What do you mean? Do you mean PLA needs a tank like Type 10? Sorry, English is my second language.
PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
You do not want a tank that expects to tank damage to have a bustle autoloader.
Type 15 is ok because it's expected to benefit from the extra RoF as it shoots at opponents that can't fire back and can outrun/avoid opponents that can.
Bustle autoloaders mission kill the vehicle from just a very minimal hit on the side or rear by dismounted infantry, or worse nowadays, FPV drones.
New tank might have low weight, but it seems the protection specifications are around the T99/latest Abrams/T90M. Presumably achieved through advances in materials and ERA design. So it's meant to take hits, even from side/rear in urban combat situations. For this, the bustle autoloader would be very unsuitable.
Basically I mean the Japanese Type 10 is probably the most suitable tank for the PLA's modern lightweight MBT requirment
96B is also good enough but I think the Type 10 offers modular options at barely same weight
The Type 10 is not actually that light when fitted with armor. The 40 ton weight figure has never been possible while maintaining reasonable protection. It also has no hard kill active protection systems though it presumably has a limited soft-kill capability. It is basically a previous generation tank compared to what can be developed today, though a fairly capable previous generation tank. Why use an outdated design when a new design would have far more potential?
The video I posted actually talks about the design criteria.
So to my understanding, it emphasises the modern battlefield environment, where drones and anti-tank missiles are the primary threats.
They specifically said that the goal was 30t weight, i.e. comfortable pair in Y-20. If we're talking about rapid deployment tank - it should arrive combat-capable (no additional time and work to install stuff). Combat-capable means that this weight should not be empty, but fully loaded.
Remember that PLAAF doesn't have robust tanker capability yet - and probably won't have it for at least the initial part of this tank's service life, so aiming at full lift capacity is impractical.
Type 10 40t number is empty(no fuel, no ammo, nothing), and apparently w/o even main composite armor. Just a box. Realistically it's a 44t tank, and at combat load it will be more. Thus type-10 solves japanese main island logistical nightmares, but it is by no means a high mobility solution. Japanese high mobility tank(yes, it's a wheeled tank and not just a sp gun; more or less direct replacement of type 74) is type 16 MCV.
To make type 10 your high mobility option, you're looking at a 100t air lifter for the same mobility, which is very troublesome.
personally based on what happen to russia tank/IFV/APC force in ukraine since 2022 > today
im ....kind of in favor of crew lives saving design
autoloader may benefit poor countries don't have the ability to product tank/IFV/APC because those countries have nothing but free meat bag
but for powerful nation like china right now which have even greater production ability than russia , save lives better
highly skilled vehicles crew take long time to train , vehicles replace is no big deal
T-72/BMP crew safety when hit issue currently cause russia big trouble , lead to even more vehicles/crew lost like many video on reddit (even the most pro-ru sub like r/russianukrainereport)
there are countless video of russian T-90/T-80/BMP-2M/BMP-3 all the best stuff doing "questionable" tactics lead to easy lost all over internet
i don't want to see those issue happen again with china armored force
The best solution regarding crew safety is implemented on the new generation tank. An autoloader located inside the hull, where it is best protected. With a separate armored crew compartment, so they can survive a hull explosion.
The other alternative that can be quite safe is a manual loader and ammunition stored separately in the hull. But the problem is that such tanks invariably become very large and heavy as they have to protect 4 crew members instead of 3 or even 2.
Even if such a tank can reach the same direct theoretical level of crew protection as the armored compartment tank, the actual level of crew protection will be worse. Consider for example if the heft of such an oversized tank makes it stuck in poor terrain, slow or unable to reposition, easy to spot and shoot by enemy SPGs. Then, the crew will be stuck under artillery/FPV fire, and with a high likelihood also perish. Whereas a 3 man, 30-40T weight tank is much more likely to escape.
Even if such a tank can reach the same direct theoretical level of crew protection as the armored compartment tank, the actual level of crew protection will be worse. Consider for example if the heft of such an oversized tank makes it stuck in poor terrain, slow or unable to reposition, easy to spot and shoot by enemy SPGs. Then, the crew will be stuck under artillery/FPV fire, and with a high likelihood also perish. Whereas a 3 man, 30-40T weight tank is much more likely to escape.