Yeah well China is not fielding a 70 ton plus MBT as of now right ? And any nation capable of fielding a tank of that weight is most likely going to have the appropriate bridge laying capabilities as well.Like most bridges. Look around you, how many bridges can handle 70 tons? One of the main reasons Arjun failed
Modern kinetic penetrators don't bounce, they shatter. There's no shot trap with the ZTQ's turret design unless they're facing WW2 AP ammo in which case modern top armour can handle it with ease.talking about the ZTQ turret check angles vs the VT-5, there is still a shot trap that is formed. Kinetic penetrators still have a chance to bounce off the under side of the turret into the driver's compartment at a lucky angle (general tank designs leave the top parts of the vehicle relatively thin in comparison to the sides and rear).
Even if modern kinetic penetrators are expected to shatter every single time they are deflected (which is a wildly optimistic number by any stretch of imagination) we are still talking about good sized chunks of metal flying at near mach 2 speeds into the top of the driver's compartment, which is thinly armored for obvious reasons.Modern kinetic penetrators don't bounce, they shatter. There's no shot trap with the ZTQ's turret design unless they're facing WW2 AP ammo in which case modern top armour can handle it with ease.
There are several situations I can think off , one would be urban combat where tanks are funneled into narrow streets with ambushes. A second scenario is in difficult terrain, one such scenario would be Taiwan or North Korea with its mountainous terrain.
Also almost all modern MBTs has little to no problem regarding mobility, there few little scenarios which a MBT with a 70kph can be expected not to reach in time.
Even if modern kinetic penetrators are expected to shatter every single time they are deflected (which is a wildly optimistic number by any stretch of imagination)
we are still talking about good sized chunks of metal flying at near mach 2 speeds into the top of the driver's compartment, which is thinly armored for obvious reasons.
What is that supposed to mean?
They shatter every single time they're deflected because that's how physics works. There is no doubt about that phenomenon. If a kinetic penetrator fails to shatter upon an abrupt change in its trajectory, congratulations, you broke physics.
So what? After shattering, the sabot pieces no longer possess the perfect combination of speed, mass, and shape to penetrate even the thin top armour. It'll scratch the paint, sure, but no one cares about paint in wartime.
We must also take into account that the rules of physics also have abide by other calculations like the angle of fire among others. It works fine in a vaccume, but reality tends have alot of unknown factors.
But that's just it. Merkava 3s and 4s were easily defeated by poorly trained and armed rebels. Abrams have been destroyed in these situations. Leclercs. T-80s. T-72s. You name it, it's been destroyed when funneled into narrow streets. Heavier side armour won't help PLA significantly enough to justify the costs. If they need to fight in such conditions, PLA will 100% only use infantry, some armoured vehicles that target infantry, drones, andd gunships. Why would anyone ever blunder and use MBTs and let them get stuck once a few in the front and rear get knocked out. History has been littered with these blunders and lessons. PLA is not dumb enough to employ these tanks. This is why they developed VT-5 and ZTQ I think. Because once they mount GL-5 APS, they can protect against the majority threat of missiles and rockets from soldiers, gunships, and drones. That makes these light tanks much much more mobile, manouverable, and better ranged than the type 96s and 99s that would be just as weak in these battlefields.
Also that wedge shape IS NOT a shot trap. Hard to explain but rest assured they are not shot traps. That is not solid armour. It's just a bracket to hold up ERA. If a sabot round penetrates the bottom half and ERA detonates, it will only shatter the round and take a fraction of its energy. Not enough to stop it or send it downwards entirely. If it did, there'd be no point for any more serious heavy armour below this layer. The main armour is shaped like Abrams, Challenger series, creating thicker armour through geometry. Modern rounds rarely deflect and even if it does, it gets deflected upwards as normal force exerted by armour plates onto round pushes the round through the top. This is THE BEST current method of protecting a tank (not counting going totally unmanned turret but that's another question).
It does not necessary has to be those 2 situations that you prescribe, even a slight degree of elevation or depression can translate into an significant degree if distance is also taken into account. With most weapons that uses kinetic penetrators having ranges of more than 4-6 km that is a significant factor to consider.If you're firing from below the tank, you're getting run over so the point is moot. If you're firing from above the tank, just aim at the roof armour, why fire at the turret front at a weird angle?
It does not necessary has to be those 2 situations that you prescribe, even a slight degree of elevation or depression can translate into an significant degree if distance is also taken into account. With most weapons that uses kinetic penetrators having ranges of more than 4-6 km that is a significant factor to consider.