ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

jobjed

Captain
New ZTQ photo I think ...

The number plate implies this occurred at Xiangtan although there's a slight possibility that was a non-local car.

Assuming it was Xiangtan though, we can conclude that the ZTQ belongs to the former-41st GA, or current 75th which would make it the second confirmed unit to be outfitted with the ZTQ after the Tibetan unit spotted earlier this year.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
convoy of ZTQ 15 light tank

15式軽戦車

DV4xjMzU0AAaWej.jpg


DV4xjM0U8AAdnVP.jpg

DV4xjM1VwAEPhbz.jpg
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Looks nothing like VT-5. I thought PLA will be getting their version (non-export) of VT-5 and the one in the photo is the model that wasn't selected? Looks far better and more well protected than VT-5 though.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Looks nothing like VT-5. I thought PLA will be getting their version (non-export) of VT-5 and the one in the photo is the model that wasn't selected? Looks far better and more well protected than VT-5 though.

Far better and more well-protected? Are you sure?

24024260349_e6ab33eebb_o.png
VS
DHQ2KMzV0AMGXII.jpg

I've stated this and I'll state this again: the VT-5 design seems like a perfect design that could be scaled-up to a full-sized MBT (at least externally speaking). This is probably the first "modern"-looking tank that the Chinese have produced at this point.
 

jobjed

Captain
Far better and more well-protected? Are you sure?

I've stated this and I'll state this again: the VT-5 design seems like a perfect design that could be scaled-up to a full-sized MBT (at least externally speaking). This is probably the first "modern"-looking tank that the Chinese have produced at this point.

Can you list the core technologies that you think the VT-5 have but the ZTQ do not?
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Can you list the core technologies that you think the VT-5 have but the ZTQ do not?

Was referring to the overall turret design & armor layout, not the internal technologies. The VT-5 features better all-aspect protection, especially at the cheeks, than the ZTQ-15 although the latter has improved a lot compared to the ZTZ99 series.
 

jobjed

Captain
Was referring to the overall turret design & armor layout, not the internal technologies. The VT-5 features better all-aspect protection, especially at the cheeks, than the ZTQ-15 although the latter has improved a lot compared to the ZTZ99 series.

Could you point out in the pictures how the VT-5's "all-aspect" protection is better than the ZTQ?

Side skirts don't count.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Um. I did say it looks far better protected. Implying I don't know for sure. Now reason I say this is because it uses the same ztz-99/ leopard 2a5+ wedge add on that supports some form of reactive armour. This is easy and cheaper to replace than fixing up the entire section of armour damaged by anti-tank munitions. Underneath this wedge bracket (this means it is not a shot trap unlike what some actual idiots think) lies the armour that contains the plates of ceramic etc. We've all seen the cross sections and diagrams. Chobham and Dorchester is ancient technology that everyone now has at least caught up on if not exceeded. Whenever an Abrams is severely damaged, the vehicle is mission killed and requires the entire front section to be replaced which is exceptionally difficult and costly even for superficial damage. Having a modular design like Leopard 2a5+, Leclerc, T-80x, T-84x, T-90x, and Type 96x/99x is FAR superior to Challenger 2 and Abrams approach to armour. For the same weight at least. Of course this is only referring to head on frontal arc. Chinese tanks have been quite weak in the angled frontal arc and abysmal pretty much everywhere else but the decision to do this is to focus all the weight of armour of statistically most likely place to get hit while keeping that section as tough if not tougher than the hardiest tanks and still keeping weight down. Now this ZTQ approach I think looks better than VT-5's which follows the ancient Abrams/ Challenger method. At least seems to. I haven't looked into VT-5.

What makes you think VT-5 is the perfect design for scaling up? What makes it "modern" looking? Russian method of improving protection while keeping weight down (much much MUCH more important that protection) is actually the more modern solution. Abrams, VT-5 etc are not much different to cold war era solutions albeit with far more sophisticated materials. Sophisticated materials is NOT limited to using this method of turret design.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Could you point out in the pictures how the VT-5's "all-aspect" protection is better than the ZTQ?

Side skirts don't count.

Take a look at the side cheek armor; the VT-5 has a thick layer of armor all around the front and sides while the ZTQ-15's ERA abruptly stops right as the front transitions to the sides. Again this is a reflection of the flaws found on the ZTZ99 series.
 
Top