ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

Hendrik_2000 said:

Tank does not work alone they have infantry to protect them from ATGM. In defensive position they are buried in the ground
The most potent Indian ATGM is Spike not sure if they are operational now . Depending on the version the LR version can penetrate 700mm RHA with tandem warhead . We don't have reliable data on the ZTQ? composite armor some say it is good for 500mm who knows?
Anyway if they want it they can fit it with APS like this guy here. Or use EW system like the Russian does

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 42191

This one is test against RPG and ATGM

Click to expand...

I've seen claims that the ZTQ's turret is actually better protected than the 96A's. Not sure how true that claim is, though it's definitely plausible since the 96A's armour is pretty inadequate to say the least.

The ZTQ turret definitely fixed the major turret geometry issue that has plagued recent Chinese tanks, in which the thin turret side and armour module edges would be visible at any angle other than directly from the front.





Seriously, it took them ridiculously long to fix that issue. Whoever felt that it was acceptable in the first place should be executed for needlessly endangering the lives of Chinese servicemen.

jobjed said:

That's the risk every battlefield commander takes when ordering tanks into battle. India cannot haul their T-72s and T-90s up the Himalayas so Spike missiles are the best they have. They won't have many of them either because it's difficult getting anything up the Himalayas, never mind a heavy ATGM.

The PLA, on the other hand, won't have to haul anything up because they're already there on a permanent basis. They also have 300mm MLRS and AFT-10 Sino-Spikes in addition to ZTQs so basically, the PLA has everything the Indians can possibly bring to a fight, and more. India brings 1 Spike, China counters with 10 AFT-10s, 12 300mm rockets, and a ZTQ company. What do you think is going to happen?

Click to expand...

Well Indians are allready there, obviously, because otherways their soldiers wouldn't be in Chinese territory.
Also, if their bulldozers can get there, so can T-72/90.

Also, Spike isn't so heavy at all and if India want's they can bring all of them there. Not to mention that India also has MLRS-systems like Smerch and others.

AZaz09dude said:

I've seen claims that the ZTQ's turret is actually better protected than the 96A's. Not sure how true that claim is, though it's definitely plausible since the 96A's armour is pretty inadequate to say the least.

The ZTQ turret definitely fixed the major turret geometry issue that has plagued recent Chinese tanks, in which the thin turret side and armour module edges would be visible at any angle other than directly from the front.

View attachment 42193

Seriously, it took them ridiculously long to fix that issue. Whoever felt that it was acceptable in the first place should be executed for needlessly endangering the lives of Chinese servicemen.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. That area is covered by the smoke grenade launchers, which should defeat a HEAT round just by its presence; it's basically equivalent to more expensive slat armor. Side armor is not designed to withstand a straight shot APFSDS anyway, but the heterogeneous nature of the grenade launchers may be enough to partially deflect the KE round and result in failure to penetrate.

Well Indians are allready there, obviously, because otherways their soldiers wouldn't be in Chinese territory.

Click to expand...

If you were paying attention, you'd know that they've withdrawn from already.

Also, if their bulldozers can get there, so can T-72/90.

Click to expand...

If it were that easy, why would the PLA even bother with the ZTQ when they could just send ZTZ-99/As?

Iron Man said:

I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. That area is covered by the smoke grenade launchers, which should defeat a HEAT round just by its presence; it's basically equivalent to more expensive slat armor. Side armor is not designed to withstand a straight shot APFSDS anyway, but the heterogeneous nature of the grenade launchers may be enough to partially deflect the KE round and result in failure to penetrate.

Click to expand...

The thing is, they could have made it resistant to direct hits from APFSDS rounds if they made the composite armour module go out just a bit farther on the sides.

AZaz09dude said:

If you were paying attention, you'd know that they've withdrawn from already.



If it were that easy, why would the PLA even bother with the ZTQ when they could just send ZTZ-99/As?

Click to expand...

I know that they have retreated.

