PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

There's a next generation heavy tank in the works. This new tank isn't a replacement for the ZTZ-99A, it's a replacement for the Type 59 family (still in service). That the new 105mm gun has comparable performance to 125mm guns presently in service doesn't mean it's to replace them, rather it's a sign of the remarkable technological progress China has made.

ZeEa5KPul said:

There's a next generation heavy tank in the works. This new tank isn't a replacement for the ZTZ-99A, it's a replacement for the Type 59 family (still in service). That the new 105mm gun has comparable performance to 125mm guns presently in service doesn't mean it's to replace them, rather it's a sign of the remarkable technological progress China has made.

Click to expand...

Another tank incoming yes please

Gloire_bb said:

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.

Click to expand...

Taiwan is a tiny extremely easy to access airspace for the PLA. If the ROCA can employ sufficient infantry formations that would necessitate significant dependence on tank vs tank warfare you have committed horrific military malpractice. There is quite literally no scenario these days where the PLA is landing without first taking full control over Taiwan’s airspace.

I don’t know why people keep trying to use Ukraine as an analogy *when Taiwan is not Ukraine and China is not Russia*. The PLA will not be prosecuting a Taiwan war via positional ground war. It’s an extremely dumb and wasteful way to fight when enclosure by sea and air and constant air surveillance alone will suffice to prevent Taiwan from being able to maintain any meaningfully survivable defensive line. If the PLA is doing what it’s been training to do for a decade plus now there isn’t much for PLA tanks to fight in Taiwan. The most they’d be doing in a worst case scenario is holding roads to choke off supply lines into cities for urban siege.

HDP10V110 seems to be the designation of the new engine on the tank, seems to be surprisingly a 10-cylinder engine

Tomboy said:

HDP10V110 seems to be the designation of the new engine on the tank, seems to be surprisingly a 10-cylinder engine

Click to expand...

does anyone have data on this engine. If so, please post it.

is this it?


see how the higher power density and rpm allows for a much more compact diesel engine.

latenlazy said:

Taiwan is a tiny extremely easy to access airspace for the PLA. If the ROCA can employ sufficient infantry formations that would necessitate significant dependence on tank vs tank warfare you have committed horrific military malpractice. There is quite literally no scenario these days where the PLA is landing without first taking full control over Taiwan’s airspace.

I don’t know why people keep trying to use Ukraine as an analogy *when Taiwan is not Ukraine and China is not Russia*. The PLA will not be prosecuting a Taiwan war via positional ground war. It’s an extremely dumb and wasteful way to fight when enclosure by sea and air and constant air surveillance alone will suffice to prevent Taiwan from being able to maintain any meaningfully survivable defensive line. If the PLA is doing what it’s been training to do for a decade plus now there isn’t much for PLA tanks to fight in Taiwan. The most they’d be doing in a worst case scenario is holding roads to choke off supply lines into cities for urban siege.

Click to expand...

it's amazing people can't figure this out, lol

Why do people even think this new 4th gen tank would not be able to take out an abrams lol.

People seem to forget that 105mm barrel launched ATGMs have been in PLA frontline service for decades. Just because a 105 APFDS can’t kill heavy tanks head on reliably doesn’t mean the 105mm armed tank can’t kill heavy enemy tanks reliably in a head on engagement.

Also, I think sometimes people, even some professional soldiers, still have their video game idea of what tank warfare is like. That a hit will either one-shot a tank or merely knock some hit points off it and that the hit tank can function absolutely normally until destroyed. That’s not how it works in reality, just look at Ukraine.

To take a tank main gun hit is no small thing. Even without penetration, the kinetic trauma from such a hit is basically a death sentence for the tank hit, as the crew and internal systems gets absolutely wrecked by the blunt force trauma of the hit.

It’s incredibly rare for a tank that have taken a full-on hit first to recover and effectively fire back never mind turn the tables on their attacker. So on the grand scheme of things, hits by 105mm isn’t going to be that different from 125mm/120mm in terms of practical impact on the course of a major battle, with the only materially big difference being on crew survival chances and recovery prospects for mission killed but not outright slain tanks.

I heard the new fin round for the new 105mm have 700+mm pen? They've improved the formulation composition of the Tungsten/trace rare earths rods.

Greetings Chinese Armor experts!

1. Could the 12.7mm remote gun be radar linked & with bigger / different magazine to act like a mini CIWS for drone targeting? Have you seen this exploited anywhere?

2. Why does the GL6 APS system come in 2x variety magazines? Either 4 count (new tank) or 2 count (IFV etc.)? I can’t see a significant cost difference unless the associated radar & electronics are different? (Track more targets simultaneously?)

3. Based on recent Ukrainian experience, what do you estimate as drone cluster numbers that are brought to bear on a tank / ifv? I’ve seen surprising numbers attack dispersed armor units in quick succession to ultimately bring down even “Turtle Tanks”. These numbers can only be expected to grow in the future. Does the new tank have sufficient defense depth / capacity against this?

4. I have read that GL6 reload time is quick, but that is a manual, exposed soldier going outside the tank to reload the canister / ammunition correct?

