PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

Rowdyhorse4 said:

damn, correct me if i'm wrong but the pics look like next gen tank retains the hull autoloader system? Here's to hoping they change it to a bustle loading autoloader similar to the ZTQ-15 and Japanese MBTs. the Much faster reload speeds or bustle loading would be a nice have for one.

Click to expand...

I think China may be moving from cold war Chinese style defensive warfare to Russian/Soviet style armored mass assault with this type of design.

Type 15 is great for dealing with larger number of trash tanks (India) while Type 99As can move quickly in reverse as they're sniping enemy elite tanks (formerly Russia but now NATO/South Korea) while remaining impervious from the front.

The new tank seems most similar to T14. It'll have carousel autoloader which is more protected than bustle. Armored capsule is likely guaranteed.

In other words, it will basically be a similar type of tank as the T14 but mass produced and utlilizing the tech advantages China has.

Looking at the future, China may have to fight a defensive war in Taiwan, where Type 15 would dominate. But it may also become involved in the middle east and/or need to do a counteroffensive in Korea, and for that, Russian style mass armored pushes might be the logical solution sought by army planners.

Biscuits said:

I think China may be moving from cold war Chinese style defensive warfare to Russian/Soviet style armored mass assault with this type of design.

Type 15 is great for dealing with larger number of trash tanks (India) while Type 99As can move quickly in reverse as they're sniping enemy elite tanks (formerly Russia but now NATO/South Korea) while remaining impervious from the front.

The new tank seems most similar to T14. It'll have carousel autoloader which is more protected than bustle. Armored capsule is likely guaranteed.

In other words, it will basically be a similar type of tank as the T14 but mass produced and utlilizing the tech advantages China has.

Looking at the future, China may have to fight a defensive war in Taiwan, where Type 15 would dominate. But it may also become involved in the middle east and/or need to do a counteroffensive in Korea, and for that, Russian style mass armored pushes might be the logical solution sought by army planners.

Click to expand...

I'm not 100% on board with mass armored assaults happening for future conflicts, UAV saturation is only going to increase, as such you need to always assume that the enemy knows exactly where you are attacking from.

In that sense small unit tactics with heavy fire support will minimise asset exposure. Large formations will just become bait for enemy artillery.

As proven in operation desert storm, tanks do not have to trade protection for mass assault / offensive scenarios, so I am hoping protection against UAVs and modern munitions is greatly considered, and then afterwards the ability to conduct offensive operations. Whilst the tank is not obsolete it is becoming quite clear the russian doctrine simply does not work in modern conflicts. The T72s are getting replaced by T90Ms with vastly superior protection for a reason. I think it would be quite stupid to design a next-gen tank for cold war style european plain battles, even with APS, blowout panels, and various other protective measures the focus should be on the ability to integrate in a combined arms scenario, survivability and protection. Nevertheless firepower and mobility shouldn't be sacrificed and that is where an unmanned turret excels. Bustle autoloader preferred, with blowout panel as a hit doesn't destroy the entire turret.

polati said:

As proven in operation desert storm, tanks do not have to trade protection for mass assault / offensive scenarios, so I am hoping protection against UAVs and modern munitions is greatly considered, and then afterwards the ability to conduct offensive operations. Whilst the tank is not obsolete it is becoming quite clear the russian doctrine simply does not work in modern conflicts. The T72s are getting replaced by T90Ms with vastly superior protection for a reason. I think it would be quite stupid to design a next-gen tank for cold war style european plain battles, even with APS, blowout panels, and various other protective measures the focus should be on the ability to integrate in a combined arms scenario, survivability and protection. Nevertheless firepower and mobility shouldn't be sacrificed and that is where an unmanned turret excels. Bustle autoloader preferred, with blowout panel as a hit doesn't destroy the entire turret.

Click to expand...

T-90M will not suffice. NATO probably has Relikt samples.

Hyper said:

T-90M will not suffice. NATO probably has Relikt samples.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, newer low cost western anti tank weapons such as NLAW are being fielded in numbers. Top attack is becoming one of the main attack vectors for infantry based anti tank weapons, slapping more ERA everywhere is just weight prohibitive.

Active defense is the best way to go and it meshes well with smaller unit tactics as it will also minimise risk against friendly infantry. Once a breakthrough is made in the lines IFVs and APCs can follow to consolidate.

Biscuits said:

I think China may be moving from cold war Chinese style defensive warfare to Russian/Soviet style armored mass assault with this type of design.

Type 15 is great for dealing with larger number of trash tanks (India) while Type 99As can move quickly in reverse as they're sniping enemy elite tanks (formerly Russia but now NATO/South Korea) while remaining impervious from the front.

The new tank seems most similar to T14. It'll have carousel autoloader which is more protected than bustle. Armored capsule is likely guaranteed.

In other words, it will basically be a similar type of tank as the T14 but mass produced and utlilizing the tech advantages China has.

