Ladakh Flash Point

SFF has many JCOs seconded from Para units. All officers are also from elsewhere

Click to expand...

At the JCO level there has to be a guy from Haryana? Even the Gurkhas don't have that, A JCO must know the language of the men under him.
So in reality the SFF is not all that "Tibetan " at all. It may have a tiny sprinkling of Tibetan exiles but in reality it is no less different than any other Indian commando or special forces unit.
The "Tibetan " label makes good propaganda though.

Jeez why is it such a big deal how the footage got out. Some of us need to stop with the idea that the phone was found or taken. There is absolutely nothing to even suggest this was the case. That's as low as bhakt media.

plawolf said:

You are far too obsessed with paper stats and do not seem to care much about the real world.

Just because the Type15’s 105 is not able to reliably penetrate the T90’s front armour does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that a T90 can take a 105 hit like nothing happened.

In the real world, a hit like that could most likely mission kill the T90 as there will likely to a lot of damage to both external and internal systems from the kinetic/explosive impact. The biggest benefit would be that the crew is likely to get out without fatalities (although injuries like fractures and concussions are still possible, if not likely). Even in the extremely lucky eventuality that the T90 is still operational after such a hit, it’s crew would be shaken up and stunned for a while at least, and would need some time to recover and do damage assessments before the T90 could operate again. That is assuming they didn’t just bail out immediately upon impact for good measure.

Depending on just how good the Type15’s FCS is, in the event of an unexpected encounter with T90s, they can either mount a firing retreat by mission killing/stunning T90s with 105 hits; or they can try to take out T90s by placing the second shot where the first had hit and weakened the armour or aiming for weak points like the torrent ring with their first shots.

But no matter how you cut it, the Type15’s 105 is by no means the useless peashooter you are implying even without gun launched ATGMs, which the the Chinese most certainly have, and which have been posted before.

Click to expand...

In the light tank role the 105mm is perfectly adequate. As mentioned before, it's not designed to kill a T-90; it's intended to destroy support vehicles like tank destroyers as well as attack infantry entrenchments as an assault gun.

Likewise, the ZTQ-15 isn't even necessarily such a mobile tank; it performs well in boggy environments due to its low weight, but its P/W ratio is comparable to a Japanese Type 10 given the anemic quality of its engines, but its engine has probably been designed to function well at high altitudes.

But the main argument still comes down to, a good 100mm gun-launched fire and forget top-attack ATGM isn't just for the ZTQ-15, it transforms every Chinese reserve tank like the Type 59 into a competent tank destroyer. The presence of such a top-attack ATGM would significantly weaken the T-90 vs the ZTQ-15, even if in a straight fight the T-90 is likely to destroy the ZTQ-15, because even in the best case engagements for the T-90, it can expect a telefrag.

Inst said:

Likewise, the ZTQ-15 isn't even necessarily such a mobile tank; it performs well in boggy environments due to its low weight, but its P/W ratio is comparable to a Japanese Type 10 given the anemic quality of its engines

Click to expand...

Stop talking.

Inst said:

In the light tank role the 105mm is perfectly adequate. As mentioned before, it's not designed to kill a T-90; it's intended to destroy support vehicles like tank destroyers as well as attack infantry entrenchments as an assault gun.

Likewise, the ZTQ-15 isn't even necessarily such a mobile tank; it performs well in boggy environments due to its low weight, but its P/W ratio is comparable to a Japanese Type 10 given the anemic quality of its engines, but its engine has probably been designed to function well at high altitudes.

But the main argument still comes down to, a good 100mm gun-launched fire and forget top-attack ATGM isn't just for the ZTQ-15, it transforms every Chinese reserve tank like the Type 59 into a competent tank destroyer. The presence of such a top-attack ATGM would significantly weaken the T-90 vs the ZTQ-15, even if in a straight fight the T-90 is likely to destroy the ZTQ-15, because even in the best case engagements for the T-90, it can expect a telefrag.

Click to expand...

I thought the Type 15's engine performance is the opposite of anemic. That's the whole point of the Type 15 and you then immediately contradict yourself by saying the same engine is designed to function well at high altitudes.

Mate get your trolling in order. You used to be better at it. At least try to avoid contradicting yourself this obviously.

Perhaps you meant something else? Maybe that the Type 10's engine is anemic? I dunno. Maybe you're not familiar with what anemic means.

