Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Inst

Captain
@ougoah

The ZTZ-99 runs a 1500 hp engine. The ZTQ-15 runs a 1000 HP engine. All the ZTQ-15 needs to hit 40 P/W would be to equip a ZTZ-99 1500 HP engine.

Moreover, I'm arguing that the mobility advantage is overstated because the ZTQ-15 vs the T-90 in terms of P/W is within 10% of the ZTZ-99 vs the T-90. The main advantage of the ZTQ-15 is in its light weight, allowing it to manage terrain a heavier tank would not be able to manage.

===

The Chinese in general don't like to produce wonder weapons, TBH. They tend to do low-risk low-cost platforms whose specs aren't leading edge but are often good enough or function in an area no one else is bothering with. That's why, while the ZTQ-15's P/W is very good for a tank (no one else produces light tanks so within its class there's no comparison point), it's not decisively superior to a ZTZ-99 in terms of good terrain mobility.

But a good gun-launched ATGM isn't going to be a wonder weapon; it's going to be a strong reserve weapon that can be exported to everyone who's running a Type 59 derivative, turn Type 59s in PLAGF reserves into competent tank destroyers, and make the ZTQ-15 unable to be overwhelmed / overrun by the T-90.
 
Last edited:
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Inst said:
@ougoah

The ZTZ-99 runs a 1500 hp engine. The ZTQ-15 runs a 1000 HP engine. All the ZTQ-15 needs to hit 40 P/W would be to equip a ZTZ-99 1500 HP engine.

Moreover, I'm arguing that the mobility advantage is overstated because the ZTQ-15 vs the T-90 in terms of P/W is within 10% of the ZTZ-99 vs the T-90. The main advantage of the ZTQ-15 is in its light weight, allowing it to manage terrain a heavier tank would not be able to manage.

===

The Chinese in general don't like to produce wonder weapons, TBH. They tend to do low-risk low-cost platforms whose specs aren't leading edge but are often good enough or function in an area no one else is bothering with. That's why, while the ZTQ-15's P/W is very good for a tank (no one else produces light tanks so within its class there's no comparison point), it's not decisively superior to a ZTZ-99 in terms of good terrain mobility.
Click to expand...

wha?

You do realise the Type 99's engine will not fit the Type 15 like a turbocharged V8 diesel truck engine can't fit into a Formula 1 race car. Then there's the drivetrain and chasis differences and tolerances. Engineers often spend millions and years to find 1% improvement let alone 10%. A 10% gap between Type 15 and Type 99 vs T-90 is huge. Imagine a person complaining about receiving a 10% raise. Why are you rubbishing 10%? Keeping in mind this isn't a 10% gap between the Chinese tank and the Russian tank which India is operating as frontline and best MBT they have. The Chinese tank is much better than 10% on that metric.

Btw let's check your numbers. 29hp/T vs 21hp/T (T-90S is rouhgly 47T with 1000hp) ... that's more than a 38% gap in P/W. The Type 99A is 1500hp and 58T let's say and so that's nearly 26hp/T vs T-90S of India is 24% gap. That's 38-24=14% improvement... not 10% improvement. Then again semantics over definitions and you may have done your maths differently somehow but busted again! 14% not 10% improvement compared to a Type 99 vs T-90 situation. That's a whopping big difference to your claim.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
So after 2 pages correcting bad information and typical misrepresentation of facts, it appears the Type 15 is "quite a lot better"* in mobility than a Type 99A and absolutely blasts the T-90S in mobility which is already a pretty good tank when it comes to mobility.

*My own definition since the Type 15 is just over 10% superior to the Type 99A when it comes to power to weight. It is also smaller and nominally lighter (by about 20T where Type 99A is 60% heavier) and so is much easier to transport, has far superior road and bridge access. The Type 99A itself is no slouch in all parameters of mobility and has an equal or superior power to weight compared to the best NATO tanks with its 1500hp engine which btw is quite a bulky and thirsty thing. Range is something else Inst failed to even consider. All of these and much, much more, fall under the domain of "mobility". The Type 15 is a freaking master of mobility... the King of all tanks there. If only it had a 125mm.

:p
 
I

Inst

Captain
The Type 99's engine won't fit the Type 15, but the Type 15 could have been designed with the Type 99 engine in mind instead of the 1000 hp engine. This would likely have yielded weight gains, but the focus of the ZTQ-15 is its weight, not its P/W ratio, since it's designed for boggy terrain.

However, something else needs to be pointed out. The ZTZ-99 weighs about 54 tons. The 1500 hp engine divided by 54 tons gives you 27.7 P/W ratio. The ZTQ-15 weighs between 33 tons and 36 tons. At a 1000 engine, this basically gives it a variation of 27.7-30.36 P/W ratio.

In other words, the ZTQ-15 at minimal loading is about 10% better than the ZTZ-99. At armored loading it's EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ZTZ-99. The P/W isn't that exploitable!

===

The advantage the ZTQ-15 might have over the ZTZ-99 in terms of mobility is entirely on rugged terrain, i.e, the ZTQ-15 weighs less so it can travel terrain that a ZTZ-99 would sink down in. The additional 10% P/W is mainly useful in rugged terrain; i.e, it can climb a higher grade than the ZTZ-99 could or climb grades the ZTZ-99 can with greater ease.

