PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

[bsdnf]

In fact, a lot of Chinese military fans are not optimistic about this new tank.
In particular, its 105 mm main gun raises some questions

If I were to advocate that the next generation of tanks should have 130mm or even 140mm guns and extremely thick armor, they would still oppose it. If I insist on improving the 99A, such as upgrading it to a more advanced VT-4, they will still oppose it.

Some of these guy aren't so-called "Chinese military fans" but rather trying to argue that the PLA is always in a mess.

 

[totenchan]

Any explanation for the (seemingly) thin hatch, compared to a platform like the Lynx? View attachment 158665

I'm asking because I genuinely don't know, but do the periscope structures contribute to the appearance of thickness in that image?

 

[RedGreekRevolt]

Why not ZTQ-15 has 105mm cannon and it can fire atgm out the cannon so why do you think this one can't. Are you talking bait or nah

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Surprisingly enough you are right, I expected given the difficulties to fire ATGMs form the Abrams a 105mm ATGM would have been even more unlikely. Also good range, very good in fact, around the same as Russian and Chinese 125mm ATGMs (5Km). I haven't seen estimates for RHA penetration. However for all other reasons except for ATGM range I continue to believe that if the 125mm is canned in favor of the 105mm for MBTs that will be a highly significant downgrade.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Surprisingly enough you are right, I expected given the difficulties to fire ATGMs form the Abrams a 105mm ATGM would have been even more unlikely. Also good range, very good in fact, around the same as Russian and Chinese 125mm ATGMs (5Km). I haven't seen estimates for RHA penetration. However for all other reasons except for ATGM range I continue to believe that if the 125mm is canned in favor of the 105mm for MBTs that will be a highly significant downgrade.

I'm quite doubtful, that the PLA would adopt a 105mm, that would not at least be able to actually penetrate and destroy most if not all current active service 3th gen tanks.

As for future 4th gen (including heavier weights), the best tactic might be to just use some airbust or HE shot to disable aps, sensors etc. Afterwards a kill could be done with say atgm.

 

[supersnoop]

But more importantly, the EREV tech is the key here. And this has been talked about since recent Zhuhai air show with all those UGVs. Using high voltage ePlatform, you get much higher energy efficiency + lower heat for the same power. You can design the same engine power with much more compact propulsion platforms, because you can run the eMotor at much higher rpm..

The energy you get is stored in battery, which balances out energy consumption peaks/valleys. The power generated can be spread efficiently across weapon platform, sensors and propulsion. One measure of NEVs is improve NVH (noise, vibration and harshness). So you get quieter and more steady navigation. Good for both crew and stealth purposes. Of course, reduced heat from running on battery and higher voltage also reduces thermal signature.

I'm not a mechanical/electrical engineer, but EREV is probably not really a good term for this powertrain.
On the civilian side, the ICE is essentially serving as a battery alternative. Since all EREV are plug-in vehicles, the generator is not really utilized unless necessary. The EREV mode of operation is in fact operationally less efficient than direct ICE drive at higher (highway) speeds.

In a previous post, it was said that these powertrains do not have any plug in faculties, so it's not really "extending range". As you say, the advantage is probably packaging. The power output of the tank with is scaling better with electrical motor + battery is more efficient than combustion engine + transmission. It is probably more mechanically reliable as well. Since tanks are rarely running at full sprint, then the higher speed inefficiencies are negated.

 

[dawnstar091]

I'm quite doubtful, that the PLA would adopt a 105mm, that would not at least be able to actually penetrate and destroy most if not all current active service 3th gen tanks.

As for future 4th gen (including heavier weights), the best tactic might be to just use some airbust or HE shot to disable aps, sensors etc. Afterwards a kill could be done with say atgm.

Regarding the debate over tank main gun caliber, I feel the necessity of "penetrating armor and stopping enemy rounds" is severely overestimated by military enthusiasts.

I believe this habit is indeed fostered by misconceptions stemming from video games, which portray the battlefield as much cleaner than reality (especially devoid of infantry or reconnaissance interference), and suggest that a tank is only "destroyed" by eliminating its entire crew or causing catastrophic explosion/fire. However, as we've observed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, direct tank-to-tank engagements – especially unanticipated encounters without prior intelligence – have become virtually non-existent. Furthermore, in current combat, rendering an enemy tank combat ineffective is far easier than the stereotypical view: any damage or malfunction that prevents the tank from observing, aiming, or moving has a high probability of causing the crew to abandon the vehicle.

If we define "destroy" as temporarily preventing the enemy from actively employing the tank in combat, whether through abandonment or withdrawal, then the effective threat range of a 105mm gun with gun-launched missiles is almost indistinguishable from that of a 125mm gun AP shell,even better.

Setting the firepower standard at this level, combined with better intelligence enabling planned engagements, I see no problem with tanks reverting to 105mm. The only potential concern is whether the high-explosive (HE) or multi-purpose high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds fired by a 105mm gun can effectively clear enemies from buildings.

Building on this, my view is actually quite radical. I contend that tanks will not only revert to a combination of light and heavy tanks, but that future heavy tanks will likely be employed more like specialized equipment (e.g., mine-clearing vehicles). They would be attached to front-line units only in specific situations and in very limited numbers. Simultaneously, tanks equipped with smaller-caliber guns would serve not to withstand enemy fire, but merely as platforms to deliver a 105mm gun and its targeting system to the battlefield. Their armor would be merely to improve fault tolerance, not expected to absorb significant enemy firepower.

