ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks


dawn_strike

New Member
Registered Member
The problem with what you're suggesting is that ZTZ-99s and ZTQ-15s aren't likely going to be operating in the same terrain. The ZTQ-15 is a mountain tank designed for high-altitude operations, while the ZTZ-99 is a heavy MBT that's intended to take out Abrams. When you take the ZTZ-99, shouldn't it end up with the same problems as T-90s as engine power gets suffocated by the high altitude?

I can also accuse you of obsessing excessively over equipment designed to function as a system of systems.

The problem with system of systems is that they are easy to disrupt, for example, sufficient jamming power can ruin the synergy between various parts of the system of systems and take it down; consider how the Americans are aiming to counter the DF-21, for instance. They're not thinking simply about hard-killing the DF-21 with an interceptor missile, they're thinking about disrupting the entire kill chain, such as shooting down satellites so there's nothing available to guide it, or jamming it, using smoke, decoys, etc.

Ideally, you want your force to function as a system of systems. But in actual combat, against a non-trivial opponent, they will make attempts to disable your system of systems by isolating and eliminating vital support elements. For instance, SAMs can be used or Indian anti-tank missiles can be used to knock out WZ-10s, as most gun-launched ATGMs have either a primary or secondary role of countering helicopters. ATGM IFVs, likewise, are highly vulnerable to artillery as they're rarely well-armored. When that happens, the side arms should come out and your soldiers and equipment should still have options to continue fighting while attempting to withdraw.

It's like saying, infantry have difficulty wielding heavy ATGMs like the ones on gunships, so they should just rely on vehicle support to counter tanks. Instead, infantry usually have anti-tank teams utilizing top-attack ATGMs of some kind, even if their capabilities are reduced compared to heavy ATGMs emplaced on vehicles. It's not going to make them a hard counter to heavy MBTs, but it gives them some level of defensive capability if they can't get vehicle anti-tank support.
*Sigh*

If you did follow some PLA news you would have found that they indeed brought ZTZ99 to Tibet Plateau in June.

EVERY modern Chinese tank model must pass trails on Tibet Plateau. ZTQ15 having better plateau performance doesn't mean that ZTZ99 should have severe engine problems.

And also, if you cannot expect ZTZ99 to operate in the same terrain as ZTQ15, then why insist on the “ZTQ15 vs T90S” scenario? Given that the power/weight ratio of T90S is similar to (or lower than) ZTZ99/ZTZ99A, if ZTZ99 won't operate then neither will T90S.
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
It can be disabled and blown off by anti-infantry artillery shelling and so on.
Then why wasn't the tank itself disabled? Do you think any tank is good at protection against mass artillery blasts?
Likewise, an external ATGM mount would interfere with the placement of ERA on the tank.
There's no ERA on the sides so why not put it there? Seems like you're a bit looking for trivial reasons to support yourself, rather than thinking why your logic is problematic.
And with regard to your kill-chain vs system of systems thing, you have to remember, when it comes to a ZTQ-15, any attempt by a ZTQ-15 without a good ATGM to destroy a MBT is going to be a kill-chain business, as it has to cue another firing platform to do the destruction for it.
Oh, so you think ZTQ-15's informationalization disables it from efficiently calling fire support? I don't think the cue time exceeds the time of reaction of an ATGM in any sense, and meanwhile you can just try your best by poking the enemy tank with APFSDS as you call for support, so why waste that?
If things are NOT going according to plan, which is going to happen when you engage any competent opponent, then redundancies, and capabilities like I'm suggesting matter, because if your system of systems is disrupted, you want individual components to be versatile enough to adapt to the disrupted situation.
Alright, so tell me what's the chance do you think of things will not go according to plan? I told you to read the whole post if you've started reading it, so why didn't you read this bit?
Then strategically. In your assumption PLA has no air superiority, which given the potency of PLAAF and support fire from long range MLRS to destroy enemy airfields, is a highly impossible scenario. You can't just say "oh, there's a possibility that this thing doesn't work as good, so let's change the whole thing. "

That's the idea of going after a minor advantage (if not disadvantage) while abandoning the fact that it brings loss to the overall performance and causes redundancy. Yes, most possible scenarios don't include everything, but at least they're better approximations than taking only the extreme cases.
BTW, why only focus on explaining your ideas that have the least contradictions, while there are way more problems in your statement? What about the second major contradiction about the scenario you actually imagined? ^_^
The scenario itself is contradictory so why explain your other ideas while still assuming that the scenario would actually happen? If things are not going according to plan then neither will it turn out to be your scenario, thanks.

