Thanks for watching guys , what do you think of the Type-15? Is the United States copying China with their new Light Tank? unironically hooah photos: instagram.com/cappyarmy/ uniornically hooah tweets twitter.com/Cappyarmy
Hey Cappy you do a lot if videos about different vehicles and weapons but is there a possible video in the future focusing primarily on infantry? Thanks
i thought a vehicle capable of withstanding a 50 cal tops is called an apc, when armed then it's a ifv, but this one has no auxillary crew.. or maybe they travel on top, like russians? vs civilians, great vs Taiwaneese, sucks bottom and full of holes
that nintendo pistol brings back a lot of fond childhood memories. I'll never forget my asian friends playing Duck Hunt. they all shot the dog multiple times & wondered why the game never registered any hits. ofc they became even more enraged when the doggo covers it's face with one paw & starts snickering
Since the tank came out in 2017, yup the United States copied it. Which is OK because it’s probably better than any thin skin IFV where MBT can’t go to. Hell, it probably can be equipped with a mine flail for mines and IEDs.
Wouldn't stand a chance in the valleys. Still far to heavy and wide for some the passes. Mountains are won and held with artillery supported by infantry. A tank is just a bullet trap in the mountains.
We have T-72s and now T-90s stationed in Ladakh near Depsang plains where a Tank battle is most likely plausible. Plus we are going to get 2S25 sprut SD self propelled gun and L&T 105mm Medium tank which will be having the same bustle autoloader system like it's ZT-15 counterpart.
Back in WW2, the British were fighting the Japanese in the jungles of Burma. The Biggest tank they could get down tight & steep jungle mountain roads was the 30 ton Grant tank. Their 75mm gun gave the Brits the edge over the Japanese, in the battle of Admin box. I bet there are still many parts of the World, with weak bridges, twisty mountain roads & narrow urban streets, where you cannot use a tank of more than 30 or so tons.
that is exactly why Japan built the Type 16 MCV. Japan being pretty mountainous has lots of bridges that can support heavy vehicles but a small(ish) wheeled vehicle with a 105 gun could easily move across them and support troops
@@Gubers Depends. Sending a column along a road, without air recon first, is unwise. However, if you send a mixed force with air overwatch, then the risk switches to the ambushers.
To clear up a bit of confusion around this tank: Yes, it does have an oxygen generator, but it's not for the engine. The engine is an electrically assisted turbocharged diesel to prevent turbo lag and adjust for changes in altitude. The oxygen generator uses lithium hydroxide in a chemical reaction (like the rescue masks in airplanes that drop down) to generate pure oxygen so the crew doesn't suffer from hypoxia at altitude. Remember these tanks are intended in part to operate on the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayas. Crews passing out from hypoxia would be a mission kill without firing a shot.
@@Adiscretefirm well, China’s Diesel engine is quite advance and achieved very high heat coefficient, but wouldn’t say so about their durability though.
Actual PLA tanker here. I serve on a ZTZ-99A. The video is mostly correct and ZTQ-15, I think, is a welcome addition to our force. There are a few caveats though 1- The said tanks on street were not for suppressing a protest. Henan is quite far away from there. You can see people taking photos in the photo. When the party wants to suppress a protest it usually doesn't crack down on the protest itself. 2- It is true that the ZTQ-15 lacks composite armor on most of its surfaces. But it is not rated for 12.7 mm. It is still harder than any IFV as you would expect from a vehicle of the said weight (35-37 tons) and internal volume. Otherwise, its existence wouldn't make any sense. Its purpose is bringing a 105 mm gun to the battlefield and being immune to anything less than an anti-tank weapon. 3- It has a bustle autoloader not carousel. All of its ammo and the autoloader are stored at the blow-off compartment. Note: There is actually more than one ZTZ-99A model. There are differences between the batches and older ones get renewed but I won't elaborate on that. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic and I am not sure how sensitive the topic is.