 

[sheogorath]

I don’t think of this as indexing on drone warfare in Ukraine so much as adapting to new technological and tactical contexts. The point of the argument isn’t to only to depend on light tanks, but rather how a different kind of light tank might fit into the context of new thinking on broader ground warfare doctrine. The thinking is organized not around counteracting the prevalence of drones but around how to leverage available new capabilities to best achieve the primary objectives of ground warfare (which is generate maneuver advantages to take and then hold territory). This new tank needs to be seen in the context of other potential future platforms around it. If the thesis for the thinking behind this tank is correct this is but one piece in a whole system of new ground warfare doctrine. That at least would be the case for this tank being the primary mainstay of the future tank force (which to be clear we don’t in fact know to be the case currently).

I understand that part. My point was pointing towards this idea or argument that is making the rounds online that tanks are obsolete and should be done away with entirely or replaced with lighter light tank-esque vehicles because somehow more armor doesn't make a difference against drones, which isn't really the case.

Of course it should be part of an entire network of systems so to speak, but it should also take into account the possibility of having to operate on its own as part of still remaining combat effective in less than ideal conditions.

But medium tank isn't exactly light. It's passive protection is better than absolute majority of mbts in Ukraine, quite possibly even all of them.

What exactly is a "medium" MBT, though?. Going from the fact that the concept of MBT is a development of the WW2 and early Cold War of an "universal" medium tank to replace the previous families of heavy, medium and light tanks.

However, as we've observed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, direct tank-to-tank engagements – especially unanticipated encounters without prior intelligence – have become virtually non-existent. Furthermore, in current combat, rendering an enemy tank combat ineffective is far easier than the stereotypical view: any damage or malfunction that prevents the tank from observing, aiming, or moving has a high probability of causing the crew to abandon the vehicle.

A +120mm still have better performance and range against fixed positions, infantry and assorted targets than a 105mm, is not just about armor penetration against tanks, though

While tank engagements are rare nowadays, there is still the idea of upgunning future tanks as evidence by projects like the 140mm ASCALON, the Rh-130 or the cancelled 152mm for the T-14

 

[alanch90]

A +120mm still have better performance and range against fixed positions, infantry and assorted targets than a 105mm, is not just about armor penetration against tanks, though

While tank engagements are rare nowadays, there is still the idea of upgunning future tanks as evidence by projects like the 140mm ASCALON, the Rh-130 or the cancelled 152mm for the T-14

True though there are compromises derived from priorities in turn derived from doctrine. Bigger gun = bigger ammunition = more internal volume = heavier tank for the same level of protection. It makes sense if you are expecting to fight a land war in your vicinity while you don´t need to transport large amounts of tanks via airplanes or shipping. Thats why theres a case for huge guns to be used in Europe by European countries. China´s strategic situation is much different.

 

[tphuang]

Would this technically allow engineers to install a powerful motor like let's say two 750kW motors for a extremely high burst output when extreme mobility is required and use the battery as a buffer hence not needing a engine that could actually output 1500kW while still being able to have extreme mobility when required?

I guess it could, but this is also a matter of battery size and discharge rate factor? 1500kW would require really high discharge rate batteries or a large battery pack. The former increases heat signature or heat management and the latter increases the size of propulsion.

V闪闪 is not a military blogger, In my opinion he is even worse than lyman2003 and 琴石2022.

These data are obviously fabricated by Deepseek - too explicit and without source.

The data themselves I don't know if are accurate but my point is the advantages of plug-in hybrid and civilian-military fusion than anything else.

I'm also not a military blogger. I follow the civilian tech and see how things are applied on military side.

If you have data to contradict the part about private enterprise increasing share, then present that. Same with the modern product management cycle and predictive maintenance being better.

I'm not a mechanical/electrical engineer, but EREV is probably not really a good term for this powertrain.
On the civilian side, the ICE is essentially serving as a battery alternative. Since all EREV are plug-in vehicles, the generator is not really utilized unless necessary. The EREV mode of operation is in fact operationally less efficient than direct ICE drive at higher (highway) speeds.

In a previous post, it was said that these powertrains do not have any plug in faculties, so it's not really "extending range". As you say, the advantage is probably packaging. The power output of the tank with is scaling better with electrical motor + battery is more efficient than combustion engine + transmission. It is probably more mechanically reliable as well. Since tanks are rarely running at full sprint, then the higher speed inefficiencies are negated.

That's what people in China are calling them. The key is not just efficiency part but also the ease of sharing power with weapon and sensors.
There is no parallel ICE propulsion+transmission along with electrical/wiring for sensors. As such, there is significant weight reduction.

 

[Antares545]

instead of a "heavy tank" per say would it not make sense to develop a "assault/breakthrough tank" based on the turtle tanks in the Ukraine war?

frankly any armored vehicle light or heavy can be taken out the same by a single drone and even with aps systems they can run out or fail to shoot down every incoming drone.
while turtle tanks have been seen to take dozens of drone strikes and continue. a modern version with aps would be pretty much invincible able to shoot down the majority of drones while shrugging off any strikes from ones that do hit. it wont even need a main gun to fulfill its task. and it it does it can have low velocity large caliber guns to lob high explosives at fortifications or something similar.

edit:
and here's a crazy idea that likely will never happen but what if the spaced armor used to tank drone hits also acted as pontoons? making the vehicle amphibious as well?