One more thing, do you think that your idea is simply a redundancy when it interferes negatively with the whole system, even though it might work (which sadly it doesn't) in your specific scenario? (which also is contradictory and would never happen)

Seems to me you're trying to evade your major logical mistakes and say that in other senses your idea works. But things don't work as you wish and the fact that the scenario is preposterous renders your idea useless. Sad.



And, in case you can't find out where your scenario contradicts, here's the mindmap again:IMG_20200714_152408.jpg
Oh, and one more contradiction as dawn_strike kindly mentioned, if enemy T-90s make it to the plateaus then why can't friendly 99As? Sure 99As have better survivability against artillery and air strikes, don't they?
 
Last edited:

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
@Deino could you please lock this thread for a while? Some of us need some time to cool their heads off from this comment slugfest.
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
@Deino could you please lock this thread for a while? Some of us need some time to cool their heads off from this comment slugfest.
I don't think anyone is overexcited. And I also don't think pointing out the logical fallacies of others in a reasonable tone is a violation of the site rules at all. As long as they can understand where their logic went wrong, as I pointed out, nobody would continue their arguments over the topic, would they?
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
I don't think anyone is overexcited. And I also don't think pointing out the logical fallacies of others in a reasonable tone is a violation of the site rules at all. As long as they can understand where their logic went wrong, as I pointed out, nobody would continue their arguments over the topic, would they?
He is talking about Inst.
 

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
Slight off-topic, but i guess it's the most perfect proof of efficiency of such vehicles: India looked at Chinese drills across the border, calculated pros and cons, and went for the same capability ASAP.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The deployment of new Type 15 light tanks by China along the LAC in eastern Ladakh in late April has come as a wakeup call.
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
Slight off-topic, but i guess it's the most perfect proof of efficiency of such vehicles: India looked at Chinese drills across the border, calculated pros and cons, and went for the same capability ASAP.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Here is the problem— no other country other than China and India has the requirement for a light tank that can operate at 4000 meter altitude! This is why it is important to have local R&D capabilities.

 

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
*Sigh*

If you did follow some PLA news you would have found that they indeed brought ZTZ99 to Tibet Plateau in June.

EVERY modern Chinese tank model must pass trails on Tibet Plateau. ZTQ15 having better plateau performance doesn't mean that ZTZ99 should have severe engine problems.

And also, if you cannot expect ZTZ99 to operate in the same terrain as ZTQ15, then why insist on the “ZTQ15 vs T90S” scenario? Given that the power/weight ratio of T90S is similar to (or lower than) ZTZ99/ZTZ99A, if ZTZ99 won't operate then neither will T90S.
Any tank can be upgraded to operate in a low oxygen environment by adding a turbocharger. I assume tibet is fairly mountainous terrain with poor infrastructure which makes it more difficult to operate large MBT like the T-90 or ZTZ99. Hence why India is also scrambling to buy light tanks as well.
 

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
Off-topic, but given the mountainous terrain in tibet, China should focus on deploying more ATGM. Due to the low profile turret of the T-90 it is meant for tank on tank battle in the plains of europe, not in mountainous area or urban area, because it has limited gun depression. Properly deployed infantry with ATGMs would be much more dangerous for the T-90. Just look at the russian experience in Chechnya and Syria.
 

SteelBird

Major
Here is the problem— no other country other than China and India has the requirement for a light tank that can operate at 4000 meter altitude! This is why it is important to have local R&D capabilities.

The retired officer has suggested that light tanks would add to the credible deterrence posture and war-fighting capability on the northern front where medium-category tanks cannot reach. He has also suggested that these new tanks be made in India.
copied from the article... does he mean another 30 years?
 

Top