Good conjecture, but I think red 5 is smoke launchers too.
PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
Good conjecture, but I think red 5 is smoke launchers too.
Ztz-201?
Is it just me or does the turret silhouette look like a T-55/Type 59 from a distance?
Well if we are assuming that the tank uses single piece 105mm ammunition, I feel like a traditional carousel autoloader would be somewhat prohibitive for that, but a bustle autoloader would allow the continuous length of ammo to be viable.
Whether the hull of the tank itself contains ammunition and/or an autoloader (of a design that enables single piece ammo) versus having it in the bustle is another matter
Personally I will think that the tank uses a revolver autoloader, similar to the soviet obj477A. That will explain the relative shortness of the bustle and the very much oversized turret base ring. It also explains the use of 105mm cannon because such a mechanism can achieve 2 second reloading times.
I don´t think it has to do with how many pieces the ammunition comprises off but from the overall design needs of the tank.
The tank needs to be as light as possible without sacrificing tactical qualities. Hence the adoption of 2 man crew. That leads to the tank being made narrower which is where much of the weight saving comes. But the tank being narrower also places further limitations on what can fit in the hull, like for example a carrousel autoloader. The size and amount of the ammunition to be placed on a carrousel depend on the volume that is available for it. Thats why T-14 has such as huge internal volume dedicated to the autoloader, can fit very big ammunition (ready for 152mm that can be more than a meter long) and in very large amounts (31 rounds of 125mm). ZTZ-201 comes from a different doctrine, hence it makes more sense to move the ammunition to a bustle autoloader. Once the ammunition has been moved there the next choice is the specific caliber. In this respect 105mm presents several advantages over 125mm: the gun will be lighter, the bustle can house more rounds and the ammunition format is already in widescale service and mass production.
Last edited:
??
The ammunition configuration (aka the requirements of the primary weapon/main gun) is of course one of the design features of the tank.
When we talk about the ammunition configuration in relation to the type of autoloader the tank has, it is all in context of the overall requirements and design of the tank...
At this stage I wouldn't be confident to say the tank has only two crew.
There are two hatches yes, but it appears like there may be three periscope positions.
As for the rest of what you've written, I do agree with you in theory but having single piece 105mm ammo does also mean that certain types of carousel autoloaders in the hull are not practical due to the length of the ammo itself. Of course there are also other reasons that would make a bustle autoloader more sensible (and vice versa).
Going by the old crew compartment test rig we saw and the 3d model shared here just a few weeks ago, there is a control panel right underneath that periscope. So its likely redundant for redundancy sake. Of course like a lot of info related to the tank, this will be either verified or debunked in the coming days and weeks.
I am aware of the past documentation and the past imagery of the test rig.
I'm pretty comfortable in saying that they've likely pursued and investigated a two person setup in the past, but at this stage it is just as plausible (and frankly, more technologically conservative and thus reasonable) for the explanation of the three periscopes to reflect three crew instead.
At minimum, as I wrote in my previous post, I think we should not confidently speak of this tank having a two man crew.
Though judging just by eyeballing the hull looks to me a lot narrower than T-14 and in the latter the 3 crewmen are sitting pretty much with very little elbow room.