ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

A

ahho

Junior Member
It could be for airborne, but kind of weird to have to develop a whole new vehicle for it, unless there is a specific dimension requirement, since the other light tank "LOOK" longer in length compare to this one and they are trying to save space on the airplane. Base on the LOOK of it, it does not look like an IFV or APC with assault gun. It does not seem to be amphibious or air-drop able like the BMD, Sprut-SD or ZLC.


China already have ZBD-2000, and Type-97, both of them are amphibious (though ZBD-2000 was meant for beach landing), able to give infantry anti-armour support and both can carry troop (for ZBD, that would be the IFV version). I don't see the point of having another light tank.
 
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Amphibious tanks and airborne tanks have different needs. A amphibious tanks needs a hull that sits higher so that is can operate as a boat.
this makes the bow of the vehicle and its hull a large target. It also means that improperly loading it on a transport plane could damage the plane. And it sacrifices fire power.
airborne need a platform that can sit in a transport. It needs to have a roof low enough to allow easy on and off without having any risk to the mother bird. A airborne tank is meant to drop from a transport perhaps not in a chute but in a low altitude pass.
it needs to keep up with the troops and does not require amphibious capacity.

Now some nations have gone and given up on a separate article, by combining a cannon turret on a IFV hull. It eases logistics but also has some problems. For example the Stryker MGS when deployed to Iraq lacked AC, the crew cabin was a roasting 110* F and over in the sun of the middle eastern deserts. US Army medical were hooking up IV's to crews and suiting them up with micro climate vests. The problem was there was no room for proper AC on those vehicles. All the space for it was taken up with ammo, auto loader, turret and gun system. Presumably now they have been upgraded. But you see the problem A IFV or a ICV were not intended to be cannons.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
MwRYum said:
Wait...isn't this camo more akin to what's applied on the Indian's Arjun MBT?
Click to expand...

The photo is from a while ago, more recent pics show it with a more revised camo scheme.

If you're suggesting this photo is somehow doctored from the Arjun, there has been no indication of that and no one in the community has even brought it up (for good measure).
 
A

ahho

Junior Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Amphibious tanks and airborne tanks have different needs. A amphibious tanks needs a hull that sits higher so that is can operate as a boat.
this makes the bow of the vehicle and its hull a large target. It also means that improperly loading it on a transport plane could damage the plane. And it sacrifices fire power.
airborne need a platform that can sit in a transport. It needs to have a roof low enough to allow easy on and off without having any risk to the mother bird. A airborne tank is meant to drop from a transport perhaps not in a chute but in a low altitude pass.
it needs to keep up with the troops and does not require amphibious capacity.

Now some nations have gone and given up on a separate article, by combining a cannon turret on a IFV hull. It eases logistics but also has some problems. For example the Stryker MGS when deployed to Iraq lacked AC, the crew cabin was a roasting 110* F and over in the sun of the middle eastern deserts. US Army medical were hooking up IV's to crews and suiting them up with micro climate vests. The problem was there was no room for proper AC on those vehicles. All the space for it was taken up with ammo, auto loader, turret and gun system. Presumably now they have been upgraded. But you see the problem A IFV or a ICV were not intended to be cannons.
Click to expand...

Bah I think I confused myself with the word airborne. :eek: What I meant was air transportable, and it is weird to design a new light tank to be air transportable if the current light tank fits in the current air-transport plane.

I understand that amphibious and airborne vehicles have different designs, but IMO, I think that airborne vehicle should also be amphibious, since they will be dropped into enemy territory and would require river crossing where bridges may not exist in the location. (example: Sprut-SD) If I remember correctly ZLC-2000 is also amphibious. If this was to provide support to airborne troop, and with the ZLC-2000 creation mentality, I would assume that they would design one with amphibious capability.

This is why I am so curious, what the specs are and what role it was meant for.
 
duskylim

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Broccoli said:
105mm gun is not going to give very good penetration power against any potential enemy tanks like Indian T-72's, but I guess chassis is too light to take any larger caliber gun. Of course it's main job is probably to support infantry instead of fighting other tanks.

Certainly going to knock out any IFV what comes against it.
Click to expand...

I think you have the problem stated in reverse.

The problem will NOT be the capability of the Chinese 105mm gun to penetrate, (Indian, Vietnamese, etc) T-72,s but how those countries will get their AFV's into the high mountains (especially the Himalayas with respect to India) that border with China to do battle with these tanks.

After all these guns can presumable fire a Chinese equivalent of the Bastion AT-11 missile from the gun barrel, and would likely have far superior fire control and target acquisition.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
ahho said:
Bah I think I confused myself with the word airborne. :eek: What I meant was air transportable, and it is weird to design a new light tank to be air transportable if the current light tank fits in the current air-transport plane.

I understand that amphibious and airborne vehicles have different designs, but IMO, I think that airborne vehicle should also be amphibious, since they will be dropped into enemy territory and would require river crossing where bridges may not exist in the location. (example: Sprut-SD) If I remember correctly ZLC-2000 is also amphibious. If this was to provide support to airborne troop, and with the ZLC-2000 creation mentality, I would assume that they would design one with amphibious capability.

This is why I am so curious, what the specs are and what role it was meant for.
Click to expand...
There is Amphibious and there is Fordable. This tank is likely fordable meaning it can cross your river. You find your river button up extend a snorkel and good to go. A amphibious tank has to float. You drop the Ramp on a LST and drive it into the Ocean.
A M1A2 Abrams Tank is Fordable she can cross a river but drive her off the ramp of a LST and very expensive, very well armed artificial Reef.
 
N

no_name

Colonel
Photo of the new light tank?

14wu7ir.jpg
 
Broccoli

Broccoli

Senior Member
Turret looks a bit too small to have Leclerc style autoloader as the rumor suggests. Four man crew? Commander, loader, gunner in the turret and of course the driver in hull.
 
K

kyuryu

Junior Member
xiabonan said:
Yes it is
Click to expand...

Looks to be a major leap in technology over the existing t-59/69 series + upgrades and the light t-63 series. I'd imagine this would be a very successful export product if it's proven to be reliable as the lighter weight would mean it could be used in a wider range of operations by a larger group of operators around the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top