ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

F

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
by78 said:
It can't be assumed willy nilly that the export VT5 shares the same gun as ZTQ-15. A fanboy might do that, but we aren't a fanboy forum, are we? :p
Click to expand...

and someone "not a fan boy" when trying to troll, attack individually, offend others, edit comments after insulting others, playing victim cards.

Good. I'm not trying to be "not a fan boy"
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
by78 said:
It can't be assumed willy nilly that the export VT5 shares the same gun as ZTQ-15. A fanboy might do that, but we aren't a fanboy forum, are we? :p
Click to expand...

Fine yes if you insist on being so technical. There may be minor differences to the gun and ammo. I doubt though the difference is being able to penetrate the T-90S 车体 and the ability to penetrate all MBTs whatever that means. On that claim we both agree.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
You both should cool the name calling by now. It's been 2 pages. I get it sometimes but come on, 2 pages of it already. Just focus on the topic. And here the point is FangYuan you've provided a link that doesn't back up your claim, not even close. So let's not continue with the whole magic gun and ammo.
 
by78

by78

General
ougoah said:
Yes. Well that's entirely pointless then. One would hope their tank round and gun can make easy work of side armour. I assumed 车体 is written to mean the main frontal armour. What would be the point otherwise? Anyway personal understandings aside, that's still not all MBTs. Not even remotely close.
Click to expand...

Well, "车体" means just that, the hull. So yes, it's a pointless article. A big nothing burger, but what do you expect from a non-credible source?

The only credible information on ZTQ-15's gun is here. It can penetrate frontal armor of 2nd-generation tanks, basically the Pattons, the T-62s, T-64s, etc. Impressive for a rifled 105mm gun to be sure, but taking on frontal armor of Abrams, Leopard II, and Russian 3rd-gen MBTs? Forget about it.

This is why RichardGao was at pains to emphasize that ZTQ-15 is not meant to take on MBTs head-on, but the fanboys won't listen. They keep coming back with silly outlandish claims that crumble upon even a cursory examination.
 
Last edited:
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
by78 said:
Well, "车体" means just that, the hull. So yes, it's a pointless article. A big nothing burger, but what do you expect from a non-credible source?

The only credible information on ZTQ-15's gun is here. It can penetrate armor of 2nd-generation tanks, basically the Pattons, the T-62s, T-64s, etc. Impressive for a rifled 105mm gun, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the article and claims by FangYuan but only penetrating 2nd gen tanks seems rather underwhelming for such a long piece of kinetic penetrator. Those 2nd gen tanks shouldn't require much more than RPG-6s. Of course Type 15's main tasks aren't tank busting at all but that round looks like it can manage mid 40 tonners. Personal unfounded opinion based purely on that APFSDS looking more capable to me than the ones on Type 99 and 96s. Bigger bore and longer barrel of the ZPT98 just means a bit more propellant, acceleration, and overall KE, balancing the heavier round here which may be harder to accelerate.

On the name calling, you called him fanboy. Which is sort of called for here. We've all been guilty of being fanboys from time to time and depending on the topic. I know I have. The "provoke" and being "sensitive" cycle should stop. Did you know the Indian Arjun fires a round called the PCB - Penetration Cum Blast. Isn't that nice.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
by78 said:
The only credible information on ZTQ-15's gun is here. It can penetrate frontal armor of 2nd-generation tanks, basically the Pattons, the T-62s, T-64s, etc. Impressive for a rifled 105mm gun to be sure, but taking on frontal armor of Abrams, Leopard II, and Russian 3rd-gen MBTs? Forget about it.

This is why RichardGao was at pains to emphasize that ZTQ-15 is not meant to take on MBTs head-on, but the fanboys won't listen. They keep coming back with silly outlandish claims that crumble upon even a cursory examination.
Click to expand...

I read through that page 67 where Richard quotes some official info on ZTQ-15 and what's written is - "Although it is light and nimble, Type 15's offensive powers are no piece of cake. The firepower is comparable to that of a heavyweight tank, and new ammunition equipped on the 105mm rifled canon can not only penetrate the frontal armour of 2nd generation tanks, but can also do the same with a 1.5-meter-thick steel-concrete fortification."

This seems to suggest the minimum assured ability is this measure but of course no details on if and how many add-ons these 2nd gens have. What distance and angle. And also no details on 1.5m steel concrete mix. That's obviously not 1.5m of RHA and again no distance or angle. So essentially it's just saying 2ng gen tanks should be easy work for this gun. Guess again it's a huge nothing burger.
 
by78

by78

General
ougoah said:
I read through that page 67 where Richard quotes some official info on ZTQ-15 and what's written is - "Although it is light and nimble, Type 15's offensive powers are no piece of cake. The firepower is comparable to that of a heavyweight tank, and new ammunition equipped on the 105mm rifled canon can not only penetrate the frontal armour of 2nd generation tanks, but can also do the same with a 1.5-meter-thick steel-concrete fortification."

This seems to suggest the minimum assured ability is this measure but of course no details on if and how many add-ons these 2nd gens have. What distance and angle. And also no details on 1.5m steel concrete mix. That's obviously not 1.5m of RHA and again no distance or angle. So essentially it's just saying 2ng gen tanks should be easy work for this gun. Guess again it's a huge nothing burger.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I didn't think of it that way, but yes, it is sort of a nothing-burger. When an 'official' serves a nothing burger, he's trying to keep classified information classified. But when a non-credible news source serves a nothing burger, it's because they are trying to get advert revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top