A couple things that are worth mentioning in a feedback: 1. The ZTQ-15 is suitable not only for Taiwan & the Sino-Indian border, but all of the PRC's southern frontier, which is composed entirely of either mountainous (e.g. Himalayas) or hilly jungle (e.g. Yunnan) terrain. Moreover, North Korea also has heavily mountainous/hilly terrain. In other words, all of the PRC's likely potential conflict zones, along with roughly half of China's border frontiers need light tanks more than traditional MBTs. With the prospect of conflict vs Russia negligible at this point, the PLA's focus on light tanks is a no-brainer. An introductory overview of the PRC's current potential conflict zones & geography would've been far more informative to setup the rest of this video, rather than deviating into seemingly obligatory cope on Gordon Chang-style "predictions" about "impending Chinese economic collapse"; 2. The overwhelming majority of Taiwan's tanks are not M1s, but largely outdated M-60 variants, which the ZTQ-15 can handle in a TW scenario; 3. According to Tradoc's official site & the Army Recognition website, ZTQ-15 can also use 105mm APFSDS rounds, although may not be as effective as a larger 125mm smoothbore variant. It appears there was some ambiguity in the wording of this video that could've been interpreted otherwise; 4. While ZTQ-15 has been seen operating with companion drones, it currently doesn't appear to have a dedicated docking station mounted on the turret for drones. That could be a useful feature to experiment in future variants of this model.
the hilly jungle of yunnan & guangxi really poke at a certain country... ...well i wont beat around the bush anymore, have to inform my countrymen about this
@@khairulhelmihashim2510 Meanwhile Singapore has gone for ~100x full-sized Leopard 2 MBTs which is 20t too heavy for most of our road bridges. A possible theory is that they're intended mainly for counter-attack in response to a theoretical attack by neighbouring bigger Malaysia (via the Causeway), to gain & maneuver in the greater land area it has (where more conventional warfare that MBTs are intended for could be used) that other defensive assets could occupy & get more breathing room from
One of the main reasons for this tank is that China's average soldier has grown taller and wider over the past two decades, leading to cramped tanks and other equipment problems. They simply don’t fit in old Soviet designed tanks anymore. Almost a decade ago The PLA started measuring troops on 28 different metrics to figure out how to redesign military equipment for the now-larger force. This is kind of the reason they needed a bigger small tank.
I love this idea and it's probably true as there economy has developed considerably and along with that their standard nutrition. I feel like this is one of those things that a lot of casual people don't tend to think about when looking at a force that would actually have a large impact on capability.
Great video! But it doesn't "produce oxygen"; it compresses the air, making it denser like air at sea-level. It's a supercharger, pretty common piece of tech on aircraft, and some high performance cars, but I think this might be the first tank to use one.
The hospitals are full of machines that extract oxygen from the ambient air. They are used for patients with emphysema etc. The older such units used limiting oxygen bottles for enhanced breathing.
@@rerror3577 The other thing is, Taiwan has been preparing for invasion almost seventy years now. They have special forces trained by us who will destroy command and control, they have air force bases built into the mountains, and they have a small, professional army that can quickly mobilize their reserves, so no large standing army is needed. Plus it's really hard to cross the Taiwan Strait except two months out of the year, and satellite images will easily show any buildup of troops necessary to invade. it's not like crossing an imaginary line on land like the Russians did. The Chinese don't have near enough transport ships to do the job.
Weight is one of the primary reasons the M4 Sherman tank was deemed adequate in early WWII. Unlike the Soviets and Germans American made tanks had to be transported cross country by trains and across the ocean to Europe by ship. Size was a major factor followed closely by reliability. No depot sized maintenance facilities for the M4. The gun and armor were secondary considerations.
*Shermans did NOT have to be capable of deflecting SwitchBlades, Javelins, Rafael Spikes and all the rest* Modern tanks do. China's 'Slack Panthers' are going to need hellishly good ERA because the hull armour is beyond *Light* Where is China getting all the chips it needs for these things anyway?
This tank’s engine is specially designed for high altitude which lack of oxygen. It has turbo for the turbo. It means it got four turbos. T72 or T90 will face significant power drop. Sometimes won’t even start. It’s not simply put a high power engine in a light tank. The engine is carefully designed for high altitude. It doesn’t matter it’s 1500hp or 500hp without special design you won’t work properly at 4000 or 5000m altitude.
@@evagineer9165 so your plan is to drive a tank to the top of a mountain, wait for helicopters with laser designated missiles to see you, and then shoot them down with a tank round? 😉 brilliant.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the chinese. The same ways the germans underestimated the soviets, or the russians underestimated the ukrainians
The real danger is China doesn't know about its own military. Russia's disaster in Ukraine was the result of it thinking it was the second most power military on Earth.
Remember this tank doesn't have to beat M-1s. It has to beat Marines and Paratroopers and be rapidly transportable by their C-17 copy. There it checks the block.
