ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

ZeEa5KPul said:

Perhaps our friend confused the value because 350mm RHAe in a straight line at 2km is what his country's Arjunk aspires to.

Click to expand...

For the purposes of education, I think maybe Berserk (or others) could benefit from understanding what the "66.42 degree" angle of 220mm actually means in terms of calculating the line of sight thickness.

It's possible that he just made a mathematical mistake in this case, even if he may not have been coming from anywhere near a neutral pov to begin with..


66.42 degrees is sloping from the vertical, so for armour 220mm thick, one way to approach it is to use 90 degrees - 66.42 degrees = 23.58 degrees.
Using that angle to do the simple arithmetic and drawing a right angle triangle, we will be using sine, while the opposite measurement will be 220mm, and the hypotenuse is the "line of sight thickness" we are trying to solve for.

Bringing us to Sine 23.58 degrees = 220mm/Hypotenuse,
And in turn Hypotenuse = 220mm/(Sine 23.58 degrees), and thus reaching 550mm as the LOS thickness equivalent.

Inst said:

Also, the ZTQ-15 purportedly has frontal protection at least in the 200-450mm range (some sources state it's protected against 3BM42 125mm rounds), where 200-450mm reflect the penetration ability of the 3BM42 at differing angles. Noticeably, the ZTQ-15 doesn't claim to be able to protect against Lekalo 3BM44 which has a claimed peak penetration power of 650mm, although modern Vacuum 3BM69/3BM70 has a claimed peak penetration power of 1000mm/900mm depending on whether it's running DU or Tungsten.

On the positive side, the level of frontal protection the ZTQ-15 has is roughly comparable to that of old T-72s without ERA, so you can see how technology advances; the ZTQ-15, a light tank of 2015, is superior to a T-72, an MBT, that went into production in 1972.

===

And lastly, remember this entire thing is in mountainous terrain. If, say, a ZTQ-15 is hosted on a slope somewhere where it can get a clear shot at the top of a T-90, the T-90 is toast no matter how good the general ERA is. 3rd generation tanks in general have terrible top attack protection. This is possibly why the PLA stuck to 105mm; even 105mm is adequate for engaging enemy MBTs in mountain warfare provided you have a sufficient height advantage.

Click to expand...

Err, the thing is people initially way overestimated the armor protection of ZTQ15. If you look at the new footage from the factory, the turret cheeks are only hollow wedges (no composite modules.) In its "light" configuration with only the ceramic applique, it seems like its only really meant to protect against threats like autocannon fire (which, ideally should really be the most it encounters I guess.) The ERA is supposed to be quite effective, but overall you cant expect too much from a light tank.


Interestingly however, the VT5 in its configurations displayed does have composite armor modules on the turret cheeks and it's marketed as a "lightweight MBT"


(Don't quote me on this but I remember reading the "light" and "heavy" configurations are like only 30 and 33 tons respectively. The commonly quoted 33-36 tons is supposed to refer to VT5 apparently)

AZaz09dude said:

Interestingly however, the VT5 in its configurations displayed does have composite armor modules on the turret cheeks and it's marketed as a "lightweight MBT"

Click to expand...

The protection level I'm talking about is with ERA attached.

There's a claim that the ZTQ-15 can be paradropped, which gives it ridiculous levels of mobility if needed; i.e, 20 Y-20s can drop a full ZTQ-15 battalion into mountain terrain giving massive reinforcement to PLA fast-response groups. That'd suggest dropping to 30/33 weight, as you've suggested.

===

One big question to ask is what the hell is the gun depression on the ZTQ-15?

If the ZTQ-15 is intended for mountain warfare, and it's capable of climbing naked mountain slopes, you can imagine it using a ridge to launch an attack. Depending on distance, opposing armor might not even be able to hit it with its main gun because of the relative elevation difference.

If there's a very low peak gun depression, the implication is that the ZTQ-15 is suited to ridge climbing and taking potshots; imagine T-90s or even Abrams crossing a valley when they're suddenly ambushed by ZTQ-15 and end up getting penetrated repeatedly through the top of the turret.

===

Just for mobility references, the Leclerc MBT has roughly the same P/W as the ZTQ-15. The Leclerc MBT is claimed to be able to negotiate a gradient of 60% and a slide slope of 30%.

Indian picture of Ladakh:



It looks like the gradient there is around 70-80%, which is beyond the climb-ability of the ZTQ-15. But there might be routes, or even software assists, for the ZTQ-15 to calculate what kind of grades it can climb.

This also reinforced why I suggested the ZTQ-15 might have been better off with a full-sized MBT engine; with a greater engine and even more absurd power to weight ratio, the ZTQ-15 might have been able to just climb virtually into the vertical and take potshots from high elevation.

