TR Altay Main Battle Tank & Related Programs

[harris]

China's new-type tanks are no longer just assault fortresses, but systematic and intelligent combat platforms. Through such platforms, the tanks' battlefield awareness capabilities and active defense capabilities are greatly enhanced and improved.
The destruction of the enemy's main battle tanks is mainly accomplished through beyond-visual-range (BVR) means—just like the J-10C shooting down the Rafale—destroying the enemy tanks before they are detected.

 

[Quasar]

Here is the pure genuine Chinese MBT!
Weights 40 tonnes and has just 105mm gun!! Why?
Because the Chinese analyzed very well data from Ukrainian war.

Today:
*Tank on tank combats are exceedingly rare.
*105mm AP rounds velocity is good.
* Punching armor is not job of MBTs.
* Destroying fortifications is main job!!
* Armor is typically used to dislodge infantry from citys.
*Bigger, slower, louder giant platform have shown to be vulnerable!
I absolutely agree and we also should focus on 40 ton medium tanks.

Just 2 tank crew, most works are AI delegated , a lot of sensors etc. Here is the new ERA.

Frankly speaking China does not just have medium tanks with 105 mm, their MBT inventory still mainly consists of Type 99A, Type 99, Type 96A, Type 96, 88, 79, 59

they already had medium tanks before the Ukrainian war since their geography dictates also a need for medium tanks but sure this does not mean that they are not getting leasons from Ukrainian war... for instance their latest tank models failed to achieve the desired results during exercises because of inadequate traning levels of tank crews

 

[Ripley]

Here is the pure genuine Chinese MBT!
Weights 40 tonnes and has just 105mm gun!! Why?
Because the Chinese analyzed very well data from Ukrainian war.

Today:
*Tank on tank combats are exceedingly rare.
*105mm AP rounds velocity is good.
* Punching armor is not job of MBTs.
* Destroying fortifications is main job!!
* Armor is typically used to dislodge infantry from citys.
*Bigger, slower, louder giant platform have shown to be vulnerable!
I absolutely agree and we also should focus on 40 ton medium tanks.

Just 2 tank crew, most works are AI delegated , a lot of sensors etc. Here is the new ERA.

Regarding Russo-Ukrania War, Some points, I must agree but some others not so much.

Frankly speaking China does not just have medium tanks with 105 mm, their MBT inventory still mainly consists of Type 99A, Type 99, Type 96A, Type 96, 88, 79, 59

they already had medium tanks before the Ukrainian war since their geography dictates also a need for medium tanks but sure this does not mean that they are not getting leasons from Ukrainian war... for instance their latest tank models failed to achieve the desired results during exercises because of inadequate traning levels of tank crews

And lets not forget that they‘ve been setting up an agile landing force on Taiwan. and from what I read latter’s tank and armor force is in abysmal condition.

 

[begturan]

The Chinese are generally open to new ideas and eager to experiment. Because they don't face financial constraints, they don't hesitate to add tanks of various designs to their inventory. In the future, they will test these tanks on the battlefield and choose the best candidate to invest in.

 

[UkroTurk]

But somehow, for some reason the Chinese haven't made 60 ton huge MBTs, while their Navy constructing huge destroyers.

Geography and topography could be the reason? India border is on mountains.

Anyways today we don't see tank on tank battles, MBTs work as fire support vehicles against fortifications and buildings.

 

[Ripley]

But somehow, for some reason the Chinese haven't made 60 ton huge MBTs, while their Navy constructing huge destroyers.

Geography and topography could be the reason? India border is on mountains.

Anyways today we don't see tank on tank battles, MBTs work as fire support vehicles against fortifications and buildings.

I was trying to explain here

And lets not forget that they‘ve been setting up an agile landing force on Taiwan. and from what I read latter’s tank and armor force is in abysmal condition.

Now that I have time, I can try more in detail.
Chinese light tank concept can be a result of rapid deployment (landing) on Taiwan.
it should be light so that they can support infantry during landing and help quickly establish strongholds at the beachheads. Also, they might think that equipped with superior tech, their light tank might take obsolete Taiwanese armor quickly.

I don’t know the driving force behind such a light tank but I believe landing(s) on Taiwan might, if not the sole reason, be one of the reasons.
I’m not sure whether large size of destroyers vs light tanks is a contradiction in itself because large size destroyers is quite relevant to Taiwan as well, considering their jobs cut out for them. Namely, keeping the US navy out of reach as much as they can during an invasion of Taiwan and protect and keep logistic lines to island open.

Again, I’m not claiming that I’m an expert on Chinese armor and naval doctrines but only saying that it may be one of many reasons behind the tank. Or maybe you’re absolutely right and it was the conclusion they arrived after Russo-Ukraine War and stick to that.
I’m just not so sure if every military can/should arrive at the same conclusion. Everyone’s needs are different, I say.

 

[boredaf]

I was trying to explain here


Now that I have time, I can try more in detail.
Chinese light tank concept can be a result of rapid deployment (landing) on Taiwan.
it should be light so that they can support infantry during landing and help quickly establish strongholds at the beachheads. Also, they might think that equipped with superior tech, their light tank might take obsolete Taiwanese armor quickly.

I don’t know the driving force behind such a light tank but I believe landing(s) on Taiwan might, if not the sole reason, be one of the reasons.
I’m not sure whether large size of destroyers vs light tanks is a contradiction in itself because large size destroyers is quite relevant to Taiwan as well, considering their jobs cut out for them. Namely, keeping the US navy out of reach as much as they can during an invasion of Taiwan and protect and keep logistic lines to island open.

Again, I’m not claiming that I’m an expert on Chinese armor and naval doctrines but only saying that it may be one of many reasons behind the tank. Or maybe you’re absolutely right and it was the conclusion they arrived after Russo-Ukraine War and stick to that.
I’m just not so sure if every military can/should arrive at the same conclusion. Everyone’s needs are different, I say.

I think you are right about a possible Taiwan invasion mate, but I also believe they did take notes from Ukraine. Western tanks sent there all underperformed at best, outright failed at worst. Ukrainians heaped praise on Bradleys and CV90s far more than any tank that were sent there.

Western doctrine have been all about getting the air superiority and bombing the enemy back to stone age before putting boots on the ground for a long time, I think that is why Ukraine became a wake up call to everyone. As in, "Wait, what the fuck do we do if we cannot achieve air superiority?" Well, suddenly, your MBTs are artillery bait, or, drone bait. So, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see more medium tanks in the future.

Also, Chinese are claiming that 105mm cannon provides equivalent performance to other 120 mm cannons, due to penetrators and whatever propellant they use, might be true, might be bluffing. Who knows with China.

But somehow, for some reason the Chinese haven't made 60 ton huge MBTs, while their Navy constructing huge destroyers.

Well, yanks are making 60 tonnes MBT, Abrams X, while also making huge destroyers.

 

[Saithan]

Remember that terrain plays a part in all this. Our border with Syria is pretty much flat.

Under any circumstances we need new armor in thousands

 

[UkroTurk]

Please remember that the Chinese also have flat Terrain border with Russia where they killed some Soviet tanks.

Sino-Soviet border conflict - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org