But the point is if you're fighting in an environment where it's only light tanks, 105 is more than enough.
PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
But the point is if you're fighting in an environment where it's only light tanks, 105 is more than enough.
Per 105mm vs 125mm
1. The velocity achieved lead me to suspect the 105 mm may in fact be a new 105 mm *smoothbore* rather than the old 105mm *rifle*.
2. For APFSDS, it really makes no difference, as APFSDS penetrator is already sub-caliber. If coated propellant is able to achieve the same velocity with smaller caliber, so much the better.
3. The only difference is HEAP type rounds that depend on the diameter of the round. But this HEAP is easier to defend against so is less important.
The reason 105 mm rather than a new caliber is chosen is probably because the old tooling for 105mm rifled can be reused to save cost.
1. The velocity achieved lead me to suspect the 105 mm may in fact be a new 105 mm *smoothbore* rather than the old 105mm *rifle*.
2. For APFSDS, it really makes no difference, as APFSDS penetrator is already sub-caliber. If coated propellant is able to achieve the same velocity with smaller caliber, so much the better.
3. The only difference is HEAP type rounds that depend on the diameter of the round. But this HEAP is easier to defend against so is less important.
The reason 105 mm rather than a new caliber is chosen is probably because the old tooling for 105mm rifled can be reused to save cost.
I'm not sure if TW scenario suffice as "only light tanks" considering they have Abrams, also like if they wanna do expeditionary warfare there is no guarantee they'll only face light tanks.
HE and to a extent gun launched AGTM is still very important aspects. Also why save the two pence on the gun when they've opted for the fanciest subsystem for everything else, also 125mm gun is still in production to my knowledge so the reuse tooling argument does not hold.
I think there are some missunderstandings.
1. Yes, like 95% chance. This is beyond that 105 riffle can realistically reach.
2, The difference is not insignificant: both APFSDS and HEAT suffer significant performance hit from spin stabilization. This leads to rather complex spin compensation for both, which decreases the penalty, but doesn't remove it completely, as it takes weight and volume(and cost). Furthermore, even higher tech riffled bore gives lower performance, be it for gun barrel (pressure) or projectile(there's no free tight interaction with riffling).
3, difference normally is all HE - spin stabilization is just better(more accurate) and way more volume-efficient(no need for entire tail).
---
Tooling can't be reused, 105 riffled barrel is way larger than 105 smoothbore; For example, 115mm smoothbore was born more or less as D-10T(riffled) w/o riffling, when new 100mm ammo has proven too long to handle within tank.
China had 105 smoothbores long time ago, though. There is no magic when you're a machnery tools manufacturer, and China is(mildly speaking) one.
again, Abrams will be targeted by overwhelming drone and helicopter assets. You should not be using your light/medium tanks face to face with a heavy MBT.
This is akin to asking why J-36 is not designed to dogfight.
What they are planning is actually pretty ideal for Taiwan fight. You have a whole bunch of UGVs, robot dogs and mountain cat that can be transported over by large helicopters once you have destroyed the air defense and radar. And they will be supported by persistent drones and attack helicopters along with long range ISR aircraft.
The small, lighter assets are far more maneuverable on the complex terrain in Taiwan. Abrams are basically sitting ducks in that case.
Tthe light tanks are not meant to fight heavy MBTs in open terrain. In fact, you probably don't want to use heavy MBT in terrains that they can easily navigate, because persistent drones will have a field day with that
Tank maneuver warfare is mostly irrelevant for Taiwan these days. If the ROCA can conduct any ground maneuver fighting at all you’ve already done something terribly wrong.
I remembered my past posts. These two... I was arguing that the tanks will have to go simpler and lighter, or disappear.
I saw three main problems with extant Western MBTs and their, supposed, even more complicated successors.
1- They weren't tough against the common tank killers of this era. What are the tank killers in 2025? ATGMs, artillery, air power and small drones (which can be thought of as a cheap offshoot of aviation). 70 ton Western MBT aren't noticeably tougher against these threats. And all the measures that can be taken to mitigate these threats work just the same with lighter vehicles, if not better. Most of the time, tanks aren't even capable of returning fire against these threats.
2- They cannot contribute to the battlefield in a unique way. Tanks are not special in providing immediate, accurate and explosive firepower anymore. The said tank killers of the previous point do that just fine. Ultimately, all assets are for generating effects on the enemy. A tank with its 120-130 mm direct-fire-only gun generates a set of effects. And that effect is simply not unique and doesn't worth $50 million. I gave that number because the Leo 2 A8 is above $30 million already. That price also means a lot less 120-130 mm guns on the battlefield.
