Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

Guys, remember than a ideal tank is a balance between protection, firepower, mobility, crew friendliness and ease of manufacturing. You guys are all lacking in the latter two. Don't try to roll everything into one platform; it increases costs significantly, and is a hindrance to the capability of a army, as I see some of you are adding in a surveillance and recon capability to a tank, when it is better idea to move those to a different platform, as if you knock out the tank, there goes all your capability in one fell swoop.

Also, packing too much capability into the tank will mean that crew usability will suffer. Your going to overwhelm the crew with duties and systems to monitor. However, if you increase the size of the tank to take more crew members, the problem might be resolved, but by then, you will have a monster of a tank that is not practical on the battlefield...

There is a reason why tank development since World War II has remained fairly stagnant in terms of layout and design... it just happens to be the most successful layout that can be developed.

True. It seems one of the reasons why the PLA still has T-59/69/79/80 tanks is that apparently they actually like to use them. Their size and weight means they may be more convenient to operate in a variety of terrain over their heavier and more modern counterparts. They are relatively simple to operate and maintain. Their engines, less stressed over more modern engines also make them more robust or bust proof. The T-59, old as it may be, actually hit a nice balance between weight, mobility, cost, ease of manufacturing and firepower, the latter with the 105mm makes it improved over the original Russian 100mm.

T-59 was from not having to having, in that respect it already shines. The importance of cost and manufacture are well-taken. However, it seems unlikely in the short to medium term that China will wage a long drawn out war of attrition where manufacture during war time matters. The most likely scenarios will require the equipment at hand to perform as well as possible, leading to more expensive, "gold plated" equipment, as is the trend in the West. The Russians, bless their hearts, learned their lessons well from WW2, but these days a massive land war just seems unlikely (perhaps a nuclear exchange or nuclear threats leading to political resolution is more likely).

However, even if production cost and manufacturing are less of an issue given the above, mobility and maintenance are still important. An ideal tank would be cheap to maintain in peace time (perhaps even under the strain of routine training).

Now about mobility, how does ground pressure play into the equation? Can heavier mass be mitigated with wider/larger tracks and decreased ground pressure?

I am just dropping by so Here are some thoughts on secondary armament

A second turret kinda like the Us AAV's unit with remote control capabilities and it's own sighting system packing variants of 14.7mm Qjg02 or a Qjg89 on one side and a Qlb06 35MM on the other. mounted for the tank commander.
A type 80 7.62x54mm coaxial and a added type 80 for the gunner with thermal sight. the possibility of mounting anti air missiles like the QW3 should be looked in to for the next generation of MBT

*Relatively radar stealthy

*Crewless turret at extreme rear of chassis

*Three man crew, all facing foreward, in middle of hull

*Engine in front of hull

*40t standard but additional 35t of armour available (modular)

Planeman, that is something similar to what I've always dreamed about - for a perfect tank. One potential problem I never was sure about is what effect would that rear heavy distribution of weight have. Turret is one of best armored and heaviest parts of a tank. With a gun and autoloader added - it may be that something like 70% of weight is put on the rear 40-50% of the chassis.

Precise size of engine would come in handy here, so we can tell where the crew compartment can be positioned, and where the turret can be placed. Merkavas have it easy, with part of the crew in the turret and space for just one person (Driver) in front of the tank, with the engine positioned along the side. To my knowledge no tank so far has true full front placement of the engine.

Another good thing about the design is that it allows the same chassis and better part of hull to be used for various IFVs and APCs - making the whole program cheaper as the same product is used for greater number of platforms.

A crewless turret need not be as heavy as there are no crew to protect. The crew compartment should be the heaviest protection and additionally has the engine in front f it and the magazine behind. Not saying the turret wouldn't be armoured, but crew section is highest priority.

Instead of a tank with a high calibre gun, what about an auto-cannon that blinds the beast rather?

An Iraqi squad managed to gang up on a Challenger 2 back in the war. And with their RPGs and weapons, they managed to do nothing to the tank's armour. They managed to take out all the optics, however.

If they had taken out the engine, which I think they can, I am pretty sure the tankers would've surrender.

So in China's case. I would take out the original turret and put in instead a 30mm/35mm armed turret with a 12.7mm MP-MG on top. This new turret definitely weighs less than the original 100/105mm gun-turrets(especially if you use a crewless turret), so there is room for more armour; and its mobility and range will improve.

The point here is not to kill, but to disable the enemy's tank and have their crew trying to run back to HQ and do something less productive.

Good idea? Still a tank?

How are you going to get close enough to the enemy tank before their 105mm/120mm/125mm gun rips your tank a new one? Tank guns can fire from 5-8km out, something that 30mm/35mm gun cannot do. A 30mm/35mm would only fire out to 3000-4000 meters maximum. Thats why the US kept their Abrams after getting the Bradleys. I think you are describing an IFV, Sumdud. Those have been around for a while and are definetly not replacements for tanks.