So the Chinese are quite aware of the short-comings of the ZTQ-15 as anything more than an infantry support tank when they say the main gun can penetrate 2nd generation tanks, implying that it can't penetrate 3rd generation tanks.
I'm quite curious of how you implied that... Doesn't an M1A1 sound like a 3rd gen tank to you? Hmmm....
Aside from the weaknesses of the 105mm and the lack of stated gun-launched ATGM
Yes there is. And it can also be used for not only anti-ground but also anti-air. Plus we have HJ-10 that can also do these jobs at a longer range.
there's also a lack of APS which will impact survivability despite the presence of modular armor.
Explained.
Oh hey, here's a source claiming that the VT-5 (export version) includes a gun-launched anti-tank missile.
Then why don't you think the type 15 can't use it? Same gun after all (lol). BTW PLA has ATGMs for 100 smoothbores and all 105 and 125 guns, (and guided ammunition for 155s) why do you think 15 can't use that? (smirk) Also the 105 firepower system is equipped with the same 5 types of ammo the 125 system has, (aka AP, HEAT, HE, Anti-fortification, and ATGM) the firepower system of PLA tanks is much more diverse than you thought.
So the VT5 is slated to get an APS, as well as a gun-launched anti-tank missile. No news on whether these upgrades would make it back to the ZTQ-15, though.
What makes you think it's a reverse upgrade?
Just a funny idea, since high altitude lack the density of oxygen which makes diesel engines hard to work, why not invite Tesla or Nio to design an all electric tank?
Not developed enough yet. Yes we are testing on vehicles with full electric transmissions, but full electric tanks are just a bit out of reach. (imagine the immense amount of electricity you need to pump from the battery sets to the motor every second, tanks have no such space for such a volume of batteries. And the motor has to be very efficient and has very high power values, a bit hard to achieve.) BTW Tesla and Nio design and manufacture household cars, they have literally no experience when it comes to vehicles of over 1khp and 30 tons, researchers of 201 are more experienced in that lol.
VT4's unit price of about 3 million
Nope. Roughly $5M just like the 99A.
For a comparison benchmark, by the way, consider the Japanese Type 10 MBT
That tank was never designed for plateau battles, the overall ground system is also less efficient than PLA's. Instead it was because of the restrictions of Japanese infrastructure, and works best in that area.
amphibious landing or amphibious reinforcement
Then why don't use amphibious assault vehicles like the ZBD-05 series? You certainly can't drive the landing vessels onto shore, right? What about shoreline firepower? Or is Type 15 capable of amphibious battle? Hmm? Nobody know about that lol.
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.
First don't
compare 15 with MBTs because it does
NOT belong to the genre. Second GL5 is not good enough for PLAGF so just forget it.
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.
Yep. PLA 4th gen tank will use ETCG so why worry about it on 15 when the 4th gen is around the corner? Also the plasma artillery you referred to has nothing to do with ETCG. It's MPAG (Magnetized Plasma Assisted Gun) and uses a completely different principle with ETCG, and the two can be used at the same time. Well, about 105 ETCG, according to chief designer of type 15 李春明 we now have full confidence to say that we can make it as potent as how 125 guns can be, not to say 120 guns of regional competitors... Meanwhile, PLAGF is still not satisfied with the results, so you guys just wait and see lol.
For Indian tanks like the T-90S on plateaus, the environment actually already does plenty of help by lowering the engine powers by roughly a quarter (Actually not as effective as many had thought) and more importantly, lowering long-term fighting capacity with hypoxia.
For targets of higher value on very long ranges, PCL191 can erase targets on a range of 400+km (lower air friction due to lower atmospheric pressure taken into account) and scouting using Beidou and stealth drones, but I seriously doubt if we really need such a range (nearly to New Delhi lol).
For armored arrays on shorter (not short at all lol) ranges, just use salvos of 155 ammo from PCL181 or PLZ05A if you like, extending ranges to ～50km. If the target is valued enough, we can even use terminal sensitive projectiles/guided projectiles like the GP155 (A/B/G) (after all PLA has a complete set of firing tables to refer to on the plateaus, while the Indian Army lacks partially).
For heavily armored tanks (which I really doubt can survive the first blow of artillery, but if the PLA wants to save some money on smart ammo then probably would be of use lol) we can use top-attack HJ-10s, with a max range of 10km, while in the meantime can do some anti-air work with the missile. Both of the former two firepowers can use drones for reconnaissance and impact inspection.
At a range of ～15+km, 15's indirect-aim and fire capabilities can be of use, and offering firepower with HE shells. (APFSDS can't be used for curved impact) (however 105 tank HEs are not as good as 125HEs not to say 155HE so it's not as effective in anti tank, but it can still help clear enemy artillery bases and light armored vehicle formations with a much lower price and even higher efficiency and reaction speed than 155 SPHs).
Down to 5km, 15's ATGMs can be of use. But by this time there's actually not many tanks to wipe out. Down to under 4km, 15's high accuracy APFSDS can be used to effectively clear ambushing enemy tanks or formations previously within the blindspots of artillery and missiles.
So just look at how many tanks 15 actually has to fight, and learn how systematic battle really works in PLA.
Oh and BTW PCL181 (probably with PLZ05A) can execute rapid-response direct-aim static-to-moving shooting, which can clearly be used for anti-tank.
15's jobs at this range are actually more like destroying heavily fortified firepower points, as CCTV had mentioned "can penetrate 1.5m of steel-concrete". Anti tank are actually partially integrated into mobile assault for 15.
Last, I'm gonna put a bit of "ground
mobile assault firepower analysis" in PLA's eyes:
a. The vehicles analyzed include
tanks and IFVs;
b. The environments analyzed must
at least include Cold plateau regions, jungld mountainous regions, and cities and towns;
c. The targets analyzed must
at least include tanks and armoured vehicles,
ground buildings and fortifications, and enemy effective forces like infantry;
d. Firepowers include vehicle mounted guns and secondary weapons, tactics of use include
direct-aim and indirect-aim;
e. Formational firepower tactics include concentrated fire and divisional fire.
Broke the two posts down cause it exceeded the word count limit (lolololol). Sorry.
