PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

[Temstar]

It is not about having a better tank than adverary, it is about the value of tank itself. It will not matter whose tank is better if they all get destroyed by drones easily.

The new tank should be designed to reflect new nature of warfare, where drones are ever present. I am not a fan of the new tank. It is a major technological advance, but it feels outdated, as if someone in 2010 dream up a new tank. Entire design is built around sensors, APS against ATGM proliferation. And indeed, ATGM was what every one was worried about in 2010. But Ukraine taught us drone is by far the biggest threat not ATGM, and I am not seeing new design to protect it.

I am being very realistic here. How good is your tank if some random ISIS can neutralize it? This is the kind of question we must ask.

What use is a new expensive tank if it is as survivable as a ZTZ-96A? Perhaps you would say the tank will be protected by EW and various anti-drone system. I am not convinced. EW is expensive along with various shortcoming, and does not protect against fibre optic drones. The current anti-drone is unproven in realistic battlefield, and is itself vulnerable to artillery and direct gun fire. We cannot expect tanks to perform its job if it is as vulnerable to the thin skinned vehicles around it. Realistically there is no satisfactory solution to kill drones while remaining protected against various other threats. Meanwhile drones can easily improve, while anti-drone measures are order of magnitude more expensive and hard to keep up. Things are not really looking good for traditional tank designs.

In general the more complex the solution is, the more holes it can poke. Having a complex series of special vehicle is extremely expensive, unreliable for such a cheap, simple threat. So I think ultimately the solution to drones must be very affordable, and simple enough to not have anti synergy with task of tank: a rugged assault platform operating in high threat environment. An expensive fleet of anti drone system will not survive. I think ultimately we will return to simple solutions like 'cope cage'.

We see Russia was able to convert T-72 into very survivable platforms with heavy amount of cage armor. But this kind of design has its own problems. The new tank design I am hoping for is to incorporate comprehensive anti-drone armor while remain unimpeded by it, and still able to perform its traditional roles. I am not sure if these armor is compatible with APS system new tank is built around. It may just be useless once it carry anti drone armor.

Drone protection is central to design of every military vehicle, and every feature must work around it. Until new tank design reflect it, I expect it remain a placeholder at best, sidegrade at worst. The improvements like better propulsion system is theoritical at best.

I don't think it's useful to think of drones are superseding ATGM due to their ubiquity, it just means your industry is shit and you can't turn out real ATGM in the same quantity as drone.

If you are fighting a proper industrial power then instead of facing fiber-optic guided FPV you'll be facing vast amount of HJ-10 type thing, which does a very similar job to the aforementioned fiber-optic guided FPV except it's much better at it because its warhead is so much more powerful no blyatmobile spaced armour can withstand it. That's why instead of building a shed on top of your tank you need APS.

It's also why you only need a 105mm gun, anything tougher than what the main gun can handle is important enough of a target that it should be a keystroke away from getting tagged and receiving a visit from a HJ-10 type deal (because you are also an industrial power right) from your own side, launched from a dedicated launch vehicle hiding some kilometers behind the tank.

 

[Tanker_MG]

But Ukraine taught us drone is by far the biggest threat not ATGM, and I am not seeing new design to protect it.

Drone protection is central to design of every military vehicle, and every feature must work around it. Until new tank design reflect it, I expect it remain a placeholder at best, sidegrade at worst. The improvements like better propulsion system is theoritical at best.

I understand your position on this PLA new tank, but I think your conclusions on the drone warfare in Ukraine conflict are taking things out of context of the current fight. The use of the drone to take out vehicles is just another form of attack like the ATGM. The drone is a guided form of attack. I have heard the small UAS (sUAS) being compared to the MG in WW1, but like the machine gun in WW1, the Drones in Ukraine have dramatically changed outcomes or essentially static level of combat that is very much like WW1 trench warfare. Tanks and other armored vehicles move as a part of a combined arms team. Not by themselves, but part of a team, and as part of that team, ways to defeat drones/sUAS is decied by that teams training, doctrine, capabilities and the leadership.
The big killers on the battle field is still artillery.
Placing the drone at the paramount requirement for protection of the tank, it a complex problem that when you boil it down, is just a top-attack vector anti-armor system. The tank is a balance of three, protection, firepower and mobility, a little of one takes away from other two and vice a versa.
I have talked to much already about drone/sUAS discussion and would rather get back to the discussion of this new Tank.

