SinoSoldier
Colonel
What is this based on, though?
ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
What is this based on, though?
Not sure how you formed your opinion. Kaplan has IFV level protection and approximately the same firepower. Mobility also seems around the same. Any source on the supposedly superior imaging systems and FCS?
Also, your comparison of the ZTQ15 with the TAM seems just laughable.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Unfortunately there is really not much that is known about the ZTQ at this point of time for us to make that speculation .
The ZTQ looks more like a proper tank than the Kaplan though. Though in all seriousness neither vehicle is expected to survive a gun larger than 40mm and above.
Last edited by a moderator:
Closest tank to Type 15 might be AMX-30, actually. If AMX-30 was designed 50 years later and took advantage of various technological advances in the meantime, which would allow it to have one crewmember less, automated loader, various sensor and FCS improvements and novel armor protection. AMX-30 was also a product of the desire to sacrifice protection so mobility and firepower could be maintained. And back then in 1966 there were already tanks with a bigger gun. T-62 had a 115mm gun, T-64 a 125mm gun and Chieftain had a 120mm gun. And AMX-30 was among the lighter tanks with its 36 tons, compared to some 50 ton tanks that were already in use.
That's not to say, they're the same type of tank of course. If Type 15 was designed for use in 1966 by France, it would probably weigh closer to 25-30 tons, with even simpler armor.
That's not to say, they're the same type of tank of course. If Type 15 was designed for use in 1966 by France, it would probably weigh closer to 25-30 tons, with even simpler armor.
Kaplan has CITV, a main gun not based on the L7 105mm (therefore assumed superior), and turret with armor layout similar to Altay. And Turkey doesn't make bad weapons.
When equipped with ERA, it would own the ZTQ, so let's not make this comparison. Back on topic
SinoSoldier
Colonel
The ZTQ doesn't use a L7 cannon either, and even if it did it doesn't necessarily mean that it underperforms compared to whatever Turkish gun there is.
The rest of your post seems more grounded in sensationalism rather than evidence or data (of which you provided none), so we'll just leave it at that.
So does the ZTQ15. You're not basing your assumption on the parade configuration, are you?
The ZTQ's is upgraded from the original 105s on older Chinese tanks. What makes you assume that the one on the Kaplan is superior to that on the ZTQ? Assuming it was superior, is it superior enough to make any noticeable difference in performance?
In fact, I'd argue that the RWS on the ZTQ15 with its 12.7mm HMG and 35mm AGL would make a greater difference in most engagements than a slightly better main gun.
What makes it superior to the ZTQ15's turret layout? Judging from pictures alone, the turret cheeks on the ZTQ are noticably more well armored than that on the Kaplan.
Nobody implied they did. But your assumption that the Kaplan
is just ludicrous.
Last edited:
“Turkey doesn't make bad weapons.” I have to assume you are Turkish . To be honest, Turkey didn't make any impressive weapons according to my memory. Maybe you can change my "stereotype"？
TB2, Anka, Altay, T-300 Kasirga, J-600T, etc.
Give an example of a bad Turkish weapon?
Actually don't, it would be off topic.
"Turkey doesn't make bad weapons"... "China doesn't make bad weapons"... "Russia doesn't make bad weapons"... "Japan doesn't make bad weapons"... what are we 15 years old?????? What a dumb statement. Of course Turkey makes some bad weapons. Everyone does. About half the weapons made by the US since the 19th century can be considered "bad" in many ways. Saying "Turkey doesn't make bad weapons" is a bit of a dud comment. Then making a random list of Turkish weapons without any given reasons why they aren't bad is worse. But yes very off-topic.