ZTQ-? Light Tank

Discussion in 'Army' started by by78, Mar 15, 2014.

  1. jobjed
    Online

    jobjed Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,913
    Likes Received:
    4,914
    They have the same thickness, both transitioning to cage armour as it gets to the autoloader bustle. The VT-5's turret armour also doesn't look like ERA. It appears more like modular composite armour blocks of the sort found on the turret fronts of 96As and 99s, whereas the ZTQ has an additional layer of ERA on top of the composites, which makes the ZTQ better protected. I don't see any disparity in the thickness of their side turret armour.
     
    Dfangsaur, Figaro, N00813 and 2 others like this.
  2. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    785
    Maybe I'm just not seeing it but VT-5 looks just as weak on the side compared to 99 series and ZTQ.
     
    N00813 likes this.
  3. Insignius
    Offline

    Insignius Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    806
    China will likely never be able to design a sensible turret geometry.

    Chinese tank designers seem to have some serious problem grasping with the idea that it is more sensible to hide behind a half-circular shaped wall of armor that protects far more from off-angle attacks, than it is to hide behind a block of armor that literally exposes the shoulders of the crew even when looking from the front. These sort of turret is so bad that you receive an easy penetration shot from any position that is not dead ahead. Because that's the basic problem for all Chinese tanks so far. China really needs to take a good look on the Russian example. Hell, even the Iranians understand this and their new T-90-styled tank has an incredibly well designed turret geometry that protects from off angle attacks up to 120 degrees (i.e. has the same LOS thickness of composite blocks even when shot at off angle).

    I dont know why it is so damn hard to understand, because it isnt. But it is getting frustrating.

    It cant be just because engine problems. Literally a T-72B has a better turret geometry.
     
    ougoah likes this.
  4. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    785
    Most shots received will be from dead ahead. Any tank against modern round is likely dead from other angles as well. Makes sense to save that weight. I refuse to believe these designers could be so insanely stupid for so many generations. There must be a reason and the likely reason is this. Chinese tanks will likely only ever face some of the strongest most updated modern western tanks in a tank on tank fight. Tank on gunship, gunship wins. Tank on infantry, possible top, bottom, side, back shot so dead anyway unless the army doesnt mind 70T tanks. Facing modern western tanks, any shot to the side is also dead. Therefore why not just reinforce the most likely to be hit section while keeping weight down. Keep in mind that while the Chinese tanks have abysmal armour everywhere except the dead on front, the front armour is sloping and is angled. Take a look from top views of factory tanks before wedge bracket is installed. So in some ways they are behind a armour shape that sort of "surrounds" them, albeit nowhere as convincingly as soviet designs. Abrams and challenger has similar turret geometry. It's just that they have 10 tonnes more armour and very advanced composite armour. Abrams were still very easily killed from the back, and side, also bottom until the developed ways around IEDs. Most of these kills were friendly fire but that still shows a well made round from a NATO 120mm L44 can easily penetrate M1 side armour. I doubt PLA can't do this with 125mm, higher muzzle velocity, higher chamber pressure... even if the sabots are slightly shorter. This means that in many cases against advanced enemies, extra side armour is dead weight. Against less capable foes, it certainly pays to have good all round armour though. I feel like PLA is custom building all its forces specifically against US equipment. Drones and gunships are overall more effective than tanks and more money should be spent there.
     
  5. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    398
    It will still help against infantry anti tank weapons, which are just as great a threat to a MBT as an opposing enemy MBT. Now I won't claim to know excatly how much side armor a MBT should have, but it should be at least enough to defeat that Gustav/ RPG-22 round that is coming from the side.
    That is important considering all modern armies in the world still field very capable hand held anti vehicle weapons.
     
    N00813 likes this.
  6. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    398
    talking about the ZTQ turret check angles vs the VT-5, there is still a shot trap that is formed. Kinetic penetrators still have a chance to bounce off the under side of the turret into the driver's compartment at a lucky angle (general tank designs leave the top parts of the vehicle relatively thin in comparison to the sides and rear).
     
  7. Insignius
    Offline

    Insignius Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    806
    Well, with future 4th gen tank and unmanned turret, this issue wont be existing any longer anyway. At least not in that form. The question then would be, how or if the turret will get armor at all. Either China goes the super lazy and cheap way like the XM8, just a remote controlled gun as a turret, or they would slap two blocks of armor on each side of the gun and call it a day. Actually, if they retain the carrousel autoloader in the hull, the 4th gen tank might even have a super tiny turret that requires no armor at all to minimize its size.
     
  8. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    785
    Yes you're right, ideally a tank should have enough all round protection against common infantry anti tank weapons. However this comes at a cost of weight and price. If PLA fights the same way as western armies against poorly armed rebels using guerrilla tactics from all directions then this is a must. However PLA has the most infantry and drone + gunship support. Their tanks sole purpose is to deliver those 125mm rounds to targets. Getting to those targets is of near equal importance. So in order; 1. Firepower - because if you cant destroy your targets effectively all the protection and mobility in the world means zero. 2. Mobility - if you can't get to the fight and stay in the fight, all the protection is worthless. 3. Protection - good for many cases the PLA will not be involved in. All round protection is a luxury they can forego when we consider the wider strategy employed.

    PLA is huge. Even if they fight offensively into another country's borders, they bring enormous weight. There will be few situations where rogue enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons will be on the side of or behind masses of PLA tanks. Funds for the military are mostly spent on developing hardware to catch up and surpass that of the west. This means naval and airforce related projects. Not much left for the army which is strong with or without tanks with heavy side armour that will still be penetrated by the likely opponents PLA will face.

    So having heavier side armour will not help firepower at all and will only reduce tank range, mobility, and limit areas they can fight in, roads they can travel on, and bridges they can travel through. On top of all this, there's just not enough money to spend on upgrading 96 and 99. A newer tank will likely use unmanned turret like the Russians.
     
  9. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    398
    There are several situations I can think off , one would be urban combat where tanks are funneled into narrow streets with ambushes. A second scenario is in difficult terrain, one such scenario would be Taiwan or North Korea with its mountainous terrain.
    Also almost all modern MBTs has little to no problem regarding mobility, there few little scenarios which a MBT with a 70kph can be expected not to reach in time.
     
  10. vincent
    Offline

    vincent Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Like most bridges. Look around you, how many bridges can handle 70 tons? One of the main reasons Arjun failed
     
    KIENCHIN likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page