It will also be able to support infantry in areas where M1's can't operate and instead only has to beat other light vehicles that are also there to support infantry, not fight tanks.
@@t2force212 Most of which have autocannons greater than .50 caliber and a much higher rate of fire that'll chew this thing to shreds. Due to the higher rate of fire, they don't need to use their laser range finders to range, they can afford to walk shots on target so this light tank would never know it was getting shot at. Because of its lack of armor, this tank is also vulnerable to old recoilless rifles which India still uses in small numbers. Basically, everything that an IFV is vulnerable, this thing is to but doesn't have the rate of fire to make up for it.
This seems like a wild oversimplification, but it almost gives me the vibes of a Sherman tank in WWII... Light, fast, easy on fuel, with the ability to get large numbers on the battlefield.
That is exactly what i was thinking. The rifled gun could come in very handy to for infantry support. HESH for giving enemy infantry a very bad day and concrete training rounds for wall breaching. I bet they're cheap aswell, and easy to mass produce.
100% agreed.... These are not for a Island invasion, these are for mass deployment in large numbers in urban/forest/mountain/plains environments. India being in the crosshairs as well as other Asian countries attached to the continent.
The Japanese had a better light tank(technically just a light artillery gun in a mobile armour chassis) that could according to British and USA troops who saw it in action during ww2 could go up and down the tropical rainforest mountains of South East Asia like nothing while the Sherman was to heavy and slow in that terrain, tho because it's gun was small (good enough for pill boxes and infantry and armoured cars) and it was also way to lightly armoured (great for rifle and smaller arms) to take on a Sherman, the USA troops had praise for its speed and movability on types of terrains a Sherman would pray for help form God, it wasn't made for tank duels and Sherman's could just sit still and have a nice targeting/range day.
4:15 How did a military parade became "protect the bank"? These two events are seperated by half a country and 3 month of time, and somehow suspiciously connected by a bunch of random medias?
Great writeup Chris and Justin. This is a lot of legwork to compile this much info on the Type-15. A bit of clarification on the rifled gun, it can indeed fire Sabot rounds. An example of this is the M900 APFSDS-T. The Type-15 is also not quite air-droppable, but uses something similar to the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES) that hucked a Sheridan out the back of a C-130.
@@tim4570 based off the same tech just different dimensions. The 105mm is the base gun for most light tanks in china and fire support afv but yet they have over a thousand vn4 and vn4a afv with the bmp 3 style turrets with the 100mm 2a70 low pressure gun that use 9117 bastion missiles.
Germany also revealed a light-tank like configuration for the Lynx IFV, pairing it with a 120 mm smoothbore. It seems armor isn't dead on the battlefield, but it is evolving.
Germany, France and USA to name few are also making new MBTs by 2030. Poland is buying about 1000 K2PL tanks and Greece just decided to upgrade hundreds of their Leopard 2A4s into 2A7 standard. Tanks are not gone by a long shot regardless of how much public might think they are.
@@esanahka9284 Polish Leopard 2PL is 58,8 tonnes. The PT-91 Twardy - less than 46 t. The K2PL will not be light but it won't get over 60 t. BTW. If you guys wonder what the quietly and slowly modernized PT-91 is worth, it is equipped similar way this Type 15 is. APS, two thermal cameras, passive IR, GPS, and Battle Management System on display such as used in Polish AMV Patria (KTO Rosomak.) The new capable light thing will be AS21 heavy IFV with a 40mm or 50mm autocannon.
No Chris . the ZT-15 has a belt based Bustle autoloader , similar to that of 1)Type 90 MBT of Japan 2) Type 10Next gen MBT of Japan 3)AMX Leclerc of France 4) K-2 Black Panther of South Korea They seen to have reverse engineered the Semi autoloader similar to a 2S1 Gvozdika (probably from the PLZ 89 ) and used it with the belt based Bustle autoloader instead of a carousel one. Plus Ukraine actually offered India a similar bustle autoloader technology for its Arjun Mk1 and Mk1 M /Mk 2 MBT.
@@jack99889988 I know ,that's why I told based on it ,not entirely a copy . And Ukraine did propose a bustle autoloader technology to Indian govt for their Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 .
Many of what the blogger said is wrong. The research and development of this tank is not for fuel economy, but for fighting on plateau and mountain areas. Many heavy tanks are deployed in places that cannot be reached. Because of its light weight, strong climbing ability and fast speed, this is the significance of the existence of 15 tanks.
