PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

polati

Junior Member
Registered Member
How does a 105mm achieve equal or better performance than the currently existing 125mm APFSDS? I'm curious on how that works

The other 4th gen MBTs all seem to have some sort of autocannon as well so I'm wondering if this one is a bit light on the firepower side.
 

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
How does a 105mm achieve equal or better performance than the currently existing 125mm APFSDS? I'm curious on how that works

The other 4th gen MBTs all seem to have some sort of autocannon as well so I'm wondering if this one is a bit light on the firepower side.
Consider the following:

1- PLA may not have required more powerful APFSDS capabilities. How or why only they know for certain.

2- Perhaps this thing can switch between guns and loaders of various calibers depending on mission requirements. After all, the crew layout may leave the space under the turret available for a carrousel autoloader.

3- The last probability is that they achieved some kind of technological breakthrough in gun technology allowing 105mm to generate as much or even more energy than larger calibers.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
New (computer) images of "ZTZ-XX". These in my opinion indicate that the gun of choice is a 105mm with a bustle autoloader. If this is the case then it begs the question of how the space under the turret is utilized.

View attachment 131307View attachment 131308

Hopefully we´ll get solid information soon.
A 105mm on a modern MBT?
I’ll come back to that.
Automatic loader is what I will deal with. Just because the MBT has a large bustle doesn’t make it a bustle loader. The T14 has a large bustle but it’s a carousel loader.
How does a 105mm achieve equal or better performance than the currently existing 125mm APFSDS? I'm curious on how that works

The other 4th gen MBTs all seem to have some sort of autocannon as well so I'm wondering if this one is a bit light on the firepower side.
The AbramsX demonstrator has a 30x117mm XM913 chain gun in a remote weapons station. However models shown on social media of what the Army thinks the M1E3 which has clear influence from AbramsX instead clearly show an M2 Browning MG in its place.

Consider the following:

1- PLA may not have required more powerful APFSDS capabilities. How or why only they know for certain.

2- Perhaps this thing can switch between guns and loaders of various calibers depending on mission requirements. After all, the crew layout may leave the space under the turret available for a carrousel autoloader.

3- The last probability is that they achieved some kind of technological breakthrough in gun technology allowing 105mm to generate as much or even more energy than larger calibers.
I call BS on most of these save for #2 because… Leopard 2, Abrams, Leclerc Evolution, Leopard 2ARC, K2 Black Panther, M60, T14, T64 all have demonstrated or claimed ability to replace their main guns in the same turret. However such changes tend not to be that common or easy.

#1 If the PLA didn’t require such penetration why do their current MBT sport 125mm guns? They have a substantial investment in it and dropping it to go back to 105mm makes no sense.
#3 really APFDS are already sub calibre the biggest issue is the cartridge and length of the rod. Which is a fault on the 125mm Russian gun but regression to the 105mm won’t solve that. The T14 was supposed to fix the length of rod limitations in Soviet MBT by a new larger Carousel design.

Really it’s a CGI image and figuring out the size of an MBT gun from a render like this is not valid. What we can gather though is aspects of what they seem to be thinking about for their future MBT and what we see is par for the course. Two hatches with space between for a third crewman, a clearly unmanned turret, APS with radars, modernized optics, RWS mounted centralized with an automatic weapon, suspension looks like it’s based of the Type 99. Distributed optics.
Unlike many western concept tanks no signs of a drone launcher. Already commented on the mg looking more like an MG and not an Automatic cannon.
 

conacted

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Unlike many western concept tanks no signs of a drone launcher.
Don't quite understand this choice, seems like a mission commander type role tasked with maintaining 3rd person overwatch would be rather valuable. Maybe just not integrated into the CGI
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
While there are many different possible answers to what is this new tank-like vehicle, I'd like to point out that the role of the tank itself may be rapidly changing for the future battlefields. Especially for China, which seems to have some specific mission sets in mind.
The only possible battlefield where a big, heavy tank might be used in numbers would be in the Korean peninsula. Even there, the geography is actually not very well suited to such vehicles. But it's still more permissive than in two other plausible battlefields. Against India, where we saw a very light tank developed for that high rise region.
And against Taiwan. Which would be a very specific battle with specific needs. There, China would profit from a light vehicle, so more can be brought to the island in any given time frame, and one with less supplies needed to maintain it. Again a lighter vehicle wins there.

Furthermore, why have we even seen a 120mm or 125mm gun appear on tanks? Despite the fact that most of tank's targets during the decades were various non-tank vehicles, bunkers, infantry groups and so on - for which lower calibers such as 105mm were quite adequate - we saw the transition to the larger caliber. Solely because of enemy tanks being able to withstand the lower caliber weapons.
If one removes most of enemy tanks as targets - then the 120mm or bigger calibers become mostly superflous.
Even the heavy ifvs of tomorrow will not be able to withstand 105mm rounds. At best, some future monster super heavy APC, without a turret, might be able to take on a 105mm round. But those are unlikely to become the norm on the battlefield due to their demanding logistical footprint and because they'd be magnets for air power.

