Rewrote parts of it, the original is still a bit hard to read. Edit time expired, very sorry for posting such a large chunk of writing again.
Yes, I know. And I'm trying to make it vague and not talk into the details, but since you asked I'm just going to explain a little. BTW official media also never talked about the differences, so all this is basically personal speculation.
Yes, "lighter breed of MBT" is exactly what VT-5 is. It's designed for terrain like muddy crop fields, land with rich water systems and so on, where heavier MBTs have problems passing easily. That's why countries like Bangladesh would buy it.
Type 15 on the other hand, is especially designed for high-risk areas at higher altitudes, for e.g. the India-China boundaries, and Tibetan regions that need stronger anti-terrorism weapons. The lighter weight brings both better tactical mobility and rapid-reaction capabilities, as well as faster deployment and better traversing capabilities.
The Type 15's engine is also specified for lower atmospheric pressures, at an extent which, in 15's trial tests, enabled it to have extremely good mobility numbers (speed reduction of merely x kph, and engine power reduction of roughly 5%.) The ability to fight in muddy terrain is in fact an additional advantage a result of the lighter weight.
What official media commented about the capabilities of 15 was: an all-terrain-mobile vehicle capable of high mobility, diverse array of striking methods, high survivability, and high informational abilities. And is mainly used for rapid-deployment, mobilized assault, and capturing strategically important locations.
Thus, a reasonable scenario of combat with PLA on the plateaus would be: you having only infantry and light gear, while PLA on the other hand, has access to an army of numerous tanks, that can destroy artillery formations and occasional tanks and IFVs (that has poor performance on such altitudes), kill infantry, and also assault strengthened fortifications.
Therefore, unlike the VT-5, Type 15 faces no powerful tanks, instead being more exposed to firepower like artillery strikes, autocannon fire, and infantry-carried ATGMs. Therefore Type 15 doesn't need to be as protected against anti-tank firepower like APFSDS, so more protection is required against the other threats mentioned.
Instead of using composite armour, Type 15 is freer to use heavy ERA (such as the FY-5) with high post-strike survivability. (Good ERA actually has equal/better survivability than composite) The leftover weight can be used to increase ammo load, increase mobility, install heavier electronics and auxiliary devices, and most importantly, strengthen top-protection, against those pesty artillery and top-attack ATGMs, especially against EFP projectiles. That's in my opinion why VT-5 has composite, but 15 doesn't.
Well, that's purely science fiction. I can't believe people actually make up stories like this lol.
Personal opinions, if there's anything wrong please help point out thx.
So is VT-5 the case of Norinco adapting the concept of Type 15 as a light tank, removing the requirement for the high altitude operation, and turning it into a lightweight MBT?
