Lighter weight and smaller size comes with versatility sure. But don't go drawing conclusions about Type 15 being designed to be deployed by ship to fight Japanese Type 10s. It's outgunned and probably can't penetrate Type 10's front armour. Japanese idea about up and down gradable MBT is similar sure but that's where the similarities end.
ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
Lighter weight and smaller size comes with versatility sure. But don't go drawing conclusions about Type 15 being designed to be deployed by ship to fight Japanese Type 10s. It's outgunned and probably can't penetrate Type 10's front armour. Japanese idea about up and down gradable MBT is similar sure but that's where the similarities end.
Yes, the ZTQ-15 is designed to be more versatile, sacrificing armor and firepower for it. But I think with the APS on the VT5 moved onto its ZTQ-15 cousin, and a good top-attack ATGM for the ZTQ-15, it is credible, albeit still inferior, to a run-of-the-mill MBT. But you have more of them, and that's what counts. And your opponent is likely facing the same problem you are; they can't achieve a critical mass of tanks during island hopping operations so infantry will predominate, and there the ZTQ-15 stands out.
===
There's also the question of ETC gun technology (electro-thermal chemical). This can roughly double the energy available for a specific caliber. The Chinese are known to be researching ETC artillery guns (and that's what the plasma artillery they keep on talking about is really about), so maybe in the future the ZTQ-15 could get retrofitted with an ETC 105mm gun instead. Such a move would make the 105mm gun equivalent or better than 120mm guns fielded by regional competitors.
Offtop: type 10 being counted as western MBT is honestly very cute.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
The likelihood of tank to tank battle is so WW II ish and It won't happened in the future war. With the proliferation of Cheap UAV carrying ATGM, Attack helicopter with ATGM and long range ATGM system like ATF12 tank will be long gone before they even approach another tank . No ATGM is the best tank killer now and not Gun Israel learn that bitter lesson in Yom Kipur war when her tank was decimated by primitive AT3 ATGM. Israel close of losing the battle if it not for US nonstop weapon delivery And for your information the ATGM can easily out reach tank gun typical tank gun reach is 2 to 3 km But heavy ATGM goes from 4 to 6 km.
So your fantasy of tank to tank battle ala Khursk is just fantasy
IDF armored units deployed in reserve rolled forth to counterattack. IDF tanks expected the Arab infantry to be vulnerable, with their heavy weapons still on the western bank, and charged into the fray without artillery or infantry support.
However, Egyptian troops had crossed with an extra-large supply of portable Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) wire-guided anti-tank missiles. While an RPG remains accurate only up to one to two hundred meters, the Soviet-supplied Malyutka were effective up to two miles away. The AT-3 teams planted their portable launch units on the ground, then took cover nearby and remotely fired the projectile towards the approaching tanks. The missiles remained connected by a huge spool of wire to the launcher, and their operators used a to guide the weapons on target manually.
As the Israeli Patton tanks barreled onwards, Malyutkas began sailing towards them at a fast 380 feet per second, their shaped charge warheads easily blasting through armor despite their low velocity. Over 100 Israeli tanks were lost on the first day alone. Two days later, Egyptian signals intelligence intercepted plans for a counterattack by the 162nd Armored Divisions. General Hassan Abu Sa’ada orchestrated an ambush that knocked out 75 tanks in a matter of hours.
| Effective firing range | • Spike-SR: 50–1,500 (55–1,640 ) • Spike-MR: 200–2,500 m (220–2,730 yd) • Spike-LR: 200–4,000 m (220–4,370 yd) • Spike-LR II: 200–5,500 m (220–6,010 yd) • Spike-ER: 400–8,000 m (440–8,750 yd) • Spike-ER II: 400–10,000 m (440–10,940 yd) • Spike-NLOS: 600–25,000 m |
|---|
Or witness the Yemeni kill Abram tank in Yemen
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Turkish Leopard tank destroyed by ATGM
Cheap missiles can and often do make short, easy work of tanks. Nothing has changed only stubborn attitudes believe tanks are anything more than sitting ducks when facing a well equipped opponent. Seriously. It's not Blitzkrieg tactics era. Tanks are only useful now once you unquestionably rule the sky and land. They're there to quickly come down on surprise small scale attacks that somehow slipped through layers of space and aerial surveillance. Generals the world over have proven themselves to be stubborn, overly conservative tacticians who only adapt and respond after events. It's clear that modern MBTs are not to be used as some spearhead. This doens't mean they're always useless but the way people talk about MBTs should make people shake their heads.
The T-14 is the first tank to properly redesign the idea of the MBT in response to modern warfare. In doing so, it's allowed itself to sort of preserve that 20th century way of thinking about MBTs and how they can and should be used. The Russians learned well from Chechnya (hindsight you see!)... NATO armour slicing through T-72s with antiquated ammo only shows Rheinmetal beats 1970s Soviet armour. Big surprise.
The T-14 is the first tank to properly redesign the idea of the MBT in response to modern warfare. In doing so, it's allowed itself to sort of preserve that 20th century way of thinking about MBTs and how they can and should be used. The Russians learned well from Chechnya (hindsight you see!)... NATO armour slicing through T-72s with antiquated ammo only shows Rheinmetal beats 1970s Soviet armour. Big surprise.
The role of the current tank is heavily focused on maneuverability, compactness, flexibility, playing the role of a guard, clearing the battlefield and slaughtering enemy infantry. We do not throw hundreds and thousands of tanks into a battle like the ww2 era. The 1-1 match is also very rare.
The main threat to modern tanks is homemade explosive devices and ATGM. Thicker armor could not save M1 abram tank in the Middle East.
The task of dealing with enemy tanks is assigned to UAVs, helicopters ....
The main threat to modern tanks is homemade explosive devices and ATGM. Thicker armor could not save M1 abram tank in the Middle East.
The task of dealing with enemy tanks is assigned to UAVs, helicopters ....
"Blitzkrieg tactics" were born in 1930s - i. e. during the times when tanks were much, much more vulnerable than they're now.
Tanks are a thing not because they're invulnerable. Tanks are a thing because there is simply nothing better(or even close) for their role.
But armata family is clearly designed with that you call "armoured spearhead" in mind. So much so, that it's intended by design to directly mix IFVs in armoured formation.
The need to advance on land against enemy opposition, to maneuver within range of (and sometimes - through) enemy fires just doesn't go away.
This is exactly what I said. You need to read carefully. Or maybe I need to dumb down the language to your level.
IMO what you needed to do was writing more clearly. He did it, you didn't. Writing about the capability to use tanks in 21st century with 20th century doctrine doesn't make it clear that the doctrine involved is "armored spearhead".
All right, now that's out of the way, lets's stop posting off topic stuff. This is PRC Light tank thread, remember?