By air power I mean pretty much all means of guided weapon strikes coming from the air. And that's largely the reason why tanks themselves, as any other heavy vehicle, might not be target sets of the new vehicle.
Basically, such a class of a vehicle might be more of a mop up vehicle. A cheaper way to provide firepower to the infantry, against already battered enemy in the trenches opposing them. Before any sort of large formation comes to Taiwan, be it with heavy tanks of today or with those future lighter tanks, it's possible we'll see a very thorough cleansing of the battlefield from the air. So much so that opposing combat vehicles will simply not exist in high numbers.
 

conacted

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Furthermore, why have we even seen a 120mm or 125mm gun appear on tanks? Despite the fact that most of tank's targets during the decades were various non-tank vehicles, bunkers, infantry groups and so on - for which lower calibers such as 105mm were quite adequate - we saw the transition to the larger caliber.
Apologies if the info has been sent here before, but how does explosive content compare between modern Chinese 105mm and 125mm? I agree that MBTs are more likely used as assault gun than as dedicated anti tank weapon (especially in the age of NLOS-ATGM and FPV), but that means putting damage downrange matters even more.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Don't quite understand this choice, seems like a mission commander type role tasked with maintaining 3rd person overwatch would be rather valuable. Maybe just not integrated into the CGI
That’s my thinking. However it may just be that the PLA doesn’t see it as a need at all.
105mm is hardly even needed to render a tank useless as seen in Ukraine. Onboard ATGM can also make up the supplementary power, in addition to FPVs.
Velocity matters as we are also living in the age of Hard kill APS. Those systems are really really good at swatting ATGMs and FPV drones are not as effective vs EW. Farther you have newer versions of Hard kill APS that are being optimized better to deal with FPVs. Really FPVs are a slower ATGM at best.
APS tipping rods is harder. Many systems try but it’s not easy. The velocities of an APFDS are far faster than an ATGM which can be counted by simply reversing.
Farther tanks in Ukraine are being used in a manor that is unique to that conflict. You can’t expect every future war to grind down to a WW1 with modern technology.
The only possible battlefield where a big, heavy tank might be used in numbers would be in the Korean peninsula. Even there, the geography is actually not very well suited to such vehicles.
I would point out that Both the North and South Korean armies are big on tanks. The Korean War was a tank war for the Koreans and Americans. Though it eventually became an infantry battle many infantry were killed by tanks.
But it's still more permissive than in two other plausible battlefields. Against India, where we saw a very light tank developed for that high rise region.
Well true most of the fighting is the two countries choosing to fight with sticks and stones. This vehicle is clearly based on an MBT hull and chassis. It has all the elements one would expect of such rather than a light tank.
against Taiwan. Which would be a very specific battle with specific needs. There, China would profit from a light vehicle, so more can be brought to the island in any given time frame, and one with less supplies needed to maintain it. Again a lighter vehicle wins
Assuming the ROC army buggers off. They have tanks too are getting very modern ones and a ton of air power of its own. Maybe against the outer Island a few amphibious vehicles with a tank gun would do the job. However to assume that The main island is the Falklands war 2.0 (where the only vehicle on vehicle combat was French armored cars vs British armored scouts) is hubris. Abrams eats light vehicles for breakfast and Taiwan is getting those before any of these are delivered in production.

105mm was primarily outmoded due to penetration but not only due to it. A 105mm can still K kill any tank on the battlefield with a well placed shot.
Range is a big factor. 105mm tank guns max at 1.5 km. Maybe if you work some magic you could push that to 2-3 km. That’s perfect for fire support of infantry in close.
120mm is pushing 4-5 km. That’s HE shells. 8 km with guided munitions. That’s not just close infantry that’s almost artillery. If that 120mm gun can get on your 105mm tank beyond his range good luck.
A t64BV from Ukraine currently claims the longest MBT kill with a 10km shot by its 125mm. This isn’t a direct fire kill as the shot was done in a high angle more akin to artillery using HEAT shots directed by drone.
see first act, act first, kill first.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The Soviets started using 122mm tank guns in large numbers with the IS-2 tank in WW2.
Back then there was an option of using a 100mm gun. They selected the 122mm gun because of the higher explosive filler content for firing HE against fortifications.

Today the Russians even mention using the 152mm round in an Armata direct fire tank to increase the effect against fortifications. And you say 105mm HE is enough. I kind of doubt it.
 
Top