PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

Tomboy · 2025-07-19T03:02:41-0400

Gloire_bb said:
T-80BVM do, but only because it's T-80BV at a core. T-90s and, if i understand correctly, ZTZ99A don't - their setups are different due to different geometry and thickness involved, but they're same as similar composite packages on western machines(most prominently, IFVs).

It is not a downside, quite the contrary - heavily inclined plates ensure that up to 60-70% of ru/chinese mbt upper surface is heavily armored, just because. For all modern western MBTs, it's like 20% in a best case scenario, everything else is huge, thin homogenous steel plate base. Granted, some add composite packages over crew stations since 2010s, but for east bloc MBTs it's normal to have upper hemisphere ERA since 1980s.

I'm pretty sure for atleast T-90M, similar armor arangement is used. it's pretty obvious due to not enough space to install thick NERA on the upper glacis, I believe similar to be true for ZTZ99A as I don't think general hull armor has been modified compared to the original ZTZ99. Western tanks usually employ lower glacis armor, you'll find especially for the latest Leopard and Abrams variants that their lower glacis is heavily armored with a highly inclined(near horizontal for the Abrams) upper glacis as they are designed to take hits to the lower glacis unlike eastern tanks which are designed to take hits from upper glacis. The new Chinese MBT should be a turn from eastern design philosophy and almost definitely is designed to take hits from lower glacis like western tanks.

IMO, its not fair to compare how armored various tank's upper glacis is due to the fact that some are designed to block shots from upper glacis while others are for lower.

qwerty3173 · 2025-07-19T06:04:15-0400

Tomboy said:
I'm pretty sure for atleast T-90M, similar armor arangement is used. it's pretty obvious due to not enough space to install thick NERA on the upper glacis, I believe similar to be true for ZTZ99A as I don't think general hull armor has been modified compared to the original ZTZ99. Western tanks usually employ lower glacis armor, you'll find especially for the latest Leopard and Abrams variants that their lower glacis is heavily armored with a highly inclined(near horizontal for the Abrams) upper glacis as they are designed to take hits to the lower glacis unlike eastern tanks which are designed to take hits from upper glacis. The new Chinese MBT should be a turn from eastern design philosophy and almost definitely is designed to take hits from lower glacis like western tanks.

IMO, its not fair to compare how armored various tank's upper glacis is due to the fact that some are designed to block shots from upper glacis while others are for lower.

Well no, leopards are not designed to withstand shots to the lower glacis, as combat footage shown in the Ukraine war shows that even fpvs and guided tank gun HEAT rounds can defeat the lower glacis easily. Abrams on the other hand has a much better protected lower glacis but the entire upper glacis and neck part is just a huge weak spot that is also located at where enemy rounds are most likely to land i.e. the center of the projection. Overall it is only possible to defend against a part of the frontal chassis and most tank designs chose to protect the upper half which is more likely to be hit.

qwerty3173 · 2025-07-19T06:09:19-0400

Tomboy said:
I'm pretty sure for atleast T-90M, similar armor arangement is used. it's pretty obvious due to not enough space to install thick NERA on the upper glacis, I believe similar to be true for ZTZ99A as I don't think general hull armor has been modified compared to the original ZTZ99. Western tanks usually employ lower glacis armor, you'll find especially for the latest Leopard and Abrams variants that their lower glacis is heavily armored with a highly inclined(near horizontal for the Abrams) upper glacis as they are designed to take hits to the lower glacis unlike eastern tanks which are designed to take hits from upper glacis. The new Chinese MBT should be a turn from eastern design philosophy and almost definitely is designed to take hits from lower glacis like western tanks.

IMO, its not fair to compare how armored various tank's upper glacis is due to the fact that some are designed to block shots from upper glacis while others are for lower.

And no, the inclination of the Abrams is not nearly enough to defeat modern long rod penetrators in reality, in fact anything better than a 3bm42 mango will go through the plate cleanly. As you have said real life is not war thunder.

Tomboy · 2025-07-19T06:14:48-0400

qwerty3173 said:
Well no, leopards are not designed to withstand shots to the lower glacis, as combat footage shown in the Ukraine war shows that even fpvs and guided tank gun HEAT rounds can defeat the lower glacis easily. Abrams on the other hand has a much better protected lower glacis but the entire upper glacis and neck part is just a hue weak spot that is also located at where enemy rounds are most likely to land i.e. the center of the projection. Overall it is only possible to defend against a part of the frontal chassis and most tank designs chose to protect the upper half which is more likely to be hit.