On the subject of the gun. You're quite right in the first paragraph but I'm still confident the 105mm can defeat the side armour of any MBT. It's not that hard to. If the Type 15s meet heavier MBTs at high altitudes or complex urban environments, they do stand a better chance at outrunning and outflanking their heavier adversaries because their engines are so effective and the Type 15 has one of the best power to weight ratios around even at sea-level.

BTW the Type 15's 105mm does have a gun launched ATGM/multi-purpose guided missile. And yes the Type 15 is not designed to go against heavy MBTs head on. That's obvious. There is Type 96 and Type 99 variants for that... and drones, gunships, ATGMs, anti-tank artillery, rockets........

Inst said:

But the main argument still comes down to, a good 100mm gun-launched fire and forget top-attack ATGM isn't just for the ZTQ-15, it transforms every Chinese reserve tank like the Type 59 into a competent tank destroyer. The presence of such a top-attack ATGM would significantly weaken the T-90 vs the ZTQ-15, even if in a straight fight the T-90 is likely to destroy the ZTQ-15, because even in the best case engagements for the T-90, it can expect a telefrag.

Click to expand...

The Indian T-90s have the Refleks 125mm gun-launched ATGM. So this Type-15 vs T-90, ATGM vs ATGM is not a good comparison. Simply put, the Type-15s are never designed to engage T-90s. If anything the Type-15 is only going to fight the T-90s only due to an opportunity to hit weak spots or in desperation. PLA commanders should avoid silly tank fights like this.

The Indians are forgetting that the T-90s are not designed for high altitude warfare either. They are easy prey when slowly moving around winding roads, and along valleys in mountainous terrain. When the Indian troops run out of fuel supply due to crap logistics or getting cut off, these would become easy trophies to collect.

A 100mm gun-fired ATGM that can do a Javelin? That doesn't exist. But then why produce such a thing when light vehicles and troops can carry the far more effective HJ-10 and HJ-12? These guys are much better suited to tank hunting than any light tank.

ougoah said:

I thought the Type 15's engine performance is the opposite of anemic. That's the whole point of the Type 15 and you then immediately contradict yourself by saying the same engine is designed to function well at high altitudes.

Mate get your trolling in order. You used to be better at it. At least try to avoid contradicting yourself this obviously.

Perhaps you meant something else? Maybe that the Type 10's engine is anemic? I dunno. Maybe you're not familiar with what anemic means.

On the subject of the gun. You're quite right in the first paragraph but I'm still confident the 105mm can defeat the side armour of any MBT. It's not that hard to. If the Type 15s meet heavier MBTs at high altitudes or complex urban environments, they do stand a better chance at outrunning and outflanking their heavier adversaries because their engines are so effective and the Type 15 has one of the best power to weight ratios around even at sea-level.

BTW the Type 15's 105mm does have a gun launched ATGM/multi-purpose guided missile. And yes the Type 15 is not designed to go against heavy MBTs head on. That's obvious. There is Type 96 and Type 99 variants for that... and drones, gunships, ATGMs, anti-tank artillery, rockets........

Click to expand...

The Type 15 engine is 1000 kw. It's anemic by MBT standards.

The point is that it has a 30 P/W ratio whereas the Type 10 has a 27 P/W ratio without its modular armor. The T-90 apparently has a 20 P/W ratio, which is decisively poor, with the Abrams having a 17-20 P/W ratio in kw. The Leclerc has a 27 P/W ratio, and the Leo2A6 is around 17 P/W ratio.

I'm not contradicting myself, nor am I trolling. I'm pointing out a weakness of the ZTQ-15; i.e, it, as a light tank, is not designed to engage MBTs and it can't penetrate MBT frontal armor. It has to achieve a side hit, which assumes that you control the battlespace and can engage as needed.

===

Put another way, the implication is that if everything goes according to plan, the ZTQ-15's lack of serious anti-tank capability is a weakness. But if everything doesn't go according to plan, a good 100mm ATGM is extremely useful because it stops ZTQ-15 vs T-90s from being a rout to being something that's dealing attrition to T-90 every step of the way.

If I were trolling, my point would be that the T-90 is a better tank than the ZTQ-15 at high altitudes. But I'm obviously aware that they're not built for the same roles, and that the ZTQ-15 has a P/W advantage and likely engine optimization for high altitude performance. The point of concern is that the PLA cannot assume that everything will go according to plan and having a more robust last-ditch anti-tank capability on the ZTQ-15 helps stabilize and enhance the situation for the PLA.

