ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
And why you need gun launched missile? In combines armor brigade they will include the ATF12 IFV as companion of VT5 and most likely they have infantry carrying HJ 12 in any IFV and they will be dismounted before they engage the opposing tank
So why you need gun launched top attack missile Apparently you don;t have clue how combined arm brigade actually work
China has developed a new type of armor-piercing bullet for 105mm rifled gun that helps type 15 can destroy almost all major tanks in the world with one shot. Type 15 compact, flexible and suitable for many different terrain types, outstanding advantages compared to VT-4 and type-99
@Henrik: By the same argument you make, a ZTZ-99 should be downgunned because the escorting anti-tank defenses would be able to destroy all opponents, no?
The ability for the ZTQ-15 is necessary, even if the platform is intrinsically unsuited to tank versus tank warfare. A IFV or tank destroyer carrying HQ-12s or HQ-10s would necessarily be thinner skilled than the ZTQ-15, which is quite thing to begin with. The ZTQ-15, at least, can be relatively resistant against supporting infantry elements.
The ability for the ZTQ-15 is necessary, even if the platform is intrinsically unsuited to tank versus tank warfare. A IFV or tank destroyer carrying HQ-12s or HQ-10s would necessarily be thinner skilled than the ZTQ-15, which is quite thing to begin with. The ZTQ-15, at least, can be relatively resistant against supporting infantry elements.
by78
General
Firing "bullets" out of a tank gun? How adorable. Do you have a source for this claim? By the way, your fanboy imagination doesn't count as a source.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
In a combined arm operation the IFV act like battle field taxi they are there to transport infantry to protect tank from the opponent ATGM operator then they scud away.
That is how a combined arm operation work Tank is not going to operate alone they will be accompanied by soldier In the WWII there is no IFV because tank speed was relatively slow But modern tank are faster therefore the need for IFV.
But they are battle field taxi to transport infantry man with their portable ATGM that is why you have HJ12
HJ10 will operate at the back of the tank using optical guide to kill the opponent tank with longer range missile of 10km
Don't you think I'm perfectly aware of that? Tank operations are usually escorted by mechanized infantry whose job is to flush out anti-tank rockets in combination with artillery. In WW2, tanks were actually escorted by motorized or mechanized infantry to help screen against anti-tank guns.
Problem is, the most reliable way to kill a tank is another tank; the intrinsic deficiencies of anti-tank infantry is that they're squishy and short-ranged, the intrinsic deficiencies of anti-tank vehicles are that they tend to have very thin armor. Tanks, on the other hand, are both lethal, potentially long-ranged, and survivable. Think of it this way, if a tank platoon with support gets hit by a Time-On-Target attack, who survives? The tanks are usually well-armored enough to do so, barring some lucky direct hits. The IFVs, the infantry, etc, these get wrecked.
If you look at APS systems that kill tanks, the main issue is that APS can only cover so many missiles at once. Once the APS is saturated, the active defenses no longer work. But while APS can stop missiles rather effectively, the most modern APS have difficulty stopping 1500-2000 m/s projectiles shot out of a tank cannon. Moreover, it's easier to saturate a target with APFSDS than with missiles.
===
In either case, the ZTZ-96 was designed to kill T-72s, and it has the fire control advantage to do so. ZTZ-99 was designed to compete with Abrams, and it has the armor to be competitive. The ZTQ-15 isn't designed to kill either of these, as it's fundamentally a light tank for difficult terrain. But it'd be better if it had an option to do so, instead of having to rely on escorts.
Last edited:
===
For a comparison benchmark, by the way, consider the Japanese Type 10 MBT. It's roughly based on the same principle, except that it's about 7-14 tons heavier depending on armor configurations. It's a very light modern Western MBT, at 40 tons without armor installed, and 48 tons with armor installed. It has a full 120mm cannon, as opposed to the 105mm gun on the ZTQ-15.
It makes sense for the Type 10 to be a destruction target for the ZTQ-15; i.e, with top-attack gun-launched ATGMs the ZTQ-15 should be able to hold off the Type 10. Moreover, the Type 10 is 8 million bucks a piece, the ZTQ-15 is probably less than the VT4's unit price of about 3 million USD a piece given its light weight. Depending on how much the ZTZ-99A and ZTZ-96 cost, you could see the ZTQ-15 as a potential replacement for the ZTZ-96, doing its job for far less money.
For a comparison benchmark, by the way, consider the Japanese Type 10 MBT. It's roughly based on the same principle, except that it's about 7-14 tons heavier depending on armor configurations. It's a very light modern Western MBT, at 40 tons without armor installed, and 48 tons with armor installed. It has a full 120mm cannon, as opposed to the 105mm gun on the ZTQ-15.
It makes sense for the Type 10 to be a destruction target for the ZTQ-15; i.e, with top-attack gun-launched ATGMs the ZTQ-15 should be able to hold off the Type 10. Moreover, the Type 10 is 8 million bucks a piece, the ZTQ-15 is probably less than the VT4's unit price of about 3 million USD a piece given its light weight. Depending on how much the ZTZ-99A and ZTZ-96 cost, you could see the ZTQ-15 as a potential replacement for the ZTZ-96, doing its job for far less money.
Will never meet. Where are they going to be fighting? On tiny islands between China and Japan? Type 10 is designed for island warfare and some of the mainland Japan's surfaces requiring a lighter tank than the Type 90. Stupidly though both Type 10 and 90 weight (48t vs 50t) almost the same. Surface pressure and rolling friction may be where the real mobility difference lies between these two.
Type 15 is designed for Tibet and the higher altitudes of western and south western China.
The ZTQ-15s are light, meaning that you can stuff more ZTQ-15s to do an amphibious landing or amphibious reinforcement than you could with ZTZ-99As.
The Type 10 is actually 40 tons with its modular armor removed and 44 tons in standard configuration. You get the feeling the Japanese are thinking the same thing; lightweight Type 10s can be deployed onto islands by amphibious lander more efficiently than Japanese Type 90s. The ZTQ-15, likewise, is supposed to be around half the weight of a ZTZ-99A, implying that you can stuff two ZTQ-15s for the same footprint as a ZTZ-99A.