Leopard 2A6/2A4 in Ukraine are completely different from the latest Leopards with D tech armor and addon composites.

qwerty3173 said:
And no, the inclination of the Abrams is not nearly enough to defeat modern long rod penetrators in reality, in fact anything better than a 3bm42 mango will go through the plate cleanly. As you have said real life is not war thunder.

Well, unless you are suggesting this new tank is completely cooked in kinetic protection, I do not agree because this new tank certainly expects to protect it's crew via LFP due to how massive it's lower glacis is. And by the way inclination is not what defeats long rod penetrators, as *you* have said this is real life not video games. I do not think PLAGF has completely given up kinetic protection for its next generation MBT.

PS: IMO for kinetic protection you either have enough to protect against enemy AP rounds or might as well just have protection against autocannons, you can't really half ass it. Having only ie. 500mm of frontal protection is effectively as good as none when possible enemies could use M829A3/A4 and future advanced penetrators.

qwerty3173 · 2025-07-19T06:22:30-0400

Tomboy said:
Leopard 2A6/2A4 in Ukraine are completely different from the latest Leopards with D tech armor and addon composites.

Well, unless you are suggesting this new tank is completely cooked in kinetic protection, I do not agree because this new tank certainly expects to protect it's crew via LFP due to how massive it's lower glacis is. And by the way inclination is not what defeats long rod penetrators, as *you* have said this is real life not video games. I do not think PLAGF has completely given up kinetic protection for its next generation MBT.

Even strv122b which has more armor than the standard D tech got shot in the underside. People often overvalue the capabilities of composite armor. The upper glacis of Abrams is only 38mm thick and impossible to thicken due to the hatch, it can ricochet shots when it was first made in the 70s but now its just a weakspot. The kinetic protection of the new tank is concentrated in the wedge section of the chassis and can defeat any 120mm gun but it does not extend to the lower section which only protects against autocannons. Most of the time lower parts are hidden behind obstacles anyway.

Tomboy · 2025-07-19T06:33:21-0400

qwerty3173 said:
Even strv122b which has more armor than the standard D tech got shot in the underside. People often overvalue the capabilities of composite armor. The upper glacis of Abrams is only 38mm thick and impossible to thicken due to the hatch, it can ricochet shots when it was first made in the 70s but now its just a weakspot. The kinetic protection of the new tank is concentrated in the wedge section of the chassis and can defeat any 120mm gun but it does not extend to the lower section which only protects against autocannons. Most of the time lower parts are hidden behind obstacles anyway.

IMO if this is a MBT I expect atleast similar frontal coverage and protection standard to the ZTZ99A and exceed it with side protection. Protection coverage similar to the Armata/477/195's wedge as you said seems mostly sufficient with modern armor technology and from pictures of crew hatch position it could be quite thick as well, maybe ~1m LOS at the thickest point.

Gloire_bb · 2025-07-19T06:39:02-0400

qwerty3173 said:
And no, the inclination of the Abrams is not nearly enough to defeat modern long rod penetrators in reality, in fact anything better than a 3bm42 mango will go through the plate cleanly. As you have said real life is not war thunder.

Even completely outdated 115/125 1960s apfsds shells go through that plate. It's almost ridiculously weak, and it was recently heavily abused by FPVs.

Tomboy · 2025-07-20T03:19:05-0400

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ayi is saying the heavy armor version of this vehicle got cancelled and is hinting at a new heavy tank

TK3600 · 2025-07-20T03:34:51-0400

There is hints that the vehicle is pre Ukraine war. It was not built based on the war's experience.

Kejora · 2025-07-20T05:18:15-0400

TK3600 said:
There is hints that the vehicle is pre Ukraine war. It was not built based on the war's experience.

The light version is still useful as replacement for ZTQ-15 for high altitude and amphibous landing. But Ukraine War shows that heavy tank for urban and pitched battle need better protection especially against drones.

PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

Tomboy

Junior Member

qwerty3173

Junior Member

qwerty3173

Junior Member

Tomboy

Junior Member

qwerty3173

Junior Member

Tomboy

Junior Member

Gloire_bb

Major

Tomboy

Junior Member

TK3600

Major

Kejora

Junior Member