PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
Just saying the chassis layout doesn't rule out an IFV variant as we are clearly looking at at least an assault gun variant if it's not a tank. If engine position is a concern they can turn the chassis around so a rear engine in tank/assault gun would be front engine in IFV.
As to doctrines potentially demand 2 front position. There are tons of possibility and I don't think I'm in the responsibility to lay them out but okay. The no brainer would be gunner for unmanned turret. There is also drone operator both airborne drone or ground unmanned platform. Or maybe modern battlefield require squad leader to have a better grasp of surrounding environment/systems thus requiring full function station.
Actually rather than I have to explain why 2 front position is possible which have so many obvious explanation some of which already have multiple real world example, I believe it's your responsibility to explain why you think 2 front position "are not properties of a modern IFV".
My argument for 2 front positions not being properties of a modern IFV is that no modern IFVs use 2 front positions. The use cases for the second position are all able to be filled by a console in the troop compartment, as they are today. There is no reason to place more people forward of the turret if there is a troop compartment underneath the turret that will be more comfortable, and be accessible to personnel that may need to take control of the turret or unmanned systems. Also, how is this squad leader supposed to dismount from the front position with the rest of his squad? Theres clearly not enough space for the front stations to be able to easily access the troop compartment. Not a single one of your use cases precludes the use of the troop comparment, which is the preferred position for IFV turret controls in every single IFV with a remote turret in service today. In fact, the best reason to pack crew together in the front is to reduce the crew footprint to better protect them and to make collaboration with the driver easier. The troop compartment in an IFV is better protected than the front positions from most likely angles, and collaboration with dismounts is prioritized over collaboration with the driver. I dont believe you really know much about IFVs.
Is it too big as the Airborne troops as a ZTQ-15 equivalent?
What I´m thinking right now its a modular platform which can grow in protection and armament (weight) depending on the specific variant. Perhaps like the Armata platform but in a lower weight class. I guess the tank variant may weigh somewhere in the 30-40t range. Note the tank caliber gun, add on armor on the sides and the extended armor module on the hull front.
While we can´t figure out protection levels just by eye, perhaps the requirement for this tank would be to achieve or exceed survivability and firepower of a ZTZ99A with an operational and mobility capabilties of a ZTQ15. Achieving this would be a feat of tank engineering.
Similar to T14, estimated weight is around 40 tons
T-14 official weight is 55t.
On the other hand, I´m spotting a lot of differences between these two:
Base model vs heavy armour package?
Thats one posibility.