... no indication on material, chamber pressure, muzzle velocity of comparable rounds but should be roughly close.

Type 15 probably features next generation ERA with electromagnetic pre-contact detonation.

Same layout of sensors and generation of sensors.

Type 15 has been in service for months at the very least now and the program involved multiple tank designs.

Type 15 would eat the Kaplan alive with zero rounds of ammo in the tank because the Kaplan still isn't in service.

There you go... quick comparison done that Turkfan avoided because his in testing tank is superior and "don't even go there" LOL

If you disagree prove it with facts like members above have done. Don't just say it's better. KFC ... I mean... TFX is also mightier than J-20 too no doubt right? Don't even go there. TFX would also "own" J-20 like it'll own everything in the skies that's not called F-22. More Twitter stronkist fanboys. There are literally millions of these wankers online. If only you guys can just enlist and have your bits blown apart and spare us your BS.

The guys here comparing the Type 15 with the Kaplan is doing the Kaplan a much undeserved attention. Like comparing an existing tool already being used to one that features less and is still in testing. The Kaplan looks like it centre of gravity is much too high with a 1930s gun mounted on it. I've seen IFVs and APCs with turrets that look more formidable and designed by people with an actual idea of how a tank should be designed.

Click to expand...

It a bit disingenuous to say that the Kaplan will have less armor than the ZTQ when frankly we have no conclusive proof of the kind of armor the ZTQ would be packing. Sure that the ZTQ design looks more like a conventional Tank than the Kaplan, but modern tech had rendered traditional tank design traits like sloped armor to a secondary importance.
Saying that the ZTQ will "probably" have next gen ERA belies the word "probably" and that does not mean the Kaplan won't get era as well since they are pretty much standard for modern IFVs.
And the Kaplan weighs in pretty much the same as the ZTQ barring a single ton in difference in all armor configurations but honestly one can't squeeze much performance difference out of that to begin with.
All in all the Kaplan is the most accurate comparison to the ZTQ. Nitpicking at the date of introduction does not degrade the performance of the former. Indeed with the opacity surrounding China's military procurement the few things we can only be sure was that the ZTQ was conclusively adopted in 2019. The Kaplan is also slated to be adopted by Indonesia in 2020 so realistically speaking there is barely any disparity in time.

Viktor Jav said:

It a bit disingenuous to say that the Kaplan will have less armor than the ZTQ when frankly we have no conclusive proof of the kind of armor the ZTQ would be packing. Sure that the ZTQ design looks more like a conventional Tank than the Kaplan, but modern tech had rendered traditional tank design traits like sloped armor to a secondary importance.
Saying that the ZTQ will "probably" have next gen ERA belies the word "probably" and that does not mean the Kaplan won't get era as well since they are pretty much standard for modern IFVs.
And the Kaplan weighs in pretty much the same as the ZTQ barring a single ton in difference in all armor configurations but honestly one can't squeeze much performance difference out of that to begin with.
All in all the Kaplan is the most accurate comparison to the ZTQ. Nitpicking at the date of introduction does not degrade the performance of the former. Indeed with the opacity surrounding China's military procurement the few things we can only be sure was that the ZTQ was conclusively adopted in 2019. The Kaplan is also slated to be adopted by Indonesia in 2020 so realistically speaking there is barely any disparity in time.

Click to expand...

Well I don't agree with this China has much more experience in building a tank They have been building tank since 1950's Experience do count in engineering. Plus China was involve in land war in Korea, India and recently with Vietnam . Their infantry was slaughter because of lack of IFV and light tank. Type 62 tank was so thinly armored that they didn't use it . So basically China start the military reform right after the war with Vietnam involving tactic, equipment and training . And they start issuing design spec for IFV and light tank from that time.

Plus China has the complete supply chain of component supplier for the tank since they built large number of armor vehicle, tank etc. So the even without knowing the full spec of the light tank we can make intelligent deduction that their tank are cutting edge comparable to any in the western world.
Her defense budget is maybe tens time more than Turkey

Turkey only recently build their own weapon and still depend on western for some of the major components

via Tyan
A light tank made for mountain warfare ...

