For starters it will be useful to scout out a location for anti-tank assets before sending armor in! The reason tanks have been sitting ducks in Ukraine is that they have very poor situational awareness.
PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
For starters it will be useful to scout out a location for anti-tank assets before sending armor in! The reason tanks have been sitting ducks in Ukraine is that they have very poor situational awareness.
Although its a bit too early, I envision tanks to take the same modernisation direction as ships did from WW2 and onwards. From a focus on armor and withstanding hits to avoiding getting hit in the first place.
That's not to say that it will be the exact route, armour will still remain a vital component as land warfare inevitably presents more threats to a platform than in sea, but more focus will be directed to creating an information bubble around the tank, creating as much as situational awareness to the tank commander as possible and intercepting enemy fires before they impact the tank itself
Using drones seems like a good and cheap way to accomplish that. The tank deploys the drone, the drone using AI starts scanning the field on front for potential enemy units and sends the data to the tank commander. This would allow the tank to get a first look, first shoot opportunity.
The Ukrainian conflict has shown that many times, tanks get shot first a couple of times before reacting and start shooting back. And in a lot of cases at these first couple of enemy fires the tank either gets destroyed outright, mission killed, or damaged in such a degree that it has degraded capability.
I think the biggest change for any future MBT would be to change the ammunition storage and feed system so that it is separate from the crew compartment and the crew is protected from any potential ammunition fire. The ZTQ15 is the first step in this direction, but from what have seen, the future MBT is not learning the lesson that storing ammunition (that uses combustible cartridge cases) under the turret basket with no provision to separate the crew from the ammunition is not a good idea. The graphic showing the crew positioned in a front section like the T-14 or is interesting and solves this problem. As you add more capabilities (drones, sensors, etc) crew training becomes more expensive and the investment into the crew should change.
by78
General
Do you have more images from the presentation?
I'm interested to know how NORINCO thinks the support vehicle will fit into the force structure. I personally don't think each tank will necessarily have a support vehicle hitched to it. Maybe they see one support vehicle per platoon is enough, for example.
Last edited:
According to , he drew the original for fun. Now that Norinco is using the idea in presentation he can brag about it for rest of his life
I found his art station via google image search, looks like he drew it 4 years ago:
Here's another slide from the Norinco presentation:
broadsword
Brigadier
Will the tank be able to handle the recoil from a 120mm main gun?
That is the most gigantic lower glacis I have ever seen. If that tank ever gets put in any tank simulator game, it'll eat more frontal penetrations than even the light tanks.
That said, I definately stan the murdertrain.
The slide said future Russian tank
In his original post #228 it doesn't say 'future Russian tank'
At the topright of the slide it says ‘2. 发展趋势’ which roughly translated is 'Future development trends', so the point in the presentation is about what might be developed in the future.
As for the blue headline we have '现代战争需要什么样的装甲兵器' ('what kinds of armored vehicles does modern combat need') and the red above the back supporting vehicle being '未来坦克方案设想' ('idea/proposal for a future tank')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In post #245 the first picture is from a military enthusiast and in that picture, the bottom lineart over a 99a is what's used in the presentation (the picture in post 228).
And the 2nd picture should be another slide from the presentation, different from the slide in the picture of post 228.
In this slide the blue text says: '先进坦克技术的发展现状---坦克强国俄罗斯的未来坦克' ('current cutting-edge tank technology developments --- future tank for the strong tank country Russia')
And the red text is '第38装甲武器装备研究与测试所2020年提出的俄罗斯未来坦克' ('the proposal by 38th institute of armored vehicles research and testing in year 2020 of Russia's future tank').
The last slide looks a lot like the T-14 Armata. And I have seen similar proposals from the Russians of adding the trailer vehicle in combination with putting a 152mm gun on the Armata platform. I assume that is what is seen here.
With 152mm shells you have a lot less space in the vehicle if you want to store the same number of shells, hence the trailer. It is still a bad idea, the requirement for a trailer vehicle was one of the reasons for the US cancellation of the Crusader howitzer in the late Cold War period, it increases the cost of the platform quite a lot.
You are basically making two tracked armored vehicles with the capabilities of one. Today ammo reloads are typically carried by much cheaper trucks.
With 152mm shells you have a lot less space in the vehicle if you want to store the same number of shells, hence the trailer. It is still a bad idea, the requirement for a trailer vehicle was one of the reasons for the US cancellation of the Crusader howitzer in the late Cold War period, it increases the cost of the platform quite a lot.
You are basically making two tracked armored vehicles with the capabilities of one. Today ammo reloads are typically carried by much cheaper trucks.