17:30 Fun fact, since the Chinese word "bao" doesn't distinguish between panthers and leopards, the name "hei(black) bao" really means just panther(distinguished from leopards), not necessarily black panther.
@@DudeDerfus So, when some india internet warrior knowing this tank name they would say like this? "Hey guys look! Chinese named their tank bun! Its not tofu dreg anymore but bun dreg! Hahaha...jai hind-jai hind!" Like a m00ron.
1. China doesn't have T-72s. 2. The Type-15 weighs 36 tons. The vehicle that weighs 33 tons is the VN-17 export IFV which shares the same hull as the Type-15 but has its engine placed in front. 3. The T-72 in its basic form weighs 38 tons. In fact, the majority of T-72s operated by China's neighbors who use them - India especially - are still in this config. That's only 2 tons heavier than the Type-15. The reason this thing even qualifies as a light tank is because the Type-96 weighs 42.8 tons. 4. The main purpose of the vehicle is mountain warfare, yes, but it's a different kind of solution from the old Type-62. The Type-15 achieves this purpose by having a 1,100 hp engine. 5. While we're on the subject, the Type-62 is derived from the T-34-85, not the Type-59. It ended up looking like the Type-59 because that's what the trend was at the time of its design. Also, the Type-59 isn't a Soviet tank. The Soviet original is the T-54. 6. The Type-15 is not airdroppable in combat configuration. It must be stripped down to 30 tons with all ammo and applique armor removed to be dropped, so this isn't a viable way to send it into combat. 7. There are literally multiple videos on YT showing clearly that this thing can't eject spent casing outside of the tank. It dumps them onto the turret floor. Also, why show the T-72 loading animation? You literally showed a clip of some grunt reloading this thing's BUSTLE AUTOLOADER. 8. The EFFECTIVE range of tank main guns firing APFSDS is 2km. This is the same for everyone because it's based on the accuracy of the targeting system. In the West there have been efforts to push this to 3km but the standard is still 2. The only time the max range matters is when firing HE shells as ad-hoc artillery. To be fair, this is still important for the PLA because they still have that capability burned into their doctrine.
@@neillathotep7386 Actually the concept of T-34-85 as a Medium tank deployed like shocktroopers as well as the Gun caliber (85mm) . The Gun in Type 62 Light Tank is based on on both the 85mm Tank gun as well as the 85mm Divisional gun D-44. Plus both are paper thin armored tanks lol XD.
A full fledged 50-60 ton MBT's compressor might struggle a bit at higher altitudes under all the weight and light tanks are mostly employed for infantry support anyways. There's that but I also think due to the growing prevelance of APS systems that can swat large salves of at weapons and some that can now shoot down full fledged armor piercing sabots like Iron Fist it's looking increasing like heavy composite armor is a risk of being rendered obsolete.
one thing you messed up on is the Type 15 doesn't uses a carousel autoloader like on the T-72 and other derivatives. the autoloader is a caseate style autoloader in the bustle of the turret similar to the Japanese type 10 and Leclerc mbt. this is because the 105mm ammo is single piece not two piece so having a carousel autoloader with one piece ammo would make the turret ring incredibly wide.
The scene with the two Canadian Leopard 2's was in Gagetown... that place has swamps on top, on the side and at the bottom of hills. If your tank gets stuck there it will probably take a few hours to extract. Great write up on the PLA's new light tank. Cheers!
A downside to its lighter armor is its increased vulnerability to artillery. 105’s and 155 are not traditionally viewed as tank killers, but if the armor specs are real coming in at only stoping a 50 bmg, it might be a good time to be an FO 😂
@@mr.browning7.624 Taiwan's new Revolver drone dropping mortar rounds might be enough to kill it, especially if they have/develop a dedicated AT round for it.
@@nunyabusiness9433 I'll be honest I was unfamiliar with that until now, had to look it up. You're probably right. I bet that thing would be seriously effective against that light tank
F.O.s have become almost obsolete after the introduction of observer drones. Here's a link to the Azerbaijanis doing just that (bear in mind that some of the footage is of suicide drones and some from armed drones, as well as those drones acting as F.O.s for arty. You'll be able to tell which is which, though). th-cam.com/video/UNQb_f5dFWc/w-d-xo.html
Not really. MBT have paper thin side and rare armor, and there is fair chance is artillery shots will land anywhere around the tank. So better front armor won’t do much to save you.