===

A more interesting observation is that at some loadings, the ZTZ-99 has a P/W of 27, which is as good as a Leclerc and is within a hair's breadth of an unarmored ZTQ-15. Then why even bother with the ZTQ-15? Most likely, the ZTQ-15 is cheaper, first, and second, the ZTQ-15 likely has high-altitude optimization for mobility when the ZTZ-99's engine is beginning to suffocate.

Inst said:

The Type 15 engine is 1000 kw. It's anemic by MBT standards.

The point is that it has a 30 P/W ratio whereas the Type 10 has a 27 P/W ratio without its modular armor. The T-90 apparently has a 20 P/W ratio, which is decisively poor, with the Abrams having a 17-20 P/W ratio in kw. The Leclerc has a 27 P/W ratio, and the Leo2A6 is around 17 P/W ratio.

I'm not contradicting myself, nor am I trolling. I'm pointing out a weakness of the ZTQ-15; i.e, it, as a light tank, is not designed to engage MBTs and it can't penetrate MBT frontal armor. It has to achieve a side hit, which assumes that you control the battlespace and can engage as needed.

===

Put another way, the implication is that if everything goes according to plan, the ZTQ-15's lack of serious anti-tank capability is a weakness. But if everything doesn't go according to plan, a good 100mm ATGM is extremely useful because it stops ZTQ-15 vs T-90s from being a rout to being something that's dealing attrition to T-90 every step of the way.

If I were trolling, my point would be that the T-90 is a better tank than the ZTQ-15 at high altitudes. But I'm obviously aware that they're not built for the same roles, and that the ZTQ-15 has a P/W advantage and likely engine optimization for high altitude performance. The point of concern is that the PLA cannot assume that everything will go according to plan and having a more robust last-ditch anti-tank capability on the ZTQ-15 helps stabilize and enhance the situation for the PLA.

===

A more interesting observation is that at some loadings, the ZTZ-99 has a P/W of 27, which is as good as a Leclerc and is within a hair's breadth of an unarmored ZTQ-15. Then why even bother with the ZTQ-15? Most likely, the ZTQ-15 is cheaper, first, and second, the ZTQ-15 likely has high-altitude optimization for mobility when the ZTZ-99's engine is beginning to suffocate.

Click to expand...

So here you have basically proven the Type-15 has excellent power to weight ratio and a great engine for its size and weight. I think you mean 1000 horsepower rather than kilowatts. 1000KW is roughly 1340 horsepower which is way more than what older Abrams and Leopard 2s have and considerably more than Challenger 2 - all >60T beasts.

The Type-15 supposed has roughly 1000hp and at roughly 35T (depending on armament and armour package since it is also highly modular) that is nearly 29hp/t and this engine and tank is designed for high altitudes and thin oxygen environments. We're just comparing it to other MBTs in their strong battlegrounds. M1A2 is roughly 22hp/t, Leopard 2A roughly 24hp/t, T-90S roughly 21hp/t, Type 99 has 25hp/t assuming its weight is about 57T or 58T... Japanese Type 10 is 27hp/t.

So explain how the Type-15's engine and power to weight ratio is a weakness?? It's the main strength. Honestly I don't know why anyone bothers FFS. The gun is its main drawback because the 125mm is there but they didn't use it presumably because it can be a little too long for urban environments and the hydraulics will need a lot more beefing up hence space, less armour, more weight etc therefore defeating the purpose of the light mountain tank. Plus 105mm rounds are quite abundant in PLA with other platforms.

ougoah said:

So here you have basically proven the Type-15 has excellent power to weight ratio and a great engine for its size and weight. I think you mean 1000 horsepower rather than kilowatts. 1000KW is roughly 1340 horsepower which is way more than what older Abrams and Leopard 2s have and considerably more than Challenger 2 - all >60T beasts.

The Type-15 supposed has roughly 1000hp and at roughly 35T (depending on armament and armour package since it is also highly modular) that is nearly 29hp/t and this engine and tank is designed for high altitudes and thin oxygen environments. We're just comparing it to other MBTs in their strong battlegrounds. M1A2 is roughly 22hp/t, Leopard 2A roughly 24hp/t, T-90S roughly 21hp/t, Type 99 has 25hp/t assuming its weight is about 57T or 58T... Japanese Type 10 is 27hp/t.

