D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Yeah well China is not fielding a 70 ton plus MBT as of now right ? And any nation capable of fielding a tank of that weight is most likely going to have the appropriate bridge laying capabilities as well.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
Modern kinetic penetrators don't bounce, they shatter. There's no shot trap with the ZTQ's turret design unless they're facing WW2 AP ammo in which case modern top armour can handle it with ease.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).
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Even if modern kinetic penetrators are expected to shatter every single time they are deflected (which is a wildly optimistic number by any stretch of imagination) we are still talking about good sized chunks of metal flying at near mach 2 speeds into the top of the driver's compartment, which is thinly armored for obvious reasons.Modern kinetic penetrators don't bounce, they shatter. There's no shot trap with the ZTQ's turret design unless they're facing WW2 AP ammo in which case modern top armour can handle it with ease.
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.
But that's just it. Merkava 3s and 4s were easily defeated by poorly trained and armed rebels. Abrams have been destroyed in these situations. Leclercs. T-80s. T-72s. You name it, it's been destroyed when funneled into narrow streets. Heavier side armour won't help PLA significantly enough to justify the costs. If they need to fight in such conditions, PLA will 100% only use infantry, some armoured vehicles that target infantry, drones, andd gunships. Why would anyone ever blunder and use MBTs and let them get stuck once a few in the front and rear get knocked out. History has been littered with these blunders and lessons. PLA is not dumb enough to employ these tanks. This is why they developed VT-5 and ZTQ I think. Because once they mount GL-5 APS, they can protect against the majority threat of missiles and rockets from soldiers, gunships, and drones. That makes these light tanks much much more mobile, manouverable, and better ranged than the type 96s and 99s that would be just as weak in these battlefield situations. And this is IFF they even bother with tanks and need tanks for urban fighting. On top of this, light tanks are massively useful in Asia. This is why Japan went with a 40-50 tonne Type 10 and Korea still uses K1a1 and K2 is only mid 50 tonnes.
Also that wedge shape IS NOT a shot trap. Hard to explain but rest assured they are not shot traps. That is not solid armour. It's just a bracket to hold up ERA. If a sabot round penetrates the bottom half and ERA detonates, it will only shatter the round and take a fraction of its energy. Not enough to stop it or send it downwards entirely. If it did, there'd be no point for any more serious heavy armour below this layer. The main armour is shaped like Abrams, Challenger series, creating thicker armour through its sloping geometry - 100% +ve gradient rather than wedge shaped. Modern rounds rarely deflect and even if it does, it gets deflected upwards as normal force exerted by armour plates onto round pushes the round through the top. This is THE BEST current method of protecting a tank (not counting going totally unmanned turret but that's another question). The reason PLA adopted this wedge shape is because they understood what Leopard 2a5+ designers were doing. The bottom slope is all for driver consideration and space. A round hitting the bottom half will have exactly the same overall penetrative effect as a round going through the top of wedge. Why did Indians also use this design with Arjun MK2? Russians with T-90MS, and every single Leopard tank after and including 2a5 model? Are these guys all dumb? They don't understand the concept of normal forces, simple geometry and shot traps?
Last edited:
Even if modern kinetic penetrators are expected to shatter every single time they are deflected (which is a wildly optimistic number by any stretch of imagination)
What is that supposed to mean?
They shatter every single time they're deflected because that's how physics works. There is no doubt about that phenomenon. If a kinetic penetrator fails to shatter upon an abrupt change in its trajectory, congratulations, you broke physics.
we are still talking about good sized chunks of metal flying at near mach 2 speeds into the top of the driver's compartment, which is thinly armored for obvious reasons.
So what? After shattering, the sabot pieces no longer possess the perfect combination of speed, mass, and shape to penetrate even the thin top armour. It'll scratch the paint, sure, but no one cares about paint in wartime.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
What is that supposed to mean?