And sincerely, I really don't know why are they building VT-5. No tank is able to dance and ski slalom in high mountains. But with semi-decent roads ( that China has allready made ) climbing a tank like Type 99 or at least Type 96 in high mountains is not a problem at all ( not in Mt. Everest ofc ). Military engineers are far more important there. So, bulldozers, not light tanks.

AZaz09dude said:

The thing is, they could have made it resistant to direct hits from APFSDS rounds if they made the composite armour module go out just a bit farther on the sides.

Click to expand...

I think the front-to-side armour curved transition provides pretty good protection already whereas extending the corner armour like that on the T-series will result in a hilarious disparity between inner and outer sections of the turret.

AZaz09dude said:

The thing is, they could have made it resistant to direct hits from APFSDS rounds if they made the composite armour module go out just a bit farther on the sides.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which tank this is, but as it stands a KE round coming from the direction of your arrow will most definitely penetrate the turret at the target spot. The thing with tank armor is that it's all a trade off between protection on one hand and cost and weight on the other. You could uparmor the 96A to protect against glancing APFSDS shots on the side armor like the M1 for example, but then you can expect it to cost $9 million and weigh 70 tons like the M1 too. In any case the point is that the spot where the grenade launchers attach is not necessarily a weak point given the overall protection levels on the rest of the 96A, which is APFSDS/HEAT-resistant front armor and only HEAT-resistant side armor, the kind of protection level that is standard on most modern tanks around the world.

abc123 said:

Well Indians are allready there, obviously, because otherways their soldiers wouldn't be in Chinese territory.
Also, if their bulldozers can get there, so can T-72/90.

Also, Spike isn't so heavy at all and if India want's they can bring all of them there. Not to mention that India also has MLRS-systems like Smerch and others.

Click to expand...

The Indians were able to bring bulldozers because they aren't at war with China and their supply lines up the Himalayas weren't being attacked by long-range artillery and air strikes. There are very few ways to bring heavy equipment up the Himalayas from India and all are practically bottlenecks that will be targeted in a war. By contrast, the PLA can supply anywhere on their side of the Himalayas from any route they want since they don't have to cherry-pick valleys and gorges; there is a far lower risk of bottlenecking for the PLA.

India's ability to bring Smerchs to the fight is doubtful because of what I just said above whereas the PLA already has a brigade of PHL-03s on the plateau with more able to arrive via rail, road, and air, all of which are far from Indian airfields. Additionally, China is covered by IADS composed of S-300s and HQ-9s, There are also manoeuvre units equipped with HQ-16s and HQ-7s so it is safe to assume the PHL-03s will get where they're needed in one piece. Not so much for the Indian Smerchs.

In any case, the ZTQ reflect the PLA's recognition of the fact that although a colossal amount of infrastructure has been built to link Tibet with the rest of the China, logistics will still be an issue due to capacity limitations. After all, one railroad to the outside is all Tibet has. Therefore, a lighter tank with a lower fuel consumption and firing smaller shells is desirable. There is confidence in the PLA's artillery and air force to deny India the ability to transport significant mechanised forces up the Himalayas which means the T-series will be scant met, if at all, by ZTQs and any IFV/APCs that India manages to get up there will be completely outclassed by the ZTQ. For all intents and purposes, the ZTQ is satisfactory, if not overkill, against anything India can haul up there for the next 10-20 years.

As an aside, even if by some miracle India is able to get T-90s past the Himalayas, I don't think they'll function very well. Both Indian T-90s' engines broke down during the Tank Biathlon and that wasn't even at 4000m altitude. If Indians can't even get their T-90s to work reliably down here, what makes you think they'll have better luck up there?

jobjed said:

I think the front-to-side armour curved transition provides pretty good protection already whereas extending the corner armour like that on the T-series will result in a hilarious disparity between inner and outer sections of the turret.

Click to expand...

I don't think the shaded area is armor so much as top armor that is cut away to reveal the inside. A clue is the waviness of the shaded parts meant to convey a 'peeled-back' look. IMO the actual thickness of the non-composite armor is the thin dark-shaded armor that can be seen on the sides and back.