Has anyone really confirmed the new name as the ZTZ201 or ZTZ20? Also have anyone really confirmed that this tank's maingun is a 105mm?

 

[tamsen_ikard]

It is not about having a better tank than adverary, it is about the value of tank itself. It will not matter whose tank is better if they all get destroyed by drones easily.

The new tank should be designed to reflect new nature of warfare, where drones are ever present. I am not a fan of the new tank. It is a major technological advance, but it feels outdated, as if someone in 2010 dream up a new tank. Entire design is built around sensors, APS against ATGM proliferation. And indeed, ATGM was what every one was worried about in 2010. But Ukraine taught us drone is by far the biggest threat not ATGM, and I am not seeing new design to protect it.

I am being very realistic here. How good is your tank if some random ISIS can neutralize it? This is the kind of question we must ask.

What use is a new expensive tank if it is as survivable as a ZTZ-96A? Perhaps you would say the tank will be protected by EW and various anti-drone system. I am not convinced. EW is expensive along with various shortcoming, and does not protect against fibre optic drones. The current anti-drone is unproven in realistic battlefield, and is itself vulnerable to artillery and direct gun fire. We cannot expect tanks to perform its job if it is as vulnerable to the thin skinned vehicles around it. Realistically there is no satisfactory solution to kill drones while remaining protected against various other threats. Meanwhile drones can easily improve, while anti-drone measures are order of magnitude more expensive and hard to keep up. Things are not really looking good for traditional tank designs.

In general the more complex the solution is, the more holes it can poke. Having a complex series of special vehicle is extremely expensive, unreliable for such a cheap, simple threat. So I think ultimately the solution to drones must be very affordable, and simple enough to not have anti synergy with task of tank: a rugged assault platform operating in high threat environment. An expensive fleet of anti drone system will not survive. I think ultimately we will return to simple solutions like 'cope cage'.

We see Russia was able to convert T-72 into very survivable platforms with heavy amount of cage armor. But this kind of design has its own problems. The new tank design I am hoping for is to incorporate comprehensive anti-drone armor while remain unimpeded by it, and still able to perform its traditional roles. I am not sure if these armor is compatible with APS system new tank is built around. It may just be useless once it carry anti drone armor.

Drone protection is central to design of every military vehicle, and every feature must work around it. Until new tank design reflect it, I expect it remain a placeholder at best, sidegrade at worst. The improvements like better propulsion system is theoritical at best.

I don't think what you are asking for is solvable. No tank has ever been able to survive air power and that is not going to change. Drones are cheap and distributed air power, but they are still air power.


The way to solve enemy air power is through your own air dominance or air superiority. Since drones are so numerous and small, fighter jet based air dominance will not work against them. So, what you need is your own helicopters or your own loitering drones that destroy other drones. If you don't have those, then what you need is ground based air defense.

I proposed in this thread before that one way to solve the drone problem is to completely give up on tanks and make SPAAG as the main manuever element. Armored tank with main gun replaced with Air defense gun that can survive drones by rapid and high volume fire. But that has its own drawbacks.

Then, the other option is a change in unit composition. Have a lot more SPAAG and other air defense based vehicles per unit of tank. So, previous unit structure of having air defense as a battalion, brigade level unit is not going to work. There needs to be air defense unit on the platoon or company level.

I think this type 201 design is the best one can do against drones while maintaining a large main gun. Which is to have an unmanned 12.7 mm machine gun with rapid fire, that will likely also work as an anti-drone air defense gun.

Cope cage will likely also be added during war time to tanks, once it is moved near the battlefield. Adding cope cage all the time will make a tank cumbersome and difficult to transport.

So, No, I don't think this tank outdated. What is needed is a change in doctrine.

 

[TK3600]

I don't think it's useful to think of drones are superseding ATGM due to their ubiquity, it just means your industry is shit and you can't turn out real ATGM in the same quantity as drone.

If you are fighting a proper industrial power then instead of facing fiber-optic guided FPV you'll be facing vast amount of HJ-10 type thing, which does a very similar job to the aforementioned fiber-optic guided FPV except it's much better at it because its warhead is so much more powerful no blyatmobile spaced armour can withstand it. That's why instead of building a shed on top of your tank you need APS.