They shatter every single time they're deflected because that's how physics works. There is no doubt about that phenomenon. If a kinetic penetrator fails to shatter upon an abrupt change in its trajectory, congratulations, you broke physics.
So what? After shattering, the sabot pieces no longer possess the perfect combination of speed, mass, and shape to penetrate even the thin top armour. It'll scratch the paint, sure, but no one cares about paint in wartime.
We must also take into account that the rules of physics also have abide by other calculations like the angle of fire among others. It works fine in a vaccume, but reality tends have alot of unknown factors.
We must also take into account that the rules of physics also have abide by other calculations like the angle of fire among others. It works fine in a vaccume, but reality tends have alot of unknown factors.
If you're firing from below the tank, you're getting run over so the point is moot. If you're firing from above the tank, just aim at the roof armour, why fire at the turret front at a weird angle?
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
But that's just it. Merkava 3s and 4s were easily defeated by poorly trained and armed rebels. Abrams have been destroyed in these situations. Leclercs. T-80s. T-72s. You name it, it's been destroyed when funneled into narrow streets. Heavier side armour won't help PLA significantly enough to justify the costs. If they need to fight in such conditions, PLA will 100% only use infantry, some armoured vehicles that target infantry, drones, andd gunships. Why would anyone ever blunder and use MBTs and let them get stuck once a few in the front and rear get knocked out. History has been littered with these blunders and lessons. PLA is not dumb enough to employ these tanks. This is why they developed VT-5 and ZTQ I think. Because once they mount GL-5 APS, they can protect against the majority threat of missiles and rockets from soldiers, gunships, and drones. That makes these light tanks much much more mobile, manouverable, and better ranged than the type 96s and 99s that would be just as weak in these battlefields.
Also that wedge shape IS NOT a shot trap. Hard to explain but rest assured they are not shot traps. That is not solid armour. It's just a bracket to hold up ERA. If a sabot round penetrates the bottom half and ERA detonates, it will only shatter the round and take a fraction of its energy. Not enough to stop it or send it downwards entirely. If it did, there'd be no point for any more serious heavy armour below this layer. The main armour is shaped like Abrams, Challenger series, creating thicker armour through geometry. Modern rounds rarely deflect and even if it does, it gets deflected upwards as normal force exerted by armour plates onto round pushes the round through the top. This is THE BEST current method of protecting a tank (not counting going totally unmanned turret but that's another question).
But it also does not justify sending in lightly armored vehicles like Strykers that will definitely not stand against even modest anti tank weaponry. Even dedicated light tanks are somewhat doubtful if the enemy can bring even second gen tanks to the fight like a T-72.
APS do not render anti tank missiles obsolete, they merely change the rules of engagement. Dummy warheads, faster and stronger missiles and volley launches are all possible counters to APS.
While it is true that the MBT is no longer the main deciding factor on the battlefield, it still has a role that no other armored vehicle can satisfactory fulfill, as an armored spearhead which can at least take a few hits and still carry on .
I won't say that the PLA is dumb in this regard, but rather they like the rest of the world has not yet figure out an alternative to the situation. Like it or not, we will still see MBT deployed in urban settings. The best the PLA can do would be to amply support them with infantry to screen their flanks where they can.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
It does not necessary has to be those 2 situations that you prescribe, even a slight degree of elevation or depression can translate into an significant degree if distance is also taken into account. With most weapons that uses kinetic penetrators having ranges of more than 4-6 km that is a significant factor to consider.If you're firing from below the tank, you're getting run over so the point is moot. If you're firing from above the tank, just aim at the roof armour, why fire at the turret front at a weird angle?
It does not necessary has to be those 2 situations that you prescribe, even a slight degree of elevation or depression can translate into an significant degree if distance is also taken into account. With most weapons that uses kinetic penetrators having ranges of more than 4-6 km that is a significant factor to consider.
What are you even talking about? Go on Microsoft paint and draw what your concerns actually are.