If I were the PLA's procurement guy I'd start the process of phasing out all current Type 96/99 tanks and invest in the development of a scaled-up ZTQ-15. An MBT in the 50-60 ton range, 125 mm cannon, and based on the VT-5 is what a proper modern Chinese MBT should look like.
The carousel configuration will all but ensure that the ZTZ series will blow up like fireworks when facing enemy armor or modern ATGMs, as demonstrated by Russia's infamous "trial by fire" in Ukraine.
True true but there is no perfect tank and what is optimal in terms of protection depends on a multitude of factors... to put things in perspective see below.
M1 shredded by a simple IED
Uhh ohh spaghettiOOO... No detonation of ammo required sometimes.
"Supa German engineering" reduced to dust.
This tank have barely gone into real fights. The toughest trial by fire a Chally 2 ever got into are tussles against farmers with RPGs from Khrushchev's era and so it never got blasted to bits by enemy fire which is alleged but it also never went up against any real modern anti-tank rounds... when it was "blue on blue" it gets annihilated and a shot from a ZPT-98 or even a 2A46 from yesteryears not even the M, from
anywhere other than pure +/-10 degrees frontal will guarantee this result and then some.
Plenty of photos of Merkavas with their turrets off... even Mk4s.
So many 60+ tonne behemoths that sacrificed range, speed, bridge crossing, road holding, and general mobility... nothing stopping them from getting annihilated by farmers with 1960s weapons. Imagine if these junks went up against well equipped forces.
It works both ways. Russian tanks getting destroyed by anti-tank rounds. NATO tanks will fare no better in conflict against an enemy like Ukraine. If it were NATO tanks going into war against Ukraine armed with other modern anti-tank weapons, they would lose just about every tank hit.
Sorry but surviving a few hits from RPGs doesn't count for much when Soviet tanks have also survived from RPG hits in various wars.
Design is always an engineering compromise. What do you want from 1000hp, 1200hp, 1500hp etc. Do you prefer extra protection or mobility... is the requirement for this war you expect or this terrain you need to operate on going to make one a smarter preference than the other?
Type 96A basically has close to zero side armour. In fact 99A has close to zero side armour unless they pack them with modular armour in the storage compartments. 96A hasn't got the propulsion to have a good balance like these NATO tanks... which btw won't survive any better.
Side shots and more extreme angled shots will shred any tank. Frontal is where 96 and 99 place all their eggs. Not smart but perhaps PLA prefers that... I mean that's clear they prefer this for whatever reason. 99A reaching nearly 60T places almost all its armour stock against full frontal +/-10 degrees or so and depends where it's shot from because all these modern Chinese tanks have a massive area where there is like a 1m^2 of "space" where a round would have little resistance. But the PLA is convinced it can cover all flanks and I'm inclined to say it's right on the money. The issue is how protected are these two tanks from 30mm and other rounds that can potentially penetrate? I say the 96A is woeful to potentially survivable. 99 and 99A slightly better but potentially almost as inadequate depending on what round it is facing. Truth is PLA, NATO, Russia just have very different tank and land war doctrines... very different indeed to the point that even covering held positions is probably done differently despite having similar types of equipment.
There's really not much point for a new tank using VT-5's design and basically going with NATO style preference on protection. Even with 1500hp engine, a 60T tank won't have much range then we got the problem of crossing certain terrain and infrastructure limits. For that role the 99A is pretty much exactly this already (minus the firepower).
The real problem with 96 and 99A is the two piece ammo... sure against K1, T-72 to T-90, Type 10, and even Type 90 and I'm inclined to say also Arjun at 60T, it is enough. These are the only tank threats around. K2 is in service in such small numbers it really is a write off threat. Sorry but this isn't hollywood and no one MBT is going to be taking out the equivalent of 10+ peer or even near peer MBTs. If any NATO tank somehow find themselves in battle on Taiwan island, we'll see images like the above but x1000. Even HJ-8s from yesteryear would wreck through NATO tanks. PLA's current anti tanking is if anything overkill to the extreme. Seriously they have so much anti-tanking capability now you'd think they were planning on sweeping through Europe and facing 60T MBTs. I've lost count on how many types of anti-tank capable artillery and HJ-x missiles from drones, gunships, IFVs, APCs, infantry and so on.
