ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

Yep from the 1990s the new benchmarks came around. Soviet T-72 and T-80 enjoyed getting to 3rd gen before German and American tanks properly set foot into the 3rd gen. Challenger 1 however was there the whole time.

On topic, if 220mm RHA penetration @66.42°, achieved at 2km translates roughly to 342.26mm RHA @0°, 2km, that's pretty useless against modern 3rd gen MBTs. At least at any significant range. Guess Richard is right, Type 15 isn't for anti-tanking and its APFSDS won't be good enough to take out modern MBTs. Maybe a gun launched ATGM can fare better but I guess the ZTQ-15 is built for more than hunting T-90s that aren't there. I was just hoping it could duel it out with T-90 if it ever somehow came to a 1 vs 1 showdown. Why the PDF poster mentioned 550mm RHA penetration?!

ougoah said:

On topic, if 220mm RHA penetration @66.42°, achieved at 2km translates roughly to 342.26mm RHA @0°, 2km, that's pretty useless against modern 3rd gen MBTs. At least at any significant range.

Click to expand...

Well, engaging MBTs head on on light tanks is a flawed idea to begin with.
But they nevertheless are going to be one of the best anti tank assets available to the officer in charge.
If their diesels are specifically set/charged for those altitudes, we're talking at potentially >x2 difference in available p:w ratio, on top of massive superiority in situational awareness.

P. S. but 220 sounds far too low indeed.

Gloire_bb said:

Well, engaging MBTs head on on light tanks is a flawed idea to begin with.
But they nevertheless are going to be one of the best anti tank assets available to the officer in charge.
If their diesels are specifically set/charged for those altitudes, we're talking at potentially >x2 difference in available p:w ratio, on top of massive superiority in situational awareness.

P. S. but 220 sounds far too low indeed.

Click to expand...

Artillery pieces, WZ-10s, drones, HJ-10, HJ-12. All of those would be better anti-tank assets than Type 15. There's a chance Type 15 can flank other tanks in the absence of those more suitable equipment. ZTQ-15 has roughly 28hp/t for fully loaded. It probably also suffers a bit from lower atmopheric pressure and air density. Maybe not as much as the estimated 20% loss in power compared to other vehicles but that's still not going to be twice the hp/t compared to something like a T-90 (23hp/t reduced by 20% =~ 18hp/t). I get it, none of this really matters and the T-90 won't even be able to get there even if the IA decides to deploy it in Ladakh.

Situation awareness will be air ground data links not down to the tank itself so in this field I'd say PLA is going to reign supreme over the Indian army. Not just when it comes to tanks but overall C4ISR between every asset deployed on the ground and in the air. Even then ZTQ-15 is equipped with more impressive sets of optics. T-90S does not feature full hunter killer just like the Type 96.

According to most random online suggestions, the M829A2/A3 is capable of penetrating between 500mm and 800mm of RHA @2km with 60 degrees off the horizontal so the 105mm's isn't even half that. Does sound far too low and for such a long round. Since these NATO kinetic penetrators are designed to defeat modern ERA equipped Russian tanks with about 700mm of frontal armour (again pure guesses and online suggestions), the penetration figures are probably based on the "known" Russian armour equivalents. Anyway All this makes the 220mm @2km and 60 degrees, really poor indeed.

Basically, given the ZTQ-15's light weight, it will never be a "preferred' anti-tank platform. The only point of giving it anti-tank weapons is the same as giving infantry a RPG-9; they won't be able to penetrate 3rd gen or above MBTs, but they'll have a way to fire back and if there's a sufficient numerical disparity the 3rd gen MBT will go down.

The alternate, with the ZTQ-15, is that it just gets hosed the moment it meets another tank. So a good, modern ATGM would allow the ZTQ-15 to at least fight back, and in a worst case scenario, overwhelm the opponent by weight of numbers, similar to how T-34s knocked out Tiger Is; by coming at them in sufficient numbers to hit the side armor.

By adding a good top-attack ATGM, it allows the ZTQ-15 to increase the flexibility of Chinese commanders by giving them more options than the long kill-chain of "ZTQ-15 spots, ZTQ-15 calls in a support hit from an IFV carrying an anti-tank missile or a helicopter carrying an anti-tank missile".

Inst said:

Basically, given the ZTQ-15's light weight, it will never be a "preferred' anti-tank platform. The only point of giving it anti-tank weapons is the same as giving infantry a RPG-9; they won't be able to penetrate 3rd gen or above MBTs, but they'll have a way to fire back and if there's a sufficient numerical disparity the 3rd gen MBT will go down.