So explain how the Type-15's engine and power to weight ratio is a weakness?? It's the main strength. Honestly I don't know why anyone bothers FFS. The gun is its main drawback because the 125mm is there but they didn't use it presumably because it can be a little too long for urban environments and the hydraulics will need a lot more beefing up hence space, less armour, more weight etc therefore defeating the purpose of the light mountain tank. Plus 105mm rounds are quite abundant in PLA with other platforms.

Click to expand...

The problem is that we don't know how well the ZTQ-15 operates at high altitudes. Any high-altitude adaptations, if any such exist, are unknown.

And the ZTZ-99 is within 10% of the ZTQ-15's P/W, which is why I say the ZTQ-15's P/W is anemic. If it were somehow a 40 P/W tank, it'd have a decisive agility and speed advantage over heavier tanks, but it's not, and the 30 P/W is for its minimum configuration; were it uparmored its P/W would resemble the ZTQ-99 is terms of speed and agility.

===

The key argument being made, anyways, is the lack of last-ditch ATGM vs MBTs. In a reconnaissance role, it needs to be able to fire back without having to maneuver for a side shot, because the latter is implying it's committing to a fight (if we think of a 3 km engagement diameter, to move to 90 degrees is a distance of 2.35 km, which is a travel time of about 1.7 minutes). Right now, it's basically reliant on a kill chain if it stumbles upon a T-90 (call in WZ-10 to punish the T-90 with missiles or anti-tank artillery support), which takes time depending on digitization. With a strong ATGM, all action can be handled by itself.

Inst said:

The problem is that we don't know how well the ZTQ-15 operates at high altitudes. Any high-altitude adaptations, if any such exist, are unknown.

And the ZTZ-99 is within 10% of the ZTQ-15's P/W, which is why I say the ZTQ-15's P/W is anemic. If it were somehow a 40 P/W tank, it'd have a decisive agility and speed advantage over heavier tanks, but it's not, and the 30 P/W is for its minimum configuration; were it uparmored its P/W would resemble the ZTQ-99 is terms of speed and agility.

===

The key argument being made, anyways, is the lack of last-ditch ATGM vs MBTs. In a reconnaissance role, it needs to be able to fire back without having to maneuver for a side shot, because the latter is implying it's committing to a fight (if we think of a 3 km engagement diameter, to move to 90 degrees is a distance of 2.35 km, which is a travel time of about 1.7 minutes). Right now, it's basically reliant on a kill chain if it stumbles upon a T-90 (call in WZ-10 to punish the T-90 with missiles or anti-tank artillery support), which takes time depending on digitization. With a strong ATGM, all action can be handled by itself.

Click to expand...

Hang on though, why do you assume it doesn't operate any better than other typical MBTs in high altitudes? Let's say you're correct in this absurd assumption (after all why build a dedicated high altitude tank but ignore high altitude performance) and suppose it is no more suited to high altitude than any other tank currently in operation around the world. It still has almost 30hp/T compared to the average P/W of 20hp/T to 25hp/T. That's a LOT better! So this discussion is now semantics between what you personally consider good performance. I guess you can say nothing below 50hp/T is impressive enough to avoid being labeled as anemic by you. Or something equally arbitrarily high.

So we agree on the facts then. Even assuming Type-15 is no more suited to high altitude mobility, it is still a near 30hp/T vehicle compared to the usual 23 or 25hp/T which was and still is considered supremely agile. If the Type-15 is "anemic" for having nearly 30hp/T then the latest Abrams and the latest Leopards are total snails in comparison. Anemic cannot even describe literally every other tank on the planet if this is your definition.

Now for the 40hp/T ideal. Why would you suggest this? Do you think it's reasonable for the Type-15 to nearly double the P/W ratio compared to typical MBTs while still carrying a tank's gun, ammo, and full armour package? If you think it's not carrying armour and ammo for the 29 or 30hp/T ratio, what makes you think this? Then why do we suppose the other figures for other tanks also do not include any armour package and ammo at all, not to mention no crew either and equipment either. I think perhaps you're forgetting that the Type-15 has much less space for an engine as big as those used by >55T MBTs... to say nothing of the gearbox and rest of the drivetrain. For the size limitations, 1000hp is pretty damn impressive. They probably also designed in quick and easy maintenance and refit like on the VT-4.

Most MBTs around the world are well over 45T and do not have an engine that delivers more than 1000hp. You're only thinking of the latest and greatest NATO behemoths and they are actually very rare even in NATO! Most of the world is lucky to have a few Cold War era tanks in their entire army.