@@np8139 It is partly forgotten because it caused the longest US military retreat in history (this when China was still outnumbered with 300,000 against 700,000 UN forces). And without air or artillery support, just good old bolt-actions. It is better for moral to forget that chapter in history.
@@sw36jl that's not true lmao. 100k battle scarred north Koreans and 300k FRESH chinese troops from the best equipped units in the country attacked 90k Koreans and 325k Americans, who'd been marching and fighting for weeks or months at this point. A surprise attack, mind you. Not only that, but another hundred thousand Chinese troops joined them before they were able to push the Marines out of Chosin Reservoir. The south Korean army had practically collapsed after that until months later, which put 300k Americans against 400-500k Chinese during the withdrawal. Minimum. China was caught lying so often that we know they lost literally tens of thousands of combat deaths more than they claimed. So their numbers are almost certainly higher everywhere else in the record than they said.
The blogger is completely talking nonsense. The design requirement for this tank is to be used in high-altitude or swampy terrain, and there is also an infantry fighting vehicle version VN17. To be precise, its function is positioned as a tracked assault gun or tank destroyer, because traditional tanks would obviously get stuck in those conditions of combat, which the Germans should have experienced. The Chinese also tried to deploy traditional main battle tanks in these areas, but it was clearly not practical, even resorting to using the outdated Type 59 tank.
I bought a Norinco 7.62 x 39 rifle with a milled receiver that used the 30-round box magazine. The one I bought in the box did not have an attached bayonet. I bought it with yellow boxes of 7.62 non-corrosive ammo. It was a bargain at 300.00 each circa 1985. I wish I had bought six of them and packed them in cosmoline to sell now.
@@tamlandipper29 Yeah I would have bought an ounce of gold each month. But I did sell that norinco for 3200.00. As a college student living on the VEAP college plan, I was lucky enough to get the one I did.
France’s 1960s AMX-30 tank is a similar concept: greater tactical and strategic mobility at the cost of protection. The idea was that a the time modern tank shell could defeat a 60t tank so making a smaller, more mobile 30-35t might be better. The idea was viable for a MBT until modern composite armor appeared.
Those were true light tanks. France also mastered the armored car concept that other countries ignored for some reason. It saved French lives in Africa in recent years. But these new light tank designs, even the French ones, to me don't to bring any unique capabilities versus something like an IFV with a 30-40mm cannon and AT missiles. The fighting in Ukraine has shown how auto cannons on even outdated vehicles are still beastly. And the IFV can take on many different roles like crew served drones, medevac, etc. And now the US wants a light tank? I guarantee you could do more with less with a modern fighting vehicle. The US wants an IFV that will ultimately have a 50mm ultra modern cannon with ultra modern munitions and they also want a light tank with a 150mm gun? Why? They already have the Stryker and the future is ATGMs and drones anyhow. Keep the Abrams, hold off on a new MBT design, field a new IFV, and put money into the future weapons systems that are playing a huge role in Ukraine. I'd definitely want more HiMARS than a new light tank.
Nowdays the logic is sort of "equal and opposite" of the 1960's. Light tanks still make a ton of sense, because taking out a heavy MBT is now the work of an infantry dude with a Javelin, or a drone attacking from the top. Loading your tank with anti-tank weapons is a waste of space because other stuff can handle that role with less risk these days because the MBT has so much of that modern composite armor that you just never want to go head-on against one with a gun.
@@guaposneeze And then active Protection systems and better ERA came along. The javelins are pretty lack lusher in Ukraine with a lot of whining about why Russian tanks are still moving like normal after one or two hits.
Served on a AMX13 ,they were integrated in a recon platoon with M113 and Lynx vehicles, impressive cannon 105 mm on the Dutch version, fast but not amfibious like the rest of the platoon. Light armour,petrol engine, weak clutch but good IR and aiming gear. Couple of dozen were serving with artillery units for protection.
During World War II, my dad was a driver of a M2A1 Stuart Light Tank, that had TWO V-8 Cadillac engines and a top speed of 45 MPH. It was used by the Seventh Armored Division, (and others, of course), as a Recon tank. Once, his tank got hit by German fire and had one of its tracks blown apart. Everyone jumped out and hoofed it towards the Front lines, carrying as much as they could, including, (for a while), the breech for their tiny 37mm cannon. Side note: for some reason, at the start of the war, every single country that fielded tanks, had some fitted with a 37mm cannon. Well, they got back to base, (or I wouldn't be here), and lived to tell the tale. So, yeah, fast, light tanks are a good thing.