It's powered by a dual-stage turbo Deutz V8 diesel w / 1000-1100 hp output and hydropneumatic suspension. FYI, that's twice the incline that the Type 96 could do.
n countries

Hendrik_2000 said:

Well I don't agree with this China has much more experience in building a tank They have been building tank since 1950's Experience do count in engineering. Plus China was involve in land war in Korea, India and recently with Vietnam . Their infantry was slaughter because of lack of IFV and light tank. Type 62 tank was so thinly armored that they didn't use it . So basically China start the military reform right after the war with Vietnam involving tactic, equipment and training . And they start issuing design spec for IFV and light tank from that time.

Plus China has the complete supply chain of component supplier for the tank since they built large number of armor vehicle, tank etc. So the even without knowing the full spec of the light tank we can make intelligent deduction that their tank are cutting edge comparable to any in the western world.
Her defense budget is maybe tens time more than Turkey

Turkey only recently build their own weapon

Click to expand...

Maybe, but the Kaplan MT has the benefit of receiving external assistance in its development which offsets supposed lack of experience. For example, the 105mm gun and the turret is designed by Cockerill which is a Belgium based company of some reputation.
More ever, we have seen time and time again that amount of money spent does not necessarily translates into actual competence nor deduct from it. It is more about HOW the money is spent, not how much is spent. In most aspects Turkey and Indonesia seem to get their money's worth for it.

Viktor Jav said:

Maybe, but the Kaplan MT has the benefit of receiving external assistance in its development which offsets supposed lack of experience. For example, the 105mm gun and the turret is designed by Cockerill which is a Belgium based company of some reputation.
More ever, we have seen time and time again that amount of money spent does not necessarily translates into actual competence nor deduct from it. It is more about HOW the money is spent, not how much is spent. In most aspects Turkey and Indonesia seem to get their money's worth for it.

Click to expand...

I thought the origin of China 105 mm gun is even more illustrious than Cockerill gun. It started from L7 gun from royal ordnance then it got transferred to the Israeli. During the Sino-soviet border skirmishes with the blessing of US Israeli assisted China in improving the 105 mm gun and its firing control to even out the odd against the Soviet tank. It is common knowledge
Now who know better about gun than Royal ordnance and Israeli ?

China has proven to use the defense budget extremely efficient just look at the space budget She use 1/10th of the US space budget but achieve more or less the same result
And We all know how J20, Y20, Z20 goes

The Chinese do not have NATO standard 120mm tank guns, but only the 105mm ones, and yes, those are the British L7 rifiled guns and were first licensed and introduced via Britain/Austria (it’s complicated) in late 1970s.

Since then China has further developed the design and fitted some of its (older/lighter) tank models with different variations of this 105mm gun. They should be compatible with NATO ammo.

But the newer heavier MBTs China has are all fitted with the Soviet/Russian-origin (2A46 series) 125mm smoothbore guns. These include the ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99 series MBTs.

Hendrik_2000 said:

I thought the origin of China 105 mm gun is even more illustrious than Cockerill gun. It started from L7 gun from royal ordnance then it got transferred to the Israeli. During the Sino-soviet border skirmishes with the blessing of US Israeli assisted China in improving the 105 mm gun and its firing control to even out the odd against the Soviet tank. It is common knowledge
Now who know better about gun than Royal ordnance and Israeli ?

China has proven to use the defense budget extremely efficient just look at the space budget She use 1/10th of the US space budget but achieve more or less the same result
And We all know how J20, Y20, Z20 goes

Click to expand...

The tech for the 105mm has been
widely distributed in among NATO, so almost every country in it has the basic technology and capability to improve on the design. Belgium is no different in that regard. The Cockerill 105mm is really a very souped up royal ordanance L7 despite the name and slight difference with regards to the muzzle brake. Heck Belgium had also produced 105mm ammunition with pretty impressive stats as well.
And I am not saying that China is necessarily wasteful in its spending, I am saying that Turkey and Indonesia had shown as of late they had successfully get the bang for their buck. This is proven with several succesful ifvs of Turkish design that are also export to other nations.

Here is more detail about the history of China's 105 mm gun origin.google translation from douban chinese text

At that time, British Prime Minister Callaghan worried that Britain would lag behind France in its relations with China. Callahan said in October 1977 that he hoped that the then Foreign Secretary Owen would "narrow the gap between Sino-British relations and Sino-French relations."