RichardGao seems to have implied earlier in this thread that the ZTQ15's 15+km smart indirect fire using HE is accurate enough for top attack against enemy tanks, so it might not even have to climb and crest slopes to engage T-90s provided that a firing solution is available.

Bltizo said:

For the purposes of education, I think maybe Berserk (or others) could benefit from understanding what the "66.42 degree" angle of 220mm actually means in terms of calculating the line of sight thickness.

It's possible that he just made a mathematical mistake in this case, even if he may not have been coming from anywhere near a neutral pov to begin with..


66.42 degrees is sloping from the vertical, so for armour 220mm thick, one way to approach it is to use 90 degrees - 66.42 degrees = 23.58 degrees.
Using that angle to do the simple arithmetic and drawing a right angle triangle, we will be using sine, while the opposite measurement will be 220mm, and the hypotenuse is the "line of sight thickness" we are trying to solve for.

Bringing us to Sine 23.58 degrees = 220mm/Hypotenuse,
And in turn Hypotenuse = 220mm/(Sine 23.58 degrees), and thus reaching 550mm as the LOS thickness equivalent.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

For the purposes of education, I think maybe Berserk (or others) could benefit from understanding what the "66.42 degree" angle of 220mm actually means in terms of calculating the line of sight thickness.

It's possible that he just made a mathematical mistake in this case, even if he may not have been coming from anywhere near a neutral pov to begin with..


66.42 degrees is sloping from the vertical, so for armour 220mm thick, one way to approach it is to use 90 degrees - 66.42 degrees = 23.58 degrees.
Using that angle to do the simple arithmetic and drawing a right angle triangle, we will be using sine, while the opposite measurement will be 220mm, and the hypotenuse is the "line of sight thickness" we are trying to solve for.

Bringing us to Sine 23.58 degrees = 220mm/Hypotenuse,
And in turn Hypotenuse = 220mm/(Sine 23.58 degrees), and thus reaching 550mm as the LOS thickness equivalent.

Click to expand...

Yes i made a mistake when i wrote that. DOP value is still low to cause effective damage to T 90 from 2km though. It would need to come close. Good luck with flanking though.

berserk said:

300 RHA at what angle ? It's 60°. That's more than 600 mm at 0°. Projectile length is actually quite longer than what is shown in that pic.

Click to expand...

With 17 L/D? Hahahahahahahah

AZaz09dude said:

RichardGao seems to have implied earlier in this thread that the ZTQ15's 15+km smart indirect fire using HE is accurate enough for top attack against enemy tanks, so it might not even have to climb and crest slopes to engage T-90s provided that a firing solution is available.

Click to expand...

I'm doubtful about indirect fire solutions to hit top armor; you're often trying to hit a moving target and at Mach 5 you only move about 1.4 km per second.

I'm mistaken, 60% gradient is closer to 30 degrees in the Leclerc's case.

@berserk: what you should be more worried about isn't flanking, but slope riding on the ZTQ-15. The Leclerc's capable of 60% gradient and driving on a slide slope of 30 degrees, with slightly less power to weight ratios than the ZTQ-15. The ZTQ-15 only needs to hit the T-90's top armor to penetrate, and riding moderate slopes can give it the elevation advantage it needs.

There's a reason India is desperately trying to fish for mountain tanks. TBH, I'd say the Japanese Type 10 is probably a better solution than the Sprut, given that it can be uparmored and that it also has a 120mm-class gun. The problem is that the Type 10 isn't air-droppable, to the best of my knowledge.

AZaz09dude said:

With 17 L/D? Hahahahahahahah

Click to expand...

You are confusing mk1 version with later version which have reached 20 L/D and above.

berserk said:

You are confusing mk1 version with later version which have reached 20 L/D and above.

View attachment 64431

Click to expand...

It literally says 17:1 on graphic lmao you are not getting 300mm at 60 degrees with that

And yes I am well aware of the MKII with 500mm penetration which is still pretty pathetic for a 120mm APFSDS round in 2017 so I don't know where you're going with this

By the way if your 300mm at 60 degrees is true that would give the MKI 100mm over the MKII...

AZaz09dude said:

It literally says 17:1 on graphic lmao you are not getting 300mm at 60 degrees with that

And yes I am well aware of the MKII with 500mm penetration which is still pretty pathetic for a 120mm APFSDS round in 2017 so I don't know where you're going with this

By the way if your 300mm at 60 degrees is true that would give the MKI 100mm over the MKII...

Click to expand...

MK 1 is old one. it's MK 2 which is in use and has higher L/D ratio. Indian tank are geared towards Pakistan threat in mind not Chinese.