If the armor arangement is true than it is quite disappointing, the coverage is terrible, it is more similar to a light tank than a MBT IMO. One would've atleast expected fully armored crew capsule for a next generation MBT. Also no sign that this tank features any ERA whatsoever even for the heavy armor config, nor any confirmation on the main weapon. War thunder forums are a terrible place for information.
Mobility:
Firepower:
- A 1,500 hp series hybrid (range-extended) powerpack, including a diesel engine, generator, and EMT electromechanical transmission, measures 2m × 2m × 1.18m (4.72 m³).
- For comparison: The VT-4’s 1,200 hp powerpack measures 2.485m (L) × 2.04m (W) × 1.216m (H) (~6.32 m³).
(The new hybrid system, including batteries, matches the volume of the old 1,200 hp powerpack.)- Primary propulsion: Two electric motors, with peak output far exceeding 1,500 hp (combined diesel generation + battery discharge).
- This 35–40-ton 4th-gen tankachieves:
- Top speed ≥ 84 km/h
- Off-road speed: 40–60 km/h
— Outperforming 3rd-gen MBTs in both burst and sustained mobility.
View attachment 156360
Protection:
- 105mm/L58 high-velocity gun, firing a new 4th-gen APFSDSwith:
- ~750mm penetrator length
- ~6.45 kg mass
- Muzzle velocity: 1,706 m/s
- Theoretical penetration: 720mm RHA
View attachment 156359View attachment 156361
Verdict:
- Unmanned turret: Minimal armor ("tin can").
- Hull: Tiered armor layout (similar to T-14) — base armor + wedge-shaped composite + heavy ERA.
- Base armor: Low-angle steel/composite, minimal thickness.
- Primary armor: ~500mm wedge composite (estimated vs. 3BM42 "Mango").
- Outer layer: New heavy ERA, enhancing anti-KE/anti-HEAT performance.
This "double-absurd" design dominates in all aspects except frontal protection (offset by new APS + anti-air weapon station). It outperforms previous-gen MBTs (e.g., Type 96/96A) and is slated for full replacement.
(All data/images sourced from BaiduTieba War Thunder– 长生戏命.)
Ayi repost: "The armor belt is literal (like on the Japanese Type 10 and French Leclerc)."
View attachment 156358
Well yes there is ERA. Its simply impractical to armor the lower glacis as well, no tank really can defend against contemporary ammunition there.If the armor arangement is true than it is quite disappointing, the coverage is terrible, it is more similar to a light tank than a MBT IMO. One would've atleast expected fully armored crew capsule for a next generation MBT. Also no sign that this tank features any ERA whatsoever even for the heavy armor config, nor any confirmation on the main weapon. War thunder forums are a terrible place for information.
You’re right from a pure power to weight and packaging perspective. However, the selection of the powertrain must be considered holistically. Diesels technically still get better thermal efficiency in general and has lower exhaust temperature (for stealth), and they’re usually farrrr cheaper to produce and typically have loooong service lives. And more importantly, when logistics and training is considered, diesels makes the most sense. A guy trained to do engine maintenance on a truck can be quite quickly retrained to work on a tank engine, spare parts can have a degree of commonality or familiarity. So unless you absolutely need the highest power density possible, like in the cases of warships or planes, there’s really not a good case for turbines in general. Bear in mind that the T-80s are more than twice the cost of a T-72 is precisely because of those turbines.They would be better off using a gas turbine in the hybrid powertrain I think. Would reduce the volume quite a lot. With the battery the main disadvantage of a gas turbine which is the poor efficiency at low load would be nullified.
What gas turbines have advantage in is their weight, not volume. A turbine is mostly empty space compared to a diesel engine block. When you compare volumes there is no advantage with gas turbine.They would be better off using a gas turbine in the hybrid powertrain I think. Would reduce the volume quite a lot. With the battery the main disadvantage of a gas turbine which is the poor efficiency at low load would be nullified.
Interesting barrel length for the 105, IIRC China has not used this length for their 105mm with the latest ones being L/62, so is this likely to be the rumoured ETC cannon?
Mobility:
Firepower:
- A 1,500 hp series hybrid (range-extended) powerpack, including a diesel engine, generator, and EMT electromechanical transmission, measures 2m × 2m × 1.18m (4.72 m³).
- For comparison: The VT-4’s 1,200 hp powerpack measures 2.485m (L) × 2.04m (W) × 1.216m (H) (~6.32 m³).
(The new hybrid system, including batteries, matches the volume of the old 1,200 hp powerpack.)- Primary propulsion: Two electric motors, with peak output far exceeding 1,500 hp (combined diesel generation + battery discharge).
- This 35–40-ton 4th-gen tankachieves:
- Top speed ≥ 84 km/h
- Off-road speed: 40–60 km/h
— Outperforming 3rd-gen MBTs in both burst and sustained mobility.
View attachment 156360
Protection:
- 105mm/L58 high-velocity gun, firing a new 4th-gen APFSDSwith:
- ~750mm penetrator length
- ~6.45 kg mass
- Muzzle velocity: 1,706 m/s
- Theoretical penetration: 720mm RHA
View attachment 156359View attachment 156361
Verdict:
- Unmanned turret: Minimal armor ("tin can").
- Hull: Tiered armor layout (similar to T-14) — base armor + wedge-shaped composite + heavy ERA.
- Base armor: Low-angle steel/composite, minimal thickness.
- Primary armor: ~500mm wedge composite (estimated vs. 3BM42 "Mango").
- Outer layer: New heavy ERA, enhancing anti-KE/anti-HEAT performance.
This "double-absurd" design dominates in all aspects except frontal protection (offset by new APS + anti-air weapon station). It outperforms previous-gen MBTs (e.g., Type 96/96A) and is slated for full replacement.
(All data/images sourced from BaiduTieba War Thunder– 长生戏命.)
Ayi repost: "The armor belt is literal (like on the Japanese Type 10 and French Leclerc)."
View attachment 156358
Show me actual proof of ERA because I don't see any on the avaliable photograph, it is NOT impractical to armor the lower glacis(Latest M1 with LFP addon armor could on paper defend against current Russian ammo) especially from the looks this tank is designed with lower glacis armor instead of the much more common upper glacis armor unless your suggesting this MBT does not come with any credible armor whatsoever which I doubt.Well yes there is ERA. Its simply impractical to armor the lower glacis as well, no tank really can defend against contemporary ammunition there.
Any pics of this unblurred?Desert camouflage? Already delivered for testing/parade?
View attachment 156294
It has fully modular armor and the ERA is integrated into the addon plates, you can choose to leave it off if you want to. M1 with all kit is now at over 70 tons and impractical to use in all but paved roads. And the Russians are not well known for their ammunition performance.Show me actual proof of ERA because I don't see any on the avaliable photograph, it is NOT impractical to armor the lower glacis(Latest M1 with LFP addon armor could on paper defend against current Russian ammo) especially from the looks this tank is designed with lower glacis armor instead of the much more common upper glacis armor unless your suggesting this MBT does not come with any credible armor whatsoever which I doubt.
Is this a… Chinese Type 10? The hullform is awfully similar with the massive LFP and side skirt layout —it really is quite reminiscent. If it has modular armor packages too, then…Desert camouflage? Already delivered for testing/parade?
View attachment 156294