3- Impossibility to make the tanks survivable enough. Think about all the threats in needs to counter. Against air power and drones, it cannot even effect the battlefield, except for self-defense. A salvo of top-attack ATGMs are going to penetrate the APS. And their debris would degrade the sensors on the tanks which are impossible to harden anyway. Against artillery? If it gets targeted properly by a 155 mm battery, then it is gone. At worst, for the artillery, there are munitions like SADARM. Sensor dependence is another topic. Ground warfare is following the way aerial and naval domains did. And sensors are impossible to harden.
My final opinion was Western tanks already being too heavy and expensive for their own good. I also saw the non-existence of solutions to mitigate the threats without making them much heavier and expensive over what they already were. To me it appears like PLA has acknowledged that the tank's heyday and role as the primary tank killer were gone and decided to go lighter and simpler. This way they are maximising the number of guns on the battlefield. This design is probably more survivable against the said tank killers than all the existing Western ones.
The recent new tank concepts are pointless designs
Since yesterday I have been thinking about new tank concepts we saw in Eurosatory 2022. These tanks are apparently ultra high-tech designs. Some of them and their common features Nexter and KMW KNDS E-MBT - Trophy APS and GALIX soft kill APS - 130 mm gun - Organic UAV - Acoustic sensor -...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
New Type98/99 MBT thread
With the specialization of military equipment happening, I wonder if it's time to rethink the whole tank concept. I think trying to cram more and more things into tanks is a hopeless endeavor as it attempts to defend against an ever increasing array of threats from ATGMs, to drones, to RPGs, to...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
I saw three main problems with extant Western MBTs and their, supposed, even more complicated successors.
1- They weren't tough against the common tank killers of this era. What are the tank killers in 2025? ATGMs, artillery, air power and small drones (which can be thought of as a cheap offshoot of aviation). 70 ton Western MBT aren't noticeably tougher against these threats. And all the measures that can be taken to mitigate these threats work just the same with lighter vehicles, if not better. Most of the time, tanks aren't even capable of returning fire against these threats.
2- They cannot contribute to the battlefield in a unique way. Tanks are not special in providing immediate, accurate and explosive firepower anymore. The said tank killers of the previous point do that just fine. Ultimately, all assets are for generating effects on the enemy. A tank with its 120-130 mm direct-fire-only gun generates a set of effects. And that effect is simply not unique and doesn't worth $50 million. I gave that number because the Leo 2 A8 is above $30 million already. That price also means a lot less 120-130 mm guns on the battlefield.
3- Impossibility to make the tanks survivable enough. Think about all the threats in needs to counter. Against air power and drones, it cannot even effect the battlefield, except for self-defense. A salvo of top-attack ATGMs are going to penetrate the APS. And their debris would degrade the sensors on the tanks which are impossible to harden anyway. Against artillery? If it gets targeted properly by a 155 mm battery, then it is gone. At worst, for the artillery, there are munitions like SADARM. Sensor dependence is another topic. Ground warfare is following the way aerial and naval domains did. And sensors are impossible to harden.
My final opinion was Western tanks already being too heavy and expensive for their own good. I also saw the non-existence of solutions to mitigate the threats without making them much heavier and expensive over what they already were. To me it appears like PLA has acknowledged that the tank's heyday and role as the primary tank killer were gone and decided to go lighter and simpler. This way they are maximising the number of guns on the battlefield. This design is probably more survivable against the said tank killers than all the existing Western ones.
And if PLA?
Taiwan isn't too big, it isn't exactly small either; there is space for maneuver, and it is least desirable to grind through island this big in a positional warfare.
Main role for tank v tank engagements since forever is performing/blunting penetrations by armored formations. Which means meeting engagement and extreme importance of performing the mission for either side.
Other than that, tank v tank combat was secondary...essentially always.
I.e. while normally, even in Ukraine, AFV v AFV combat is deeply tertiary, at certain moments (breahthroughs) it was absolutely essential. For example, we can say that entire Ukrainian Kursk affair failed largely because they didn't have enough tanks to commit, and commited them too late. FPV or no, it was MRAP columns running into Russian ambushes or IFVs point blank.
Had Ukraine tanks there, it would've been a total disaster for Russia. Would.
Ammo. It's equation between autonomy and destrictuve power.
But basic premise is really any caliber from 2" onwards can clear a small space(MG nest, pillbox, room) in one hit. I.e. higher caliber only helps when you are doing demolition.