Interesting. I do believe it would have been an M5 Stuart, since that would match the details given. Don't blame you or him for the misidentification though. Memory is quite fickle tbh. Just a side note though.
@@hendi1571 Technically they did. The British Empire and USSR operated the Stuart, Lee, and Grant tanks, all with the 37mm gun. The British also operated the Locust tank, also armed with 37mm cannon. Both also had weapons with similar performance to many of the high-velocity 37mm cannons. The 2-pdr and 45mm were very much in the same class and capability as the 37mm weapons, with many of the same strengths and importantly, limitations. All were considered small, easy to move by their crews, and requiring small vehicles to tow, but lacked the power to kill more heavily armored tanks at anything but suicidal distances and had a small HE round. Only the Germans addressed the issue of lack of power with the Stielgranate 41, which is basically a large spigot-type HEAT rifle grenade. While very potent, it had very limited range and accuracy due to the low velocity. It should be noted the Soviets had BT-2 armed with 37mm guns, but these were by WWII likely in reserve units.
@@classifiedad1 Stuart, Grant and Lee were not in service with the British and soviet Forces at the beginning of the war. But I actually did not know about the BT-2's 37mm gun, thank you man
Love the edits! Super cool how you edited yourself in the cockpit of that Chinese plane and on top of the tanks 😆 I know I know, I should focus on all the insane amounts of details and research he puts in these instead of the silly edits, but still. Little things that make these fun! Keep up the great work yo!
The 105mm can kill an MBT - just not likely from the front. The US army has been considering and testing (then cancelling) prototype light tanks since the 1980s, all of which were armed with a 105mm gun. If multiple countries are coming to similar conclusions about future weapons programs, I'd say they are likely correct. How many tanks are now named "panther" or Black Panther now? is it 5?
@@williamzk9083 there's the panther 2 prototype, the K2 black panther, the type 15 black panther, and I think one other. Don't be pedantic for the sake of it.
Well in the 1980s the US and entirety of Europe was focused on defending against a potential Russian onslaught of tank rush where they will be attacking frontally so NATO was more interested in guns capable at destroying soviet tanks from the front. Now we know that wont happen and a lot of tanks end up getting killed from getting hit in the side by either anti-tank rockets or other tanks.
Hey Chris, a huge fan of your analysis pieces. I was just wondering if you can do a short analyzing the wearable gear of the Ukrainian army. With major gear supplies coming from at least a dozen countries, I was curious about what the majority (or at least the biggest portion) of the Ukrainian army actually wears on the frontlines. Once again, thats for the content
The Army should have gone with BAE's light tank over GD's, the scalable weight and air droppable capability alone would be huge for the airborne and light infantry forces. Hopefully the USMC chooses BAE.
Main issue with the BAE light tank was unspecified "noncompliance issues", likely related to the fact that they delivered the final of 12 prototypes about 1-1/2 years later than anticipated. Not an entirely great start.
1:35 that is not the autoloader of type-15 your viewers will get the wrong impression type-15 has a modern western autoloader like in french leclerc which has blowout panels.
With today's antitank weapons, light tank are economic and provide the same level of action as the heavies. US in WW2 preferred lighter tanks for a reason. If u plan a landing expedition, mobility is better than armor imo.
You're wrong. it is necessary to look at the future theater of military operations, against which enemy will you fight? it's one thing to chase shepherds with kalashnikovs. and another thing is to fight against a professional army with a bunch of artillery (I'm not talking about the presence of aviation or at least attack drones), the next question is whether the enemy has prepared a defense at the place of your offensive or not?. And there can be a lot of such questions from the ways of transferring troops, supplies, etc., the type of terrain, forests, fields, desert, swamp.
Type15's main gun is the Chinese L7 variant. L7 is still very widely used globally. Type15 can surely fire APFSDS (pretty common in other tanks with L7s) and ATGM munitions.
