ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

usaf0314 said:

maybe its just me, but the tank looks like someone dropped a 21st century turret onto a Cold War era chassis

Click to expand...

postmanishere said:

well, the chassis is actually brand new, new suspension,new propulsion,new chassis design and every thing....
rumor has it the main problem of the new lt is its firepower(or lacking of it),PLA want it can effectively deal T72s and exported T90s in the front at about 1.5KM range....which can be done with phase3 105mm apfsds,however the phase3 105 project was shelved due to high difficulty to manufacture the new round....so LT has only phase2 105mm round to use...rumor says phase3 round can pen circa 550MM RHA @1500M,but the phase2 can pen 550mmRHA@1000m....
compares to 125mm used in 99As,which even with a late-90s round can pen 550@2000M,the LT is woefully under-gunned

as to its protection....with heavy modular armor attached,it has a acceptable chance when facing early 3-gen apfsds ammo(mainly early 3-gen 125mm ammo developed by the soviets in late 70s,which is still in large use in military like india and vietnam),but not anything better....however it has good protection against heat base ammo,the modular composite armor combine active self defense system(hard-kill and soft-kill) can work like a charm when facing HEAT ammo...

Click to expand...

Lezt said:

Thats missing the point, No light tank can take on a main battle tank of the same era and expect to come out on top.

Pound for pound, it is just too light; it is pointless to judge it by seeing how it would fare against MBTs, even that of the last generation. A light tanks armor would make it vulnerable to MBT fire well out of effective return fire range of any MBT

I don't know why you would think that armour would be acceptable against 70s soviet rounds, those APFSDS can do 300-400 mm RHAe at 2000 km. the HEAT can do ~500mm RHA

Click to expand...

Lezt said:

Thats missing the point, No light tank can take on a main battle tank of the same era and expect to come out on top.

Pound for pound, it is just too light; it is pointless to judge it by seeing how it would fare against MBTs, even that of the last generation. A light tanks armor would make it vulnerable to MBT fire well out of effective return fire range of any MBT

I don't know why you would think that armour would be acceptable against 70s soviet rounds, those APFSDS can do 300-400 mm RHAe at 2000 km. the HEAT can do ~500mm RHA

Click to expand...

PanAsian said:

Since infantry anti-tank weapons (which can also be installed on soft skinned vehicles) can just as easily defeat a light tank's armor as an IFV's, why is China bothering to build a light tank with a gun that may just as well be put on top of an IFV chassis?

Click to expand...

postmanishere said:

well, although we call it a light tank,it is actually a light MBT .....not your traditional light tank....think of it more like the new japanese type 10
it is required(design purpose) to effectively take on early 3-gen MBT,like t72s....
the new lt weighs about circa 35tons,almost the same as the old 59s...
about the armor, @2000m, its turret(with heavy modular armour)suppose to have decent protection against old soviet rounds....

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Well... There was one case... Although it was a medium tank. The Sherman tank of WW2 was a lightweight compared to the monstrosities coming from Germany and Russia. Most of the second world war... Well they nicknamed them after a cigarette lighter Ronson who's motto was lights on the first strike. Against the German Tiger tanks going into battle was normally considered a act of suicide. Except near the end of the war there was a change the British took out the anemic 75mm and swapped in a 76mm gun this new gun packed a much better punch and killed Germany's top tank ace in a Tiger2. So a lightweight with a proper gun can take a heavyweight.

Fire support. If its a light tank and not a attempt at a t10 clone (which I doubt) then the aim is fire support. As to why not on a IFV chassis? Mobile gun systems like the Stryker MGS have the worst of both worlds. They tend to be very very tall making them harder to transport normally end up becoming way to top heavy, automated turrets limit defence options the mechanics of the turret eat up protection and space for equipment (Like Air conditioning) they tend to be heavier then there supposed to be and just awkward.

Click to expand...

Lezt said:

Where do you get the design purpose to effectively deal with 3rd generation tanks like the T72?

Why would heavy modular armor make the turret have decent protection? it is still 35 tonnes which means there is very well limit on how much armor is carried.

Even if it is the latest Chobham ceramic armor, or even soviet silica based variants, resistance to KE rounds would not be that much better than RHA, even against CE rounds, you are looking at maybe 1.6X RHA of the same thickness. how thick do you think the armor is? 300 mm RHAe? I cannot see this tank having that thick of armor. The T55 or Type 59 at 39 tonne you used as a comparison, have 205mm RHA base on the turret, and an additional spaced BDD "brow" armor gave it 380 mm RHAe vs KE and 450mm RHAe vs CE.

If your intended comparison is the T72, then you are looking at the turret with Indian T72M1 with 280mm thick armor, estimated 420mm RHAe against KE and 490mm Vs CE. Now, India also field ERA on their T72, both the Kontakt 1 and the Kontakt 5; the latter brings armor protection against KE to around 800 RHAe and CE to around 1200mm RHAe...

Gunwise, the 2A46 125mm:

1968 3BM12 have 280mm RHAe penetration @ 2000m
1972 3BM15 have 310mm RHAe penetration @ 2000m
1976 3BM22 have 380mm RHAe penetration @ 2000m

Even 2A20 115mm found on older tanks:
1960s BM-3 have 300mm RHAe penetration @ 2000m (tungsten carbide)
1962 BM-6 have 246mm RHAe penetration @ 2000m (steel)
1970s BM21 have 330mm RHAe penetration @ 2000m (DU)

From tank net,
Chinese Type-86 105mm DU 460mm(from "short" 105)/480mm(from "long" 105) at 2km
Chinese Type-93 105mm DU 510mm("short")/540mm("long") at 2km
Chinese Type-95 105mm DU 580mm at 2km (from "long" Type-83A 105mm)

i.e. unless the T72 cannot acquire target at 2 km, then the "Light MBT" will still be vulnerable; thats before considering that the T72 operators will likely be fielding standard current export rounds capable of 550-600mm RHAe penetration.