5. Despite lots of fancy anti-drone systems promotional videos (hard kill AA gun or laser type), why do we not see any actual battle front video of these systems in use in Ukraine?

6. Although drone based warfare has been raging for a few years now, most smaller caliber units seem to simply utilize existing ammunition rigged onto them, the silliest looking being robot dogs mounting guns designed for humans… Is it so difficult to custom design integrated ammo for small drones etc? Have you guys seen any developed by the Chinese?

7. When I see pictures of Chinese tank interiors, I often see use of what looks like cheap white nylon degradable zip ties securing cables, or cheap black rubber grommets, or the mixed use of a variety of bad fastners, literally flat head or Phillips types, why is this? How does China’s MILSPEC standards differ vs USA ?

8. I guess no-one knows the purpose of the very weird looking side cheek protrusions on the turret?

9. They ran out of space to integrate a drone with each tank? Only on the IFV? Kinda weird no? I read that it’s almost SOP to do that in Ukraine? (Have at least 1 per tank, at least for independent monitoring).

10. Isn’t anyone else shocked by the size of the integrated drone & it’s gimbal / camera on the IFV? With that size, the optics / sensors look as capable as a full targeting pod on an attack helo no? Does China not expect these to be semi disposable?

Thank you!
Nudge General TP!

Tach7777 said:

Greetings Chinese Armor experts!

1. Could the 12.7mm remote gun be radar linked & with bigger / different magazine to act like a mini CIWS for drone targeting? Have you seen this exploited anywhere?

Click to expand...

Don't think so (can't recall papers or video demonstrations).
There might be experiments with this, but don't make assumptions it will end up in production/use (at least not until more evidence surfaces)

Tach7777 said:

2. Why does the GL6 APS system come in 2x variety magazines? Either 4 count (new tank) or 2 count (IFV etc.)? I can’t see a significant cost difference unless the associated radar & electronics are different? (Track more targets simultaneously?)

Click to expand...

We don't know.
Could simply be due to cost savings + estimated threat profile/likehood being lower for the ones with 2 count.

Tach7777 said:

3. Based on recent Ukrainian experience, what do you estimate as drone cluster numbers that are brought to bear on a tank / ifv? I’ve seen surprising numbers attack dispersed armor units in quick succession to ultimately bring down even “Turtle Tanks”. These numbers can only be expected to grow in the future. Does the new tank have sufficient defense depth / capacity against this?

Click to expand...

Electronic warfare and measure of PLA is likely to be far better than both Ukraone and Russia.
Also, likely to have other measures/platforms against drones, so don't hyperfocus on what tanks has as anti-drone measures.

Tach7777 said:

4. I have read that GL6 reload time is quick, but that is a manual, exposed soldier going outside the tank to reload the canister / ammunition correct?

Click to expand...

Yea, it clearly needs to be reloaded from the outside.

Tach7777 said:

5. Despite lots of fancy anti-drone systems promotional videos (hard kill AA gun or laser type), why do we not see any actual battle front video of these systems in use in Ukraine?

Click to expand...

They aren't gonna be on tanks.
Maybe some laser blinder atmost, but that be it.

Tach7777 said:

6. Although drone based warfare has been raging for a few years now, most smaller caliber units seem to simply utilize existing ammunition rigged onto them, the silliest looking being robot dogs mounting guns designed for humans… Is it so difficult to custom design integrated ammo for small drones etc? Have you guys seen any developed by the Chinese?

Click to expand...

I dont recall any, but more than guns on the robot dogs, their foremost mission is likely scouting.
I think it is only a matter of time before we get more custom designed gun/machine gun on like, the small tank drones and the likes.

Tach7777 said:

7. When I see pictures of Chinese tank interiors, I often see use of what looks like cheap white nylon degradable zip ties securing cables, or cheap black rubber grommets, or the mixed use of a variety of bad fastners, literally flat head or Phillips types, why is this? How does China’s MILSPEC standards differ vs USA ?

Click to expand...

This i dunmo.

Tach7777 said:

8. I guess no-one knows the purpose of the very weird looking side cheek protrusions on the turret?

Click to expand...

Think some had guesses in this thread, but i dont think you find anything backed with credible evidence (?)

Tach7777 said:

9. They ran out of space to integrate a drone with each tank? Only on the IFV? Kinda weird no? I read that it’s almost SOP to do that in Ukraine? (Have at least 1 per tank, at least for independent monitoring).

Click to expand...

There might be the small grenade/cylinder drone, but at this point, we really can't conclude for sure.

Tach7777 said:

10. Isn’t anyone else shocked by the size of the integrated drone & it’s gimbal / camera on the IFV? With that size, the optics / sensors look as capable as a full targeting pod on an attack helo no? Does China not expect these to be semi disposable?

Click to expand...

There's like, 1k rmb AESA radars on the chinese civilian market.
Don't take western standards or prices of radars and optics and think it might be what the PLA pays.

Tach7777 said:

Thank you!
Nudge General TP!
View attachment 158762

Click to expand...

I am no exprert at all though, and are just forwarding a lot what i have read in this forum and a bit outside.