ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

Temstar · Jun 30, 2022

Gloire_bb said:
Not sure calling it "light MBT" is right - it by definition isn't an MBT. "Light MBT" moniker only makes sense for countries which either center their fleet on that type for geographical reasons, or at least don't plan to ever use them on same battleflields.

By logic and duties, it's simply a medium* ** tank, designed to give some reasonable firepower to infantry brigade combat teams(and, more importantly, restored divisions), making them peer frontline-capable.

*i have problems calling 30t+ vehicles light, especially when it's really possible to make reasonable light tanks at half that weight.
**Furthermore, the mix of qualities possessed by both ZTQ-15 and MPF is really reminiscent of WW2 mediums: adequate gun, good mobility, reasonable chance to survive infantry AT.

I see Type 15 get referred to it both ways in China though, both "轻型坦克" and "轻型主战坦克". It's much heavier compared to the 21 tons of Type 62. Once you stack on ERA and APS it's as well protected against HEAT as a MBT, only really showing a difference when it encounters big direct fire guns, were as with Type 62 and other 20 ton tanks they are in trouble if they run into an autocannon.

It is a bit like a WW2 medium tank, which after all are the ancestor to modern day MBT, so I can see how "light tank" or "light main battle tank" would both work for this class of vehicle.

I question why the US would want a tank like this though. For their own good it better not be a case of "if China has one I have to have one too", would be a big waste of resources at a time they can't afford to.

KampfAlwin · Jun 30, 2022

Temstar said:
I see Type 15 get referred to it both ways in China though, both "轻型坦克" and "轻型主战坦克". It's much heavier compared to the 21 tons of Type 62. Once you stack on ERA and APS it's as well protected against HEAT as a MBT, only really showing a difference when it encounters big direct fire guns, were as with Type 62 and other 20 ton tanks they are in trouble if they run into an autocannon.

It is a bit like a WW2 medium tank, which after all are the ancestor to modern day MBT, so I can see how "light tank" or "light main battle tank" would both work for this class of vehicle.

I question why the US would want a tank like this though. For their own good it better not be a case of "if China has one I have to have one too", would be a big waste of resources at a time they can't afford to.

Oh man your last paragraph gave me a feeling that if in another timeline, China fielded the ZTQ-15 after this tank, it would be called a copy of it.

But anyways, I feel that the ZTQ-15 is superior to it looking at the specs. Doesn't seem to have much armor unlike ZTQ-15 and yet it weighs more, even more than the 36-ton uparmored VT-5.

Gloire_bb · Jun 30, 2022

Temstar said:
I question why the US would want a tank like this though. For their own good it better not be a case of "if China has one I have to have one too", would be a big waste of resources at a time they can't afford to.

As was stated above - to give infantry brigades some direct firepower.
Before the end of cold war, US "foot" infantry had tanks. Now they're simply getting them back.

Temstar said:
were as with Type 62 and other 20 ton tanks they are in trouble if they run into an autocannon.

Well, comparing type 62 is cruel - it's a very old tank in the end.

Technically speaking, it's quite doable to have a reasonable light tank within 20t, even a well-protected one, but there will be inevitable compromises. 35t class vehicles don't need to and can be well-rounded.

Maikeru · Jun 30, 2022

KampfAlwin said:
Oh man your last paragraph gave me a feeling that if in another timeline, China fielded the ZTQ-15 after this tank, it would be called a copy of it.

But anyways, I feel that the ZTQ-15 is superior to it looking at the specs. Doesn't seem to have much armor unlike ZTQ-15 and yet it weighs more, even more than the 36-ton uparmored VT-5.

It's our duty as SDF posters to get on every last US military forum and SM page and accuse the new US light tank of being a copy of Type 15.

The US one is bigger - especially the turret - because it foregoes an autoloader and so needs a 4 man crew. Means it is a bigger target.

TerraN_EmpirE · Jun 30, 2022

Maikeru said:
It's our duty as SDF posters to get on every last US military forum and SM page and accuse the new US light tank of being a copy of Type 15.

The US one is bigger - especially the turret - because it foregoes an autoloader and so needs a 4 man crew. Means it is a bigger target.

Automatic loaders don’t automatically decrease the size of the turret. The carousel types does as the magazine is in the hull. But with the obvious question of the turret launching skywards.
Most modern western Autoloaders use a bustle automatic loader which yes larger turret but most of the turret is still in the back. Just like the Type 15. Yes the downside more obvious target up side if done properly even if hit the cook off is isolated from the crew compartment.

dawn_strike · Jul 2, 2022

Gloire_bb said:
As was stated above - to give infantry brigades some direct firepower.
Before the end of cold war, US "foot" infantry had tanks. Now they're simply getting them back.

Well, comparing type 62 is cruel - it's a very old tank in the end.

Technically speaking, it's quite doable to have a reasonable light tank within , even a well-protected one, but there will be inevitable compromises. 35t class vehicles don't need to and can be well-rounded.

Russian 2S25M1 Sprut is a nice example, though it is definitely not well-protected. It even has a 125mm gun.

dawn_strike · Jul 2, 2022

Temstar said:
I see Type 15 get referred to it both ways in China though, both "轻型坦克" and "轻型主战坦克". It's much heavier compared to the 21 tons of Type 62. Once you stack on ERA and APS it's as well protected against HEAT as a MBT, only really showing a difference when it encounters big direct fire guns, were as with Type 62 and other 20 ton tanks they are in trouble if they run into an autocannon.