@siegecrossbow

The T-90 and T-72 work fine in Ladakh provided the T-90 / T-72 are either, #1, static, where the lack of mobility isn't an issue, or #2, maneuvering in favorable terrain (no grades). It's a good enough solution that outweighs ZTQ-15s in a head-on engagement, but it limits InA options.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Inst said:
The Type 99's engine won't fit the Type 15, but the Type 15 could have been designed with the Type 99 engine in mind instead of the 1000 hp engine. This would likely have yielded weight gains, but the focus of the ZTQ-15 is its weight, not its P/W ratio, since it's designed for boggy terrain.

However, something else needs to be pointed out. The ZTZ-99 weighs about 54 tons. The 1500 hp engine divided by 54 tons gives you 27.7 P/W ratio. The ZTQ-15 weighs between 33 tons and 36 tons. At a 1000 engine, this basically gives it a variation of 27.7-30.36 P/W ratio.

In other words, the ZTQ-15 at minimal loading is about 10% better than the ZTZ-99. At armored loading it's EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ZTZ-99. The P/W isn't that exploitable!

===

The advantage the ZTQ-15 might have over the ZTZ-99 in terms of mobility is entirely on rugged terrain, i.e, the ZTQ-15 weighs less so it can travel terrain that a ZTZ-99 would sink down in. The additional 10% P/W is mainly useful in rugged terrain; i.e, it can climb a higher grade than the ZTZ-99 could or climb grades the ZTZ-99 can with greater ease.

@siegecrossbow

The T-90 and T-72 work fine in Ladakh provided the T-90 / T-72 are either, #1, static, where the lack of mobility isn't an issue, or #2, maneuvering in favorable terrain (no grades). It's a good enough solution that outweighs ZTQ-15s in a head-on engagement, but it limits InA options.
Click to expand...

First paragraph is contradictory. How are you able to say if Type 15 was designed with the 1500hp Type 99A engine from the start, it would gain weight and that weight is what's important to the Type 15 not P/W... wha? huh? You cannot just do that! The type 99A is already that tank designed with that particular 1500hp engine in mind :rolleyes:

Second para is why I used the Type 99A because the ZTZ-99 first two variants are much lighter and offer similar if not possibly better P/W than the Type 99A like you have offered here. I think the engine on the first isn't anywhere near 1500hp.

Third para is downright incorrect. We don't know about loading do you have the specifics?? As far as I'm aware 36T is loaded and 33T is unloaded. Could be wrong but let's say 39T is loaded, then yeah the P/W goes down to nearly 26hp/T which is still better than most modern NATO tanks but it is around the same as the Type 99A. Again though this 39T weight is inaccurate assumption rather than the information we know which already tells you the Type 15 is a 33T tank and 36T when fully loaded with additional armour packages and enhancements.

Even if we assumed Type 15 at 39 tonnes total loaded plus additional armour packs, it still features nearly 26hp/T which is significantly better than most NATO modern MBTs and much better than the Pindad/Kaplan light tank which has just over 22hp/T. However this would take the Type 15 to a poorer P/W compared to the Sprut tank but the Sprut has almost no meaningful protection even from the front and it doesn't feature any of the electronics and fire control systems in the Type 15 but it does have a 125mm gun.

Can you stop with the Type 15 should use a 1500hp engine already? Most NATO heavyweight MBTs aren't using a 1500hp engine and no light tank does or is able to fit one. If they did, they wouldn't be a light tank anymore. It's like asking Lockheed Martin to fit 2x F135 engines onto an F-16 because that's powwwwwahhhhhh.
 
Last edited:
I

Inst

Captain
ougoah said:
First paragraph is contradictory. How are you able to say if Type 15 was designed with the 1500hp Type 99A engine from the start, it would gain weight and that weight is what's important to the Type 15 not P/W... wha? huh? You cannot just do that! The type 99A is already that tank designed with that particular 1500hp engine in mind :rolleyes:

Second para is why I used the Type 99A because the ZTZ-99 first two variants are much lighter and offer similar if not possibly better P/W than the Type 99A like you have offered here. I think the engine on the first isn't anywhere near 1500hp.

Third para is downright incorrect. We don't know about loading do you have the specifics?? As far as I'm aware 36T is loaded and 33T is unloaded. Could be wrong but let's say 39T is loaded, then yeah the P/W goes down to nearly 26hp/T which is still better than most modern NATO tanks but it is around the same as the Type 99A. Again though this 39T weight is inaccurate assumption rather than the information we know which already tells you the Type 15 is a 33T tank and 36T when fully loaded with additional armour packages and enhancements.

Even if we assumed Type 15 at 39 tonnes total loaded plus additional armour packs, it still features nearly 26hp/T which is significantly better than most NATO modern MBTs and much better than the Pindad/Kaplan light tank which has just over 22hp/T. However this would take the Type 15 to a poorer P/W compared to the Sprut tank but the Sprut has almost no meaningful protection even from the front and it doesn't feature any of the electronics and fire control systems in the Type 15 but it does have a 125mm gun.