It's also why you only need a 105mm gun, anything tougher than what the main gun can handle is important enough of a target that it should be a keystroke away from getting tagged and receiving a visit from a HJ-10 type deal (because you are also an industrial power right) from your own side, launched from a dedicated launch vehicle hiding some kilometers behind the tank.

Point is it is not helpful to protect against high end threat when low end threat can defeat it better. It is like a WWI tank that can stop shaped charge but not a simple machine gun. You are not any safer.

I understand your position on this PLA new tank, but I think your conclusions on the drone warfare in Ukraine conflict are taking things out of context of the current fight. The use of the drone to take out vehicles is just another form of attack like the ATGM. The drone is a guided form of attack. I have heard the small UAS (sUAS) being compared to the MG in WW1, but like the machine gun in WW1, the Drones in Ukraine have dramatically changed outcomes or essentially static level of combat that is very much like WW1 trench warfare. Tanks and other armored vehicles move as a part of a combined arms team. Not by themselves, but part of a team, and as part of that team, ways to defeat drones/sUAS is decied by that teams training, doctrine, capabilities and the leadership.
The big killers on the battle field is still artillery.
Placing the drone at the paramount requirement for protection of the tank, it a complex problem that when you boil it down, is just a top-attack vector anti-armor system. The tank is a balance of three, protection, firepower and mobility, a little of one takes away from other two and vice a versa.
I have talked to much already about drone/sUAS discussion and would rather get back to the discussion of this new Tank.

Has anyone really confirmed the new name as the ZTZ201 or ZTZ20? Also have anyone really confirmed that this tank's maingun is a 105mm?

The WWI machine gun example is very good. Tank works in WWI because it can survive the main threat by itself. If WWI tank require a bunch of expensive unprotected vehicles to allow it survive machine gun, then the idea never would have worked.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Point is it is not helpful to protect against high end threat when low end threat can defeat it better. It is like a WWI tank that can stop shaped charge but not a simple machine gun. You are not any safer.

The WWI machine gun example is very good. Tank works in WWI because it can survive the main threat by itself. If WWI tank require a bunch of expensive unprotected vehicles to allow it survive machine gun, then the idea never would have worked.

Infantry cannot survive machine guns, but they are still used in the battlefield. But the way they fight and how they are useful is changed. Instead of charging into battle in a single line, infantry is now dispersed. They are used for various tasks such as holding ground, clearning hard to reach places like buildings or tunnels.

Similar logic will apply to tanks. They will have to change their roles to survive the new battlefield. They will have new support elements that are better suitable to fight drones.

The question is, Do we still need a vehicle that can move fast, have armor to protect against enemy fire, shoot with a heavy gun. If the answer is yes, then they will still exist. But they may not be the primary attacking force any longer.

 

[gelgoog]

Russia is working on modifying their APS to handle top-down threats and drones. I think that is the way to go if possible.

 

[qwerty3173]

Russia is working on modifying their APS to handle top-down threats and drones. I think that is the way to go if possible.

The new APS is already covering the entire half-globe. The thing is that even fitting drones with better HEAT warheads instead of cold-war outdated shit Ukraine now uses will be able to punch through any conceivable top armor. Passive defense is simply impossible so must go.

 

[AsuraGodFiend]

Can the gl6 defend against fpv drones, drones dropping grenades and such or just atgm and rockets

 

[qwerty3173]

Can the gl6 defend against fpv drones, drones dropping grenades and such or just atgm and rockets

The new aps is not the gl6 at least from looks alone. The old gl6 launchers are limited in their launch angles to about 60 degrees elevation, which is sufficient for most scenarios but not for all. And yes, there is footage of gl6 against drones released I believe.

 

[AssassinsMace]

A flying drone is more versatile that one thinks. If you've seen the video of a Ukrainian FPV drone going after two Russian soldiers on foot, the drone is zipping around the soldiers like a fly who are trying to get away from it making contact while firing their assault rifles at the drone. They completely miss hitting the drone. It was only after one of the soldiers goes empty on his weapon, he throws his assault rifle at the drone hitting it and it explodes.

I read that all the MBTs that Western countries gave to Ukraine are all destroyed from these drones. You don't need the velocity of a tank round to at least disable a tank which is basically a dead tank. Look at all those videos of Hamas soldiers sneaking up to Israeli tanks and planting charges. I wonder how effective it would be having a wheeled quadruped robot roll up and plant an explosive. they're going to be hard to spot and soldiers are not going to be outside to spot them afraid of FPV drones going after them.