But it's still overkill if you look at it that way. China will dominate conventional land war in it's own country against any opponent and any number of opponents. It'll be a bigger American, Indian, Russia whatever graveyard than all their losses every war combined if they wanted to do a full scale invasion. Chinese artillery and rocketry far outweighs the benefits of fielding this light tank for those purposes. It certainly adds capability in the way you mentioned and allows operations of a tank in high altitude mountainous regions as well as possibly extend the range of their reach in these regions.
BEcause they don't have to press far. a small territorial gain could be attained in the highlands. much like the 73 War. Where once the foothold was down it was not long before issues reached a point where the conflict had to end.
Perhaps NORINCO is really looking to make this into an eventual export success. A light tank with APS for a rich enough country, could be one of the best urban tanks in the world. Able to cross all roads and bridges and manoeuvre through streets far more effectively than any other mbt while offering decent firepower and the same level of effective protection. This is because a 70 tonne tank has the same level of effective protection against formidable anti-tank forces as a 30 tonne tank.
Hold up here
No It can't a 30 tonne Vehicle has a major limitation in passive armor. ( Which I will go through below. )
That 30 Tonne Vehicle also lacks equivalent fire power however Norinco is planning to sell an Export version and The PLA is looking to buy there own version.
Light tanks have a number of Roles, Scouting, and support of expeditionary forces. where necessary. however they are not a substitute for an MBT.
That being, they are both equally dead. The advantage in mobility and cheaper costs make this light tank a better candidate because they could use the savings on more infantry and the GL-5 APS which can counter 90% of anti-tank urban threats.
Except Hard kill APS have limitations especially their biggest one, the Number of available countermeasures. GL5 has three for each launcher for 12 rounds however if those are fixed then a single missile creates an opening that can be exploited by a follow on shot. furthermore in the images of the GL5 demo the launcher fired 2 countermeasures for 1 AGTM that further reduces the number of countermeasures. The second biggest is That GL-5 has no protection from Top attack
Sure they can shoot 5 missiles at one tank and eventually do take it out
but that's reducing the effectiveness and numbers of those forces by huge magnitudes at this point. ,
First more like 2 Tandem launchers like the RPG 29. As both would fire 2 shots the APS might destroy 3 but you still have another coming. Missiles and Rockets are also not the only threat in urban APS are useless against Mines and IED's.
How is this not more effective than a Merkava IV, T-80, T-72, Leclerc or Abrams in urban warfare? All these tanks have been completely embarrassed by farmers with anti-tank missiles, mines, and sometimes even rpgs. Each of them are carrying 30 tonnes of useless armour designed for 20th century tank vs tank fighting.
First Merkava 4 actual losses are small 2 in fact the majority of losses by the Merkava are older types of the 4 series 1 was hit with an AGTM and no casualties the tank may have been damaged but the crew was fine Ergo Victory for Merkava 4, 1 casualty to a IED however only 1 crewman was killed out of the 7 people in the Tank. not great but not as bad as you seem to think. farther the Israelis then fitted there Merkava 4 with Trophy, and since the 2006 incidents no losses. And Hamas, Hezbollah, Amal, ASALA don't do much in farming other than planting bodies in the fields.
T80 different situation, The T80 tanks had not been fitted with there ERA tiles and the Adversary forces were hardly "Farmers" They were well trained and equipped veterans of the Afghan war. Russian Tanks are lighter than Merkava or Abrams to make up for this they need ERA. basically they were trying to do a Job they weren't ready for.
Leclerc 70 were deployed to Yemen, 4 were attacked. 2 by Antitank mines 1 by RPG although damaged these tanks survived. the 4th took a Konkurs to the drivers hatch ( hatches always have thinner armor) the Driver was killed commander wounded however the Tanks were intact.
Abrams, First Gulf war.
I dare you to find a MBT that did better! only 1 Abrams crew suffered only 1 death after the tank took a Rpg and 3 Depleted uranium rounds The other members of the crew were wounded. Another case a TOW missile and 2 DU round wounded 4 members of the crew. 19 cases of WIA's. 2 mines incidents caused no injuries. Another took another DU round and a ATGM and set on fire no injuries I could list the whole thing but franlkly most of it is just damnage to the tank and from Tank on Tank incidents not cases of Farmers with mines, Rockets and ATGMs and as listed these losses involved DU rounds to meaning fighting vehicles.
Fighting a reservist army
Iraq War. 2 abrams were disabled by unknown weapons however in both cases this was as there ammo compartments ignited the crews were unharmed. An RPG disabled the engine of another. 1 was set on fire by a recoilless, after failing to put the fire out the Tank, the US destroyed the tank by throwing ammo, Thermite and oil inside the Tank followed by a HEAT round from another Abrams and then the Air force Joined the Fun and BOMBED IT.
Of course those were a mix of trained fighters and the US Army basically Self Destructing the Tanks.
but let's get to asymmetric kills in 2003 Abrams was destroyed by a Mine rigged to 250 kgs of Explosives including 155mm shells.
in 04 another more reasonable 35Kg IED made of 155mm shells took out another Abrams driver was killed.
05 Explosively formed Projectile IED's came in 1 killed
06 2 soldiers killed by an IED near there tank.
Of course the most Embarrassing losses were not US Abrams but Iraqi in 2014 28 damaged in fighting 5 with ATGM penetrations others when Militants placed explosives on or in the Tanks which show issues of infantry support. Any tank being operated without infantry support would suffer the same. Not an Excuse a Fact.
In Yemen we cannot actually be sure what happened because we don't have details however best guess is 20 more or less lost due to the same as Iraq ( poor infantry Armor coordination) combined with the fact that both Saudi and Iraqi Abrams are downgraded in Armor.
At the heart of these we find not farmers but trained insurgent fighters.
Now let's consider your argument and put a 30 Ton light tank in the same situations. Without an APS ATGMS would have been a kill in every case until a APS is added.
but Against IEDs?
A 250 kg IED destroyed a Abrams. even a Merkava with a V hull would suffer from that, a light tank would have been blown apart.
a 35 kg killed the Driver of an Abrams It would have destroyed a lighter tank to.
EFP IED again no contest.
IED near the tank would have probably killed all the crew not half.
Without infantry support operations again no chance.
Armata has evolved with the times and realises its greatest threat and is designed to counter it.
Armata? I thought we were talking about the ZTQ light Tank. Well guess what The Armata 's main advantage's for this argument. A unmanned turret is meant to try and prevent a repeat of the T72 turret pop from the first Gulf war not Asymmetric war. It's APS offers some defence fine. but guess what Merkava 4 and Abrams have Trophy APS now, that has killed ATGMS in the field. The T90, T80 and T72 already have provisions for a Hardkill APS options and will be in service for some time to come as the Russians budget and production numbers keep T14 from becoming the Main line MBT of the Russian Federation until atleast the mid to late 2020's.
The Leclerc though is missing an APS that's mostly the French budget though.
Oh and before I forget, Remember the IED losses the Merkava 4 and Abrams casualties those were Drivers. guess where the driver's compartment is? the center of the front of the hull.
Guess where the Armata Tank's crew compartment is, the front of the hull.
Armata is not Russia russing ahead it's Russia trying to catch up in terms of crew protection from conventional threats. It's not the Russians thinking Asymmetric. It's them trying to move the crew from the Turret and the spot most likely to take a Tank round to the hull and then firewalling behind them to isolate a ammo cook off to the uninhabited parts of the tank.