Can you stop with the Type 15 should use a 1500hp engine already? Most NATO heavyweight MBTs aren't using a 1500hp engine and no light tank does or is able to fit one. If they did, they wouldn't be a light tank anymore. It's like asking Lockheed Martin to fit 2x F135 engines onto an F-16 because that's powwwwwahhhhhh.
Click to expand...

You're straw-manning. My primary argument is that the ZTQ-15 needs a better anti-tank guided missile so that if it's ambushed by T-90s, it can turn it into a telefrag.

The mobility advantage of the ZTQ-15 is overstated; its P/W ratio isn't much better than various MBTs and that's only when it's not carrying modular armor. The advantage of the ZTQ-15 tends to be a matter of weight and its ability to handle gradients that tanks with a lesser P/W ratio would not be able to manage.

Stuffing a 1500 hp engine into the ZTQ-15 would increase its power by 50%, and its P/W by at least 25%, but what's the bleeding point? The tank is never going to be a Lambo and being faster than other vehicles in its train isn't that much an advantage except in recon work; as an infantry support tank it'll always be weighed down by the speed of infantry, APCs, and IFVs.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Inst said:
You're straw-manning. My primary argument is that the ZTQ-15 needs a better anti-tank guided missile so that if it's ambushed by T-90s, it can turn it into a telefrag.

The mobility advantage of the ZTQ-15 is overstated; its P/W ratio isn't much better than various MBTs and that's only when it's not carrying modular armor. The advantage of the ZTQ-15 tends to be a matter of weight and its ability to handle gradients that tanks with a lesser P/W ratio would not be able to manage.

Stuffing a 1500 hp engine into the ZTQ-15 would increase its power by 50%, and its P/W by at least 25%, but what's the bleeding point? The tank is never going to be a Lambo and being faster than other vehicles in its train isn't that much an advantage except in recon work; as an infantry support tank it'll always be weighed down by the speed of infantry, APCs, and IFVs.
Click to expand...

Ignoring your technically incorrect accusation of being strawman-ed, I think you are confusing yourself. You originally said the Type 15 should benefit from having the 1500hp engine and it is also you who said weight is of greatest importance to the Type 15, yet curiously also insist on increasing its weight. P/W is much better than other MBTs by my definition. If an average MBT has P/W roughly around 23hp/T, Type 15's of 30hp/T absolutely smashes the average tank. I don't know what your definition of "much better" is but for me that's nearly a 30% advantage and I'd call that much better.

As for carrying armour, Type 15 is 33T nominally like the Type 99A is 58T and M1A2 is 72T. Type 15 with additional armour is 36T. That's as good info as we've got on it and your pure assumptions are worthless rubbish. If you want to assume Type 15 is 39T or whatever, it is up to you to prove this first before making further judgements.

What's the bleeding point of stuffing a 1500hp engine into a Type 15 indeed! You suggested it you muppet! LOL I've seen braindead bhakts behave and converse with more cognitive acuity than this garbage. I don't mean to offend you if you are dealing with any medical issues though. It's truly been a strange exchange of posts with you contradicting yourself more often than usual and making grand cases based on totally wild assumptions.

The points been made clearly enough and you've been corrected thoroughly. I won't take this further off-topic and will ignore your future posts on super duper heavy Type 15 related content.
 
Sardaukar20

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
ougoah said:
So after 2 pages correcting bad information and typical misrepresentation of facts, it appears the Type 15 is "quite a lot better"* in mobility than a Type 99A and absolutely blasts the T-90S in mobility which is already a pretty good tank when it comes to mobility.

*My own definition since the Type 15 is just over 10% superior to the Type 99A when it comes to power to weight. It is also smaller and nominally lighter (by about 20T where Type 99A is 60% heavier) and so is much easier to transport, has far superior road and bridge access. The Type 99A itself is no slouch in all parameters of mobility and has an equal or superior power to weight compared to the best NATO tanks with its 1500hp engine which btw is quite a bulky and thirsty thing. Range is something else Inst failed to even consider. All of these and much, much more, fall under the domain of "mobility". The Type 15 is a freaking master of mobility... the King of all tanks there. If only it had a 125mm.

:p
Click to expand...
Having the Type 15 carry a 125mm gun would definitely give it the firepower for make it a more useful light tank. But protection and ammo load might need to be sacrificed in the process in order to maintain that mobility performance. The tank could end up becoming a Chinese version of the Sprut SD, more of an assault gun than a tank. Maybe the PLA have a specific role for the Type 15 in its doctrine to accept the 105mm gun compromise. The type 15 does have far more armour protection than the Sprut SD. It could at least take a hit from legacy ATGMs.

Nevertheless, I don't see why the 125mm gun can't be fitted into the Type-15 in the future. Just like the existing 105mm gun, the 125mm could use the same cassette type autoloader instead of its traditional carousel autoloader. Ready rounds could be stored in the turret bustle instead of in the hull. Though the tank would understandably now have reduced 125mm ammo capacity than a standard Type 96. And to save even more weight, the turret could be made unmanned to save on turret armour, like the Stryker MGS and T-14 Armata.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top