At the same time, due to the tension between China and the Soviet Union at that time, British officials believed that China hoped to partially catch up with the Soviet Union ’s strong military power. Chief of Staff Marshal Cameron visited Beijing in April 1978, and the United Kingdom decided to promote the sale of weapons to China to a certain extent. Shortly before Cameron ’s visit to China, British officials in Moscow warned London that the Soviet Union would treat any British arms sales to China as "unfriendly moves" and would cause "serious" deterioration of relations between the two countries.

But Cameron said at a dinner in Beijing that Britain and China "have an enemy at the door, and its capital is Moscow." This statement aroused the anger of the Soviet Union. Statistics show that the then British Prime Minister Callaghan was not worried about the anger of the Soviet Union. According to an official interview record, Callahan told Cameron that he "provided the only interesting and exciting thing of the past week." However, before the British Trade Minister Del visited China in August of that year, Callaghan emphasized that Del should be low-key in his speech and adopt a more cautious attitude. Callaghan also said that eventually China and the United Kingdom finally signed a seven-year economic contract, but because of the high price, China did not buy the "Harrier" attack aircraft that the United Kingdom wanted to sell.

　　However, due to the Soviet Union's rampage, the United Kingdom still did not directly come out to resist this matter, and the L7 technology was introduced through the transfer of Austria.

　　3. Wife is always good for others

　　During the demonstration of the imported 105mm rifled tank gun in China, a comparative armor-piercing test was carried out with the 100-slide high-bore anti-tank gun sample gun improved by the 120-slide tank gun technology. The test results prove that the performance of the domestic 100-slide anti-tank gun tungsten alloy tail fins stable hull armor-piercing projectile is comparable to the 105-line armour-piercing elasticity that the West is planning to sell to us. The 100-slide uranium alloy armor-piercing projectile has obvious performance advantages. This test proved that China was not in the field of high-pressure tank gun development, which greatly improved the confidence of the negotiators, and finally prompted the 105-line tank gun technology to be smoothly introduced at a relatively favorable price.

The contract for the introduction of 105mm high-pressure tank-level gun-related technologies is known as the "37" project in China, and is carried out in two phases. The first phase of the project includes: 105mm line-bore high-bore pressure tank guns and a full set of ammunition (stabilized shell-removing armor-piercing shells, grenades, armor-piercing shells), fire-fighting and explosion suppression system in the war room, 8000 radio and VIC-1 intercom Introduced projects in the second phase include: simple disturbance fire control system, thermal jacket of barrel, night vision sighting equipment, etc.

　　According to the foreign trade armor-piercing projectile data of North China Company:

　　1. 100mm tungsten alloy fin stable shelling armor-piercing projectile: full length 981mm, full weight 15kg, projectile weight (including bullet support) 5.56kg, core weight 3.3kg, core The length is 485mm, the diameter of the core is 27mm, the ratio of the diameter to the diameter is 18: 1, and the initial velocity is 1480m / s. The direct range for a 2m high target is 1830m, and the armor-piercing power at a distance of 2500m is 150mm / 65 ° (355mm). The armor-piercing power is 355mm at a distance of 1500m (-40 °). The operating temperature is -45 °-+ 50 °. Uses: 100mm rifled gun for 59 series and T-54 / 55 series tanks.

FishWings said:

TB2, Anka, Altay, T-300 Kasirga, J-600T, etc.

Give an example of a bad Turkish weapon?

Actually don't, it would be off topic.

Click to expand...

I would not say the weapons that you list are all "bad", but they are definitely not impressive for me. Maybe the part Turkey played in JSF could be although they were kicked away.. Sorry for being subjective whereas that came from you, sorry for being off topic but you started it childishly.

schrodinger said:

I would not say the weapons that you list are all "bad", but they are definitely not impressive for me. Maybe the part Turkey played in JSF could be although they were kicked away.. Sorry for being subjective whereas that came from you, sorry for being off topic but you started it childishly.

Click to expand...

Yes my bad. Was not posting while clear in the head. Going to remove those posts now

If you check the arms trade registry in (China as supplier, say from 2018 to 2019, in armored vehicles category) and download the file you get this data stating that bangladesh has ordered 44 VT-5 tanks?! Yet there's no news about this, only some rumors in blogs like sina or guancha. How reliable is this info?? If this is true then VT-5 may have found its first customer..