ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks


RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
hi RichardGao

I know you had answer my question, but man that shells looks lethal, there are news that India had airlifted T-72 , I hope the PLA had sent the new anti tanks ammo.
I'm not aware, but it doesn't mean there isn't.

Guys, I know that Type 15 isn't supposed to face a real heavy MBT, but in the rare and unlikely situation it actually does, do you think the 105mm gun is enough?

I have this nagging feeling that they'll be better off having a 125mm gun. After all, China has gone through the trouble to design a whole new tank for that one specific situation (high altitude operation). There's no reason not to develop a low recoil (not low-velocity) 125mm to at least enable it to engage whatever target the current battlefield has.

They could even recoup the investment for that new low-recoil 125mm gun by mounting it on their wheeled assault guns like Type 11 replacement and probably update their MBT guns. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Note: Sorry if it sounds like fanboying. It's just a hypothetical situation.
Simple reason: 125 firepower system is too heavy.
(Both gun and ammo, also including recoil) I guess PLA didn't even bother testing a 125mm on a light tank, such a project shouldn't have even gone through the theoretical stage. 15's weight control was quite strict during design. Also if we really made a 125 LT it would almost surely still use separate loading shells (nobody'd bother to make new fixed loading shells that aren't viable on older firepower systems) which would probably still make it a rotating magazine autoloader which make it simply a lightweighted 99A or some sort.
And why worry when 105 anti-tank firepower is already not so bad?
 

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm not aware, but it doesn't mean there isn't.


Simple reason: 125 firepower system is too heavy.
(Both gun and ammo, also including recoil) I guess PLA didn't even bother testing a 125mm on a light tank, such a project shouldn't have even gone through the theoretical stage. 15's weight control was quite strict during design. Also if we really made a 125 LT it would almost surely still use separate loading shells (nobody'd bother to make new fixed loading shells that aren't viable on older firepower systems) which would probably still make it a rotating magazine autoloader which make it simply a lightweighted 99A or some sort.
And why worry when 105 anti-tank firepower is already not so bad?
Hmm... I guess their concern about weight does make sense, but I don't think the recoil and separate loading shells to be a problem.

I believe the loader they use on the 105mm is a straightforward pusher type with a chain rammer. IMO there's no reason why they can't adapt it to suit 125mm and still mount it on the bustle.

For the recoil, I believe they can design the gun to make the recoil acceptable if the Italians can do the same thing with 120mm gun on their Centauro 2. If I recall correctly that Italian gun fires full power 120mm NATO ammo.

I think the only reason why they decided not to do it aside from the weight is... Money. The central government probably tell them "We're going to give you the money for you to design the tank you say you need, but no more." The PLAGF guys probably look at the budget and decided they just don't get the money to develop new gun, so they went with the 105mm for cost cutting measure.
 
Last edited:

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hmm... I guess their concern about weight does make sense, but I don't think the recoil and separate loading shells to be a problem.

I believe the loader they use on the 105mm is a straightforward pusher type with a chain rammer. IMO there's no reason why they can't adapt it to suit 125mm and still mount it on the bustle.

For the recoil, I believe they can design the gun to make the recoil acceptable if the Italians can do the same thing with 120mm gun on their Centauro 2. If I recall correctly that Italian gun fires full power 120mm NATO ammo.

I think the only reason why they decided not to do it aside from the weight is... Money. The central government probably tell them "We're going to give you the money for you to design the tank you say you need, but no more." The PLAGF guys probably look at the budget and decided they just don't get the money to develop new gun, so they went with the 105mm for cost cutting measure.
I mean, wide applicability is surely a great problem. We got only type 89 SPGs (currently all out of service) that use 120mm guns. But yeah money might certainly be a problem too.
 

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
I mean, wide applicability is surely a great problem. We got only type 89 SPGs (currently all out of service) that use 120mm guns. But yeah money might certainly be a problem too.
Uh, I think you misunderstood something. What I was talking about is adapting the current 105mm autoloader to fit the 125mm ammo, since it is just a simple chain rammer type anyway; there's no difference for the ammo, whether if it's one piece or two-piece if you're just going to ram in straight in. Case in point: Russian T-80 autoloader. When loading, the ammo tray lines up in 1 go unlike the 2 stages ones on T-72/90, then the chain rammer just rams the ammo straight in. The only difference with our imaginary Chinese 125mm bustle autoloader would be the location the autoloader is mounted; on the bustle instead of on the carousel. In our case, the ammo is already lined up in the autoloader. When the gunner/commander selects the ammo, the autoloader works just like in 105mm one; it finds the ammo type, drops down the ramp inside the turret, then just rams it straight into the gun.

Here's the video
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for the T-80 autoloader. Pause at 0:05; that's what I'm talking about. Just line up and push.

As for the Italian 120mm gun thing, it's just to say that since someone definitely can design a 120mm gun that has low recoil and still accept full power 120mm NATO ammo, then PLA designers should also be able to design a 125mm gun that does the same low recoil thing and still accept full power 125mm ammo. They're pretty comparable in performance after all.

Okay, now that's cleared up, let's move on since they don't like the weight and got no money to do the R&D anyway :p
 

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
Guys, I know that Type 15 isn't supposed to face a real heavy MBT, but in the rare and unlikely situation it actually does, do you think the 105mm gun is enough?
Against t-72s w/o proper upgrade? It's more than enough in almost every single regard.
Otherwise, it depends. Fully "stretched" 105mm gun with long rod penetrator is no pushover.
But strictly speaking, lightest 125mm "tank"(2S25) is way lighter than ZTQ-15
 

daifo

New Member
Registered Member
India is deploying t-90s up to their border though...

Against t-72s w/o proper upgrade? It's more than enough in almost every single regard.
Otherwise, it depends. Fully "stretched" 105mm gun with long rod penetrator is no pushover.
But strictly speaking, lightest 125mm "tank"(2S25) is way lighter than ZTQ-15
 

Figaro

Junior Member
Registered Member
You mean the border that is 4000 m above sea level that t90 is not designed for? Awesome, let them all be sitting ducks.
I heard they were deploying them to the Galwan valley. Not sure if this true but would be remarkably stupid considering the high altitude and the lack of maneuverability for these heavy tanks. Not to mention the Chinese could easily use firearms to penetrate the thin armor at the top of the Indian tanks.
 

Top