The alternate, with the ZTQ-15, is that it just gets hosed the moment it meets another tank. So a good, modern ATGM would allow the ZTQ-15 to at least fight back, and in a worst case scenario, overwhelm the opponent by weight of numbers, similar to how T-34s knocked out Tiger Is; by coming at them in sufficient numbers to hit the side armor.

By adding a good top-attack ATGM, it allows the ZTQ-15 to increase the flexibility of Chinese commanders by giving them more options than the long kill-chain of "ZTQ-15 spots, ZTQ-15 calls in a support hit from an IFV carrying an anti-tank missile or a helicopter carrying an anti-tank missile".

Click to expand...

But but VT5 or Type 15 can fired gun launched anti tank missile


I assume it is copy of Russian Reflex missile

Hendrik_2000 said:

But but VT5 or Type 15 can fired gun launched anti tank missile

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Armament

The main armament of the VT5 / Type 15 or ZTQ-15 consists of one 105 mm rifled gun with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor which has a maximum firing range of 3,000m. The main armament also includes an automatic loading system. The empty cartridge cases are ejected via a small hatch located at the rear of the turret. The VT5 carried a total of 38 rounds of 105mm ammunition which can include Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS), High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT), High Explosive (HE), and gun-launched anti-tank guided missile. The missile has a maximum range of 5,000m and is fitted with a tandem HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) warhead able to destroy armoured or tanks protected with reactive armour (ERA). The second armament of the VT5 includes one remotely operated weapon station mounted on the roof of the turret which is armed with a 12.7mm machine gun and one 40mm automatic grenade launcher. Two banks of three electrically operated smoke-grenade dischargers are mounted on each side at the rear of the turret and coupled to a laser detector. The turret is fully stabilized to offer high accuracy against static and moving targets.

I assume it is copy of Russian Reflex missile

Click to expand...

Indeed. I believe all Chinese Gun launched missiles are Laser beam riding ATGM which is usually direct attack only. On a side note, is there any gun launched missile that has top attack capability? IRRC Israeli LAHAT does have top attack capability, but don't quote me on that.

Inst said:

a good, modern ATGM would allow the ZTQ-15 to at least fight back, and in a worst case scenario

Click to expand...

105mm ATGM will never match 105mm full power dart in AT role, top attack/fire and forget or not.
At best it can give it some useful additional capability.

Gloire_bb said:

105mm ATGM will never match 105mm full power dart in AT role, top attack/fire and forget or not.
At best it can give it some useful additional capability.

Click to expand...

I have to say I disagree with that evaluation. Top attack capability means the missile can attack from one of the weakest part of the tank, its top armor. Compared to APFSDS that literally relies on brute force, I think targeting your enemy at their weakest instead of their strongest is a good idea. The only thing that APFSDS might be superior at would be the speed of the round to target, but it also has a shorter effective range than ATGM. If anything, we'll need to see how much APS swing the favor between the two.

dankris said:

Top attack capability means the missile can attack from one of the weakest part of the tank, its top armor.

Click to expand...

Yep, but there are several problems.
1, better half of Soviet/Russian MBT's target profile is inaccessible: it's either its main armor, is reinforced roof covered by ERA, or both.
Divers suffer from this more, true top attackers(with influence fuzes) - less, but fact remains.
Western tanks are more vulnerable in principle, but they recently also tend to have heavy horizontal protection over their fighting compartment, so in fact are probably even harder targets to kill.
Much of remaining weak surface is engine deck: bad thing for sure, sure, but it's only a mobility kill.

2, it's fundamentally simpler to defend against HEAT, especially weak one. 105mm GLATGM is almost bound to be weak. Heavy ATGMs(6"+) can solve it through brute force, sure, but in the end - simple uranium/tungsten rod at hypersonic speed is simply very hard to stop.
And GLATGM is almost bound to be weaker than even comparable tube-launched missiles, due to need for thicker walls(HEAT penetration mostly depends on diameter of the cone) and autoloader restrictions.

3, tank is longitudinal target, the most effective way to reach something is to make horizontal shots. Pure geometry.

4, tactically, individual targets, their formations and supporting units can respond to missile attacks if they spot them in time; even in case of success, follow-on attacks can and will be countered, significantly negating their effect. So if you catch enemy in a situation where he's blind and exposed - strike hard. Few very weak ATGMs is a good way to expose your tactical advantage to the enemy for minimal gain.
There is, however, no way to respond to the dart, it either kills you or not. And the follow on shots will come right after.

dankris said:

Indeed. I believe all Chinese Gun launched missiles are Laser beam riding ATGM which is usually direct attack only. On a side note, is there any gun launched missile that has top attack capability? IRRC Israeli LAHAT does have top attack capability, but don't quote me on that.

Click to expand...

But the newer ATGM are tandem warhead with smaller plasma jet to detonate the reactive armor follow by much larger jet plasma to puncture the tank hull