PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

Some interesting claims about the new tank:

The poster is well known for his insider knowledge on Chinese civil aviation. He is also a frequent contributor to Guancha. Take the necessary dose of salt as you need.

很多技术原本是计划在15式轻型坦克上使用的，但当时处于成本考虑最终并没有用上。而如今这些技术都在双离谱上应用了，这也使得双离谱的价格达到了一个令人咂舌的数字，堪称地上跑的战斗机。而这也决定了双离谱不会全面替换目前所有坦克，而是会在很长时间里达成一个新老型号共存的局面。

Click to expand...

Many technologies used in this "double absurd" model (DA thereafter) were originally developed but too expensive for type 15. This still sends the DA model's price through the roof even today. PLAGF will not be able to replace all the old tanks (the 96 variants?) with it because of the high cost.

但双离谱并不算是“抛弃甲弹对抗，拥抱信火一体”的坦克。它是坦克，是一种突击兵器，依然需要机动火力防御三位一体。也因此“双离谱”的一大离谱就在于在这样的指标要求下依然要玩甲弹对抗，用105炮来对抗主流坦克。当然最终105脱穿某种程度上达成了125脱穿的效果，而“双离谱”的某些部位在特定情况下的抗穿能力也达到了当代主流坦克的防御效果。只不过如果用船类比的话，双离谱的装甲分布和战列巡洋舰有异曲同工之处。

Click to expand...

The DA model's emphasis on ISR does not mean its design has neglected fire power and protection. The new 105mm APFSDS ammo can somewhat rival the current 125mm one. On certain directions and certain areas, DA has similar protection against AP as the current generation MBTs.

也正是由于双离谱极高的自动化与信息化，比起传统的坦克车组，双离谱的车组更像是战斗轰炸机的前座和后座飞行员。甚至可以这么说，双离谱的两名坦克车组就是地上的飞行员，人的存活更为重要。

Click to expand...

The crew of the DA model has only two members due to highly automated systems, including data and intelligence processing.

至于双离谱的动力是混动，这相信已经不是新闻了。

Click to expand...

DA has a hybrid powertrain. This is nothing new by now.

双离谱的两名坦克车组就是地上的飞行员

Click to expand...

“It can even be said that the two tank crews of the Double Outrageous are pilots on the ground”

PLAGF mechas when?

SanWenYu said:

Some interesting claims about the new tank:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The poster is well known for his insider knowledge on Chinese civil aviation. He is also a frequent contributor to Guancha. Take the necessary dose of salt as you need.


Many technologies used in this "double absurd" model (DA thereafter) were originally developed but too expensive for type 15. This still sends the DA model's price through the roof even today. PLAGF will not be able to replace all the old tanks (the 96 variants?) with it because of the high cost.


The DA model's emphasis on ISR does not mean its design has neglected fire power and protection. The new 105mm APFSDS ammo can somewhat rival the current 125mm one. On certain directions and certain areas, DA has similar protection against AP as the current generation MBTs.


The crew of the DA model has only two members due to highly automated systems, including data and intelligence processing.


DA has a hybrid powertrain. This is nothing new by now.

Click to expand...

Too expensive to even replace type-96 means PLA will probably still continue to buy type-15.

SanWenYu said:

Some interesting claims about the new tank:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The poster is well known for his insider knowledge on Chinese civil aviation. He is also a frequent contributor to Guancha. Take the necessary dose of salt as you need.


Many technologies used in this "double absurd" model (DA thereafter) were originally developed but too expensive for type 15. This still sends the DA model's price through the roof even today. PLAGF will not be able to replace all the old tanks (the 96 variants?) with it because of the high cost.


The DA model's emphasis on ISR does not mean its design has neglected fire power and protection. The new 105mm APFSDS ammo can somewhat rival the current 125mm one. On certain directions and certain areas, DA has similar protection against AP as the current generation MBTs.


The crew of the DA model has only two members due to highly automated systems, including data and intelligence processing.


DA has a hybrid powertrain. This is nothing new by now.

Click to expand...

All other aspect is quite acceptable for me but I'm not liking the high cost part.... Also don't like that the crews may need more specialized training either, both result in something that is not at all attritable.

The high cost for both the tank and crews would only makes sense if the tank is not meant to "tank" in the frontline but serve more as an information node and let the unmanned stuffs do the actual tanking

enroger said:

All other aspect is quite acceptable for me but I'm not liking the high cost part.... Also don't like that the crews may need more specialized training either, both result in something that is not at all attritable

Click to expand...

Yeah the OP likens the tank to a fighter aircraft running on ground, or more specifically, a fighter-bomber. The crew are therefore like the pilots. I'd imagine that such tanks will only be equipped in elite units as spearheads or door kickers.

SanWenYu said:

Yeah the OP likens the tank to a fighter aircraft running on ground, or more specifically, a fighter-bomber. The crew are therefore like the pilots. I'd imagine that such tanks will only be equipped in elite units as spearheads or door kickers.

Click to expand...

My cope is that it is only expensive due to extensive use of novel technology. Novel tech is expensive only because of lack of scale of production, once production scale up it will "cabbage-ilize" eventually. So small scale production at first, large scale adoption a few years later

tphuang said:

yep, people need to reach this carefully. This is a different type of ground warfare.

think of this as a network centric warfare for ground force. Don't think too much about Ukraine. That's bush league compared to what PLA is doing.

Basically, we are only LEO constellation away from the entire network centric warfare being fully in play. Right now, you are probably still quite dependent on aerial platform (I would imagine) for networking sensory data from different ground assets.

For example, imagine a case where your UGV (which you'd want to operate closer to the front) senses a FPV coming over low, it shaers this data with nearby asset and then controlling node makes a decision on who and how to engage that FPV.

Click to expand...

This is the real Sky Net.

SanWenYu said:

PLAGF will not be able to replace all the old tanks (the 96 variants?) with it because of the high cost.

Click to expand...

weird considering there are ifv and engineering vehicle of the same hull, if they weren't going to replace old type 96/88s (at least for certain brigades) why go for this approach?

SanWenYu said:

Yeah the OP likens the tank to a fighter aircraft running on ground, or more specifically, a fighter-bomber. The crew are therefore like the pilots. I'd imagine that such tanks will only be equipped in elite units as spearheads or door kickers.

Click to expand...

Would rather not, otherwise they'll practically not perform as tanks. Tank is assault vehicle(box with gun), it's meant to be lost by default. Not land battleship, not sensor node, not spg.

Furthermore, making medium tank elite assault spearhead is equally strange. Why medium then, add weight, do your job better. It's quite clear that the tank we see is vulnerable outside main projections, at a time when battlefield calls for literal turtles.

All this makes sense if China can afford them at scale. If not, it's peacetime vanity project.
I don't think this logic will be lost on decision makers; example of T-14 is right here. I.e. count me sceptical it's inside and not just an opinion.

just read through the article
"它的威力不在于它的炮，而是在于它身后看不到的各种远程火力"
the author is arguing that the new 4th gen mbt will co-exist with 3rd gen mbt by providing Enhanced Situational Awareness and provide recon for long range artillery.
the thing is, why does this need to be a tank? if it is supposed to be alongside other 3rd gens, why even give it a gun? just make a dedicated command/ recon tank. we already saw mengshi jeeps with such capabilities

"双离谱的两名坦克车组就是地上的飞行员"
also, the "fighter-bomber" analogy came from the assumption that there are only 2 crew. this, to my knowledge, was not confirmed.