PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

The Russians had height limits for tank men. That is how they could get away with making the tanks more cramped in the first place.
If you look at Japanese tanks, they were also typically more cramped than Western ones, because Japanese were shorter on average.
But also having an autoloader makes a huge difference.

Just look at the weight difference between the Leclerc and the Leopard 2. 55t vs 66t. You can basically shave off 10t easily.

TK3600 said:

If crews are lost, that is just 2 crews.

Click to expand...

This line of thinking is exactly why nobody, in their sanest mind, field 2-man tanks. It's such a mind-bogglingly stupid idea that is completely out of any sort of rational military theory. Even the Soviet, renowned military mathematician that completely discarded the immeasurable equation of logistics and morales, despised this.
Please, PLAGF, if you can read this, don't ever touch the abomination that is 2-man tanks. Don't be Shinseki.

Actually, I think with enough automation 2-man tanks are possible. It is just that we have not reached that level of automation yet.

2 man crew is a bad idea. There is so much to do on an armoured vehicle apart from operating it in action. Also, with a 3 man crew, you can lose one to injury and still operate it at a basic level.

gelgoog said:

Actually, I think with enough automation 2-man tanks are possible. It is just that we have not reached that level of automation yet.

Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly. The fact that the Type 055 didn't enter service with 2-300 crew means that automation still havent reach the point where the modern basic functions of MBTs that are:
+ C3: Coordinating UAVs, UGVs, CAS, munitions, fire support, RSTA, friendly armour, infantry, vehicle support/logistics, IFVs, engineering, etc in EW-saturated environments through multiple radio channels.
+ Multi-dimension optical/EM view of local battleground (panoramic sights,masted scouts, MAVs, MALE UAVs, NLOS munitions/ mmW, JSTARS data, area surveillance radar, ATC/CBAT/air defense forward deployed radars).
+ Basic EW: SIGINT on enemy VHF/UHF comms, jamming loitering munitions, RF direction finding on enemy emmisions, ESM, REC on exposed tactical datalinks, etc
+ Manuever: driving through high-intensity battlefields with mines, ambush, artillery with zero-delay threat reaction and coordinated manuevering in sat denied, bare landmark environments.
+ Performance: 3-man crew can share workloads, offload work while guys take rest in turns, perform basic maintenance, can get more crew on observation duties, comms, direction making, etc. Also if 1 guy die then you still have 2 person in the tank left which is still functional. IMO 3-man is the optimal crew distribution before directly jumping to UGVs.

To add to my points

Take the Abrams for example.
It can talk to friendly tanks and IFVs, both Iraqi and American. It has a hardline phone to talk to troops in proximity and normal comms for forces farther out. The 4th crew can operate a RWS or control drones especially on Abrams fitted with the Meggit autoloader. It is equipped with a networking system that can transfer encrypted comms, GPS coordinates, direct A-10s or designate targets for Reaper strikes. Also a crapload of antennas and redudancy.
It can use the CITV to cue/mark targets and rangefind, or talk to M3s or Reapers on the air and look through their EO sensors or SAR mappings fused to 3D GPS. It has multiple LWRs/RWRs, an acoustic detector, and Trophy to detect hot-headed contacts and slew turret.
Near-nil EW capability, but the new manpack jammer would have some interesting offering.
The driver has multiple panoramic cameras, the CREW radiowave counter-IED system. Also he's a human, so give it S rank decision making.
4 man crew. Nothing to discuss here.
And that's a pretty mediocre MBT we're talking about. Merkava, KF51 and Altay are all substantially more capable and more well-equipped.

Please, they better add a 3rd person for the auxiliary systems and as a helping hand for maintenance.

polati said:

Please, they better add a 3rd person for the auxiliary systems and as a helping hand for maintenance.

Click to expand...

Or for drone operator.

Mirabo said:

The fundamental difference between today's 45-50 ton Soviet MBTs and 60-65 ton NATO MBTs is armor layout. The Soviet T-series have a very basic composite layout, usually several layers of steel and other materials like Textolite arranged in a simple sandwich. In some models (e.g. T-72A) there are no composites at all, just layers of high-hardness steel with air space.

Click to expand...

Fake assumption and wrong conclusion.


Soviet pioneered composite armor and it is present in base T-72 and earlier T-64. Later variants has multiple layers of composite.

Not to be rude but that was very clueless and likely based on propaganda. Whatever Chinese composite layout today and future only get better than 70s Soviet Union.

yeetmyboi said:

This line of thinking is exactly why nobody, in their sanest mind, field 2-man tanks. It's such a mind-bogglingly stupid idea that is completely out of any sort of rational military theory. Even the Soviet, renowned military mathematician that completely discarded the immeasurable equation of logistics and morales, despised this.
Please, PLAGF, if you can read this, don't ever touch the abomination that is 2-man tanks. Don't be Shinseki.

Click to expand...

Zzzzz Soviet Union is 80s. This is 40 years later. Bet you 80s people can't comprehend internet either. Can't comprehend e-commerce and drone warfare today.

Besides, this is not my idea, this is what China is working on. I trust these people with PhD knows better and there are reasons to try. There could be more engineer vehicles. They could use live data link for situation awareness. There could be other soldiers outside tanks help maintnence. Who knows what they have in mind. For now we be humble and watch.