TE, I don't think that there are any guarantees in competition and war; there are anecdotal evidence that under equiped troops can take out better armed ones, yes, a banzai charge would work some times, but it is unreliable in war.

The final form of the sherman is 30 tonnes, it is not a light tank in comparison to other medium tanks of the era, like the T34 at 26 tonnes, and the Panzer IV at 25 tonnes.

I think generally, people will feel safer when they sit in a heavier armored tank with a bigger gun than the one shooting at you.

Click to expand...

postmanishere said:

in terms of defence,look at this pic
View attachment 10303
yep.....the turret of the new lt is basically the same size as 96As....it trades hull protection for turret protection,this why i has decent chance,priority protection,considering its combat environment....
as to fire power,man your info on chinese AP ammo needs to be updated,PLA does not use DU rounds.....they developed some in the 80s and 90s ,but never put them into service....tungsten, that's their thing.
and why you object the notion of a light MBT so much, the new lt is pretty much a chinese version of japenese type10(type10 has 120mmgun and weighs circa 42-44ton) with a 105 gun...
as to firepower,PLA does not use DU round in service...they use tungsten round.
see this article below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

随着我国第三代坦克研制项目的启动，与之配套的125毫米口径坦克炮及配套弹药的研制工作于1985年底开始进行，为了稳妥起见，研制过程分为两步进行，第一步，坦克炮膛压保持和120滑相当（或略有提高），保留进一步提升的潜力，使用一期弹药（全钨芯）时，2000米可以穿透220毫米/65度的匀质钢板，并保有近距离击穿250毫米/60度匀质钢板的能力。

第二步在本世纪初完成，采用了更新的炮钢材料和加工工艺，膛压比上一代125炮提升了30%以上，采用新型弹托材料和静液挤压一体成型工艺的钨合金弹芯的全新穿甲弹之后，我国三代主战坦克的攻击能力达到了2000米/650毫米以上，位列世界一线水平。这一代125毫米尾翼稳定脱壳穿甲弹也是我国96、99系列坦克的主战用弹。

需要指出的是，在第三代坦克的"甲弹之争"中，由于复合装甲技术的突飞猛进，目前胜负天枰倾向于装甲。特别是美国M1A2、英国挑战者2、我国99A三型坦克，炮塔正面装甲厚度非常大，抗穿能力估计都在700毫米均质钢装甲之上，除美军M829A3外，各国现役穿甲弹都难以击穿这3款坦克炮塔正面。

由此我国仍继续发展新型125毫米脱壳穿甲弹，研制工作已接近尾声，按照设计要求，新型弹药具备在2500米距离上摧毁任何一型现代坦克的能力。据称，在某次极限穿深试验中，该弹还曾创造了接近4位数的侵彻深度，透出一股一览众山小的王者霸气。

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Well... There was one case... Although it was a medium tank. The Sherman tank of WW2 was a lightweight compared to the monstrosities coming from Germany and Russia. Most of the second world war... Well they nicknamed them after a cigarette lighter Ronson who's motto was lights on the first strike. Against the German Tiger tanks going into battle was normally considered a act of suicide. Except near the end of the war there was a change the British took out the anemic 75mm and swapped in a 76mm gun this new gun packed a much better punch and killed Germany's top tank ace in a Tiger2. So a lightweight with a proper gun can take a heavyweight.

Fire support. If its a light tank and not a attempt at a t10 clone (which I doubt) then the aim is fire support. As to why not on a IFV chassis? Mobile gun systems like the Stryker MGS have the worst of both worlds. They tend to be very very tall making them harder to transport normally end up becoming way to top heavy, automated turrets limit defence options the mechanics of the turret eat up protection and space for equipment (Like Air conditioning) they tend to be heavier then there supposed to be and just awkward.

Click to expand...

Lezt said:

Thats missing the point, No light tank can take on a main battle tank of the same era and expect to come out on top.

Pound for pound, it is just too light; it is pointless to judge it by seeing how it would fare against MBTs, even that of the last generation. A light tanks armor would make it vulnerable to MBT fire well out of effective return fire range of any MBT

I don't know why you would think that armour would be acceptable against 70s soviet rounds, those APFSDS can do 300-400 mm RHAe at 2000 km. the HEAT can do ~500mm RHA

Click to expand...

Miragedriver said:

I believe that you are missing the point of TerraN’s argument there are other factors involved in determining which tank will “come out on top”. Obviously if both vehicles are in open terrain (i.e. middle of the desert) then the MBT will most likely be victorious due to its longer reach. However, let’s incorporate rolling hills between 1 and 2 km apart. What then? Now one must consider the vehicles “hull down” ability and the amount of the depression available to the main gun.

Now consider mountainous terrain, where the line of sight is further reduced. What then?

Now consider jungle terrain where a vehicle with low ground pressure can go “off road” and is not limited to roads. In addition to the even more restrictive line of sight due to vegetation. If you read some excerpts from the Vietnam War the US tank crews utilizing M-48 had substantially different mobility than those using the Sheridan.

Lighter tanks have their place and in some situations can take on main battle tanks and come out victorious. What they lack in armor protection they make up for in tactical mobility.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Click to expand...