It is a bit like a WW2 medium tank, which after all are the ancestor to modern day MBT, so I can see how "light tank" or "light main battle tank" would both work for this class of vehicle.

I question why the US would want a tank like this though. For their own good it better not be a case of "if China has one I have to have one too", would be a big waste of resources at a time they can't afford to.

MPF is there to replace M1128 STRYKER MGS and serve in Joint Forcible Entry/JFE divisions.
In my opnion this project is quite weird and lame in the first place, and the GD design makes it even worse:
1. GDLS MPF is a light tank but still too heavy for light troops that originally operates STRYKERs. For now it has to use same equipments as M1s for logistics, ground transportation, etc.
2. Currently one JFE division is supposed to have only one MPF battalion, which should contains some 28 or 42 light tanks. This number is hardly sufficient considering that MPF would be the most endurable armor in the whole division. And in a typical JFE task involving taking& defending an airport, countering hostile armor directly should be taken into account. (ZTQ-15 is different in this regard. A combined-arms brigade operating ZTQ-15&ZBD-04A is deployed somewhere with complex terrians and where decent MBTs are not fully functional, and one brigade has some 112 light tanks.)
3. A GDLS MPF weighs almost like a VT5 but lacks the protection and firepower (referring to the autoloader issue). It is supposed to have APS but the APS is yet to be purchased, and its base armor is made of ... not steel but aluminium alloy. It does have a 1100hp engine guaranteeing its＞30 power weight ratio. But considering its logistics and transportation issues mentioned in 1., it may lack proper chance to full play its maneuverability in deployment.

Conclusion:
They can even simply buy a VT5.

Temstar · Jul 2, 2022

dawn_strike said:
MPF is there to replace M1128 STRYKER MGS and serve in Joint Forcible Entry/JFE divisions.
In my opnion this project is quite weird and lame in the first place, and the GD design makes it even worse:
1. GDLS MPF is a light tank but still too heavy for light troops that originally operates STRYKERs. For now it has to use same equipments as M1s for logistics, ground transportation, etc.
2. Currently one JFE division is supposed to have only one MPF battalion, which should contains some 28 or 42 light tanks. This number is hardly sufficient considering that MPF would be the most endurable armor in the whole division. And in a typical JFE task involving taking& defending an airport, countering hostile armor directly should be taken into account. (ZTQ-15 is different in this regard. A combined-arms brigade operating ZTQ-15&ZBD-04A is deployed somewhere with complex terrians and where decent MBTs are not fully functional, and one brigade has some 112 light tanks.)
3. A GDLS MPF weighs almost like a VT5 but lacks the protection and firepower (referring to the autoloader issue). It is supposed to have APS but the APS is yet to be purchased, and its base armor is made of ... not steel but aluminium alloy. It does have a 1100hp engine guaranteeing its＞30 power weight ratio. But considering its logistics and transportation issues mentioned in 1., it may lack proper chance to full play its maneuverability in deployment.

Conclusion:
They can even simply buy a VT5.

I can understand (sort of) wanting a light tank in IBCT because it's sorely lacking in direct firepower when it runs into enemy armour, but if MPF actually replaces M1128 it's going to be a logistic shitshow just like those Russian BTGs with mixed tracked/wheeled combat vehicles. Why not just put a light tank turret on a Stryker base for SBCT?

TerraN_EmpirE · Jul 2, 2022

Temstar said:
I can understand (sort of) wanting a light tank in IBCT because it's sorely lacking in direct firepower when it runs into enemy armour, but if MPF actually replaces M1128 it's going to be a logistic shitshow just like those Russian BTGs with mixed tracked/wheeled combat vehicles. Why not just put a light tank turret on a Stryker base for SBCT?

Because it’s not for the Stryker BCT.. When Stryker Was introduced the biggest weapons the Interim Armored Vehicle were the 105mm On the MSG, 120mm Mortar in the mortar carrier, Tow missiles on the ATGM, Mk19, M2 machine guns.
the MSG was supposed to offer the firepower to make up for the light weight of the SBCT until FCS BCT rolled out. It was even supposed to take positions in 82nd airborne units. Yet it never really Qualified to air drop.
When FCS was trash binned Stryker began receiving major design changes. These changes Increasingly Divided the OG Strykers from newer versions to the point where they are completely different things. Of the family three versions of Stryker didn’t get the major overhaul to the V hulls the MSG, Recon and NBC recon.
A new version of Stryker then Was developed combining a 30mm unmanned turret On a double V hulled ICV. An improved version later added a javelin launcher. This basically rendered the MSG in SBCT Obsolete.
So where does MPF go? IBCTs. Infantry Brigade Combat teams.

edit:: note to moderator, this post plus the two previous ones seem better suited to US defense thread.

ZeEa5KPul · Jul 2, 2022

TerraN_EmpirE said:
The carousel types does as the magazine is in the hull. But with the obvious question of the turret launching skywards.

No, not necessarily. A carousel autoloader can still be in an armoured compartment with a blowout panel at the bottom of the tank.

ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

Temstar

Brigadier

KampfAlwin

Senior Member

Gloire_bb

Captain

Maikeru

Major

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

dawn_strike

New Member