Looking at the future, China may have to fight a defensive war in Taiwan, where Type 15 would dominate. But it may also become involved in the middle east and/or need to do a counteroffensive in Korea, and for that, Russian style mass armored pushes might be the logical solution sought by army planners.

Click to expand...

hmmm the bully is thinking hard how to sanction something that it is not happening .. ohhh found it .... sanction China with iron ore from Australia .. so not enough steel to produce tank and warship

Or sanction China of soybean from the US .. as most of the soybean is for animal feed that the meat from that animal (some) ending up feeding PLA soldiers

polati said:

As proven in operation desert storm, tanks do not have to trade protection for mass assault / offensive scenarios, so I am hoping protection against UAVs and modern munitions is greatly considered, and then afterwards the ability to conduct offensive operations. Whilst the tank is not obsolete it is becoming quite clear the russian doctrine simply does not work in modern conflicts. The T72s are getting replaced by T90Ms with vastly superior protection for a reason. I think it would be quite stupid to design a next-gen tank for cold war style european plain battles, even with APS, blowout panels, and various other protective measures the focus should be on the ability to integrate in a combined arms scenario, survivability and protection. Nevertheless firepower and mobility shouldn't be sacrificed and that is where an unmanned turret excels. Bustle autoloader preferred, with blowout panel as a hit doesn't destroy the entire turret.

Click to expand...

T72s are ancient, as bad as the M1s used in the recent middle eastern wars.

Iraq also doesn't really tell us too much about tank combat as one side was essentially afk, just like the South China campaign or the Yalu River offensive doesn't tell us too much except that arrogance, lack of any reasonable command structure, corruption, poor morale, leads to the downfall of armies.

The next gen tank would be expected to have a higher level of APS than any other fielded tank, some sort of experimental ERA, and the combination of armored capsule + carousel autoloader would mean that in order to activate blowout panels, attacks must penetrate the hull of the tank rather than just hitting the bustle.

Combine that with Chinese formations having very large access to drones of all types, I don't see how such a platform wouldn't be survivable when pushing forward in numbers, since they're supported by combined arms.

The reason I think this tank comes closer to Russian philosophy is that from what it looks like, it will be T90M weight class, as its supposed to only have 2 crewmembers.

What do you guys think about a tethered drone for increased situational awareness and perhaps projectile early warning? It would fly say 30m above the tank, relaying 360 degree image to an on board computer as well as the commander. It can't fly far since it's tethered, but that's not really its purpose. It would be immune to jamming, doesn't need to be recharged, and have very high data transmission speed.

It could also have a secondary non-tethered mode of course, for when tethering is not realistic, then it could function as a regular drone with all the associated pros and cons.

I also wonder how much research is going on for EREV versions of tanks. It could improve the mobility of tanks significantly and allow for high energy weapons like railguns/coilguns, laser anti-drone guns, etc. Some battery packs can perhaps be intentionally made to be explosive, replacing ERAs.

dingyibvs said:

What do you guys think about a tethered drone for increased situational awareness and perhaps projectile early warning? It would fly say 30m above the tank, relaying 360 degree image to an on board computer as well as the commander. It can't fly far since it's tethered, but that's not really its purpose. It would be immune to jamming, doesn't need to be recharged, and have very high data transmission speed.

It could also have a secondary non-tethered mode of course, for when tethering is not realistic, then it could function as a regular drone with all the associated pros and cons.

I also wonder how much research is going on for EREV versions of tanks. It could improve the mobility of tanks significantly and allow for high energy weapons like railguns/coilguns, laser anti-drone guns, etc. Some battery packs can perhaps be intentionally made to be explosive, replacing ERAs.

Click to expand...

Great for open fields/urban combat(?) but it would be horrible for places like dense forests where the drone could probably catch on branches/tree leaves/debris.
Overall, not a bad idea though.

dingyibvs said:

What do you guys think about a tethered drone for increased situational awareness and perhaps projectile early warning? It would fly say 30m above the tank, relaying 360 degree image to an on board computer as well as the commander. It can't fly far since it's tethered, but that's not really its purpose. It would be immune to jamming, doesn't need to be recharged, and have very high data transmission speed.

It could also have a secondary non-tethered mode of course, for when tethering is not realistic, then it could function as a regular drone with all the associated pros and cons.

I also wonder how much research is going on for EREV versions of tanks. It could improve the mobility of tanks significantly and allow for high energy weapons like railguns/coilguns, laser anti-drone guns, etc. Some battery packs can perhaps be intentionally made to be explosive, replacing ERAs.

Click to expand...

Depends on how far out the drone can see. 30 meters might be enough to give Intel in hilly areas. Peak over the hill to not get ambushed. At least it would have unlimited power if it's tethered.

I rather like it to be docked on the tank, charge and release. It is not like the drone will be needed 24/7.

In a forested or urban area Ithe tethering would be a huge disadvantage and that's where you need the drone most.