Er, Cappy, a 33 ton light tank is NOT going to be able to move easily through deep snow or mud. The Soviets figured this out during WWII. Even their light T-40 tanks at 6-7 tons would get stuck in deep snow. The main purpose of this tank would be to use it for hilly/rough terrain where the heavy tanks would have more trouble
Yes definitely. I used wheeled vehicles In iraq only saw tracked vehicles operating. Type 15 would Not handle easily but it will handle it better than a t72
@@xxkrazykrewxxl6254 true. The Soviets kept going in the East because they had tracks that were substantially wider than the Panzers. It has been weird watching the Russians NOT learning the lessons of their forebears. You got stuck in the mud? In Ukraine? 🤨
a correction, there was no tank or PLA deployed in bank crisis, the only force own by local government is police, and they did send polices against the protestor. thats all because Xi did some military reforms in 2020, which abolish the "national guard" of China, those milita still exist but local government can't use them(by the way, they don't have tank ever).
This best military analysis channel hands down. This channel is better than Covert Cabal and Funker360 combined. No BS. No Propaganda of Western superiority etc. Straight facts. Kudos Cappy.
Does this tank come with an outboard or an inboard. And, havin watched scuba divers examining the DD Shermans from D-Day, I'd say a "from the ground up" design 😮.
Let's face it 60 tons + main battle tanks have reached the terminal point of their weapon platform , a bit like the battleships of late WW2 , still useful but in less and less circumstances
Eh, kinda; top-down attacks really fuck with the oldschool need for frontal armour only, but what tanks are really meant for is combat in ranges over 1km (putting the out of the range of the majority of handheld atgms) to take and recieve hits - kinda like direct-fire artillery. They're also supposed to operated as part of a combined arms platform using infantry to scout, engage and lock down opponents before you bring the tanks in to obliterate the opposition - the old idea of blitzkrieg with imitations of Rommel's charge across the Ardennes is outdated. Tbf though, even back in the day it was stupid to send tanks into cities or along pre-determined routes since a single mine or a molotov thrown from a 2nd story window onto the engine deck of a tank was enough to cripple it. To put it another way, Russia has really fucked up its tank doctrine and it's not even outdated it's just plain bad. However, consider that should an army not have purpose-built atgms, MBTS are damn near invincible to small-arms, so it makes outfitting your infantry more expensive and makes them less mobile if every squad needs an ATGM just in case they encountered armoured resistence, meanwhile they effectively 'harden' your infantry so that a single MG nest or sniper isn't enough to pin down/massacre your men and it's significantly easier/cheaper/safer to have a $6 million tank on standby throwing cheap HE shells than to continuously send strike-fighters like the $337 million F-35 launching half-million dollar missiles while having a cost-per-flight-hour of $35,000 or have loitering aircraft like the AC-130 or Warthog which can also be taken out by a single missile but are more expensive to loose. If you aren't gonna be using it for breakout attempts (since in modern warfare, it's suicidal to have tanks without infantry support) you might as well have big tanks with big guns and good frontal armour to give them the best range/survivability you can.
They definitely still have a purpose. In Iraq and Afghan they were used to shoot groups of targets from a very far distance like a mortar crew but have the ability to move quickly. They are literally armored and maneuverable mortar crews. The only thing that could really replace them in that category is the M142.
If you can get armour some where someone else cant and you can effectively support and supply that combat element effectively you have a incredible edge on the battlefield. Just look at the U.S armoured strike trough the desert when the Iraq high command was convinced they could not. If the type 15 can get you that edge then its great.
Great video on the Type-15. It seems that there might be a re-emergence of the classic light-medium-heavy system of tanks with MBTs being akin to heavies and new light/medium tanks being developed to fill specific roles. It would be great to do a comparison video of the Type-15 and the new U.S. light tanks.
Are the cannon shells still placed for semi-spontaneous combustion? If they are, they could make the tank even lighter by removing the overhead armor....since it doesn't stop modern anti-armor missiles.
Bad comparison. Japan was mostly fighting enemies with no tanks at all. Stuarts were superior to most Japanese models, and Shermans certainly were. Japanese tank design stagnated early because of a lack of opposition, and they didn't have the industrial capacity to keep up as designs progressed. They had light tanks because of logistical and strategic concerns, not because they were making a considered tactical decision
@@williamzk9083 I was going to say. And being so light and being blown to sh*t at altitude means that all the Russian turret flight records will be in serious jeopardy.
Rifled barrels are fine with APFSDS projectiles. That long Tungsten Carbide dart CAN be fin stabilized, but high-speed rotation does not adversely affect terminal performance.The classic HEAT shaped charge warheads work more efficiently from smooth bores HESH rounds don't seem to care about the barrel type because they work on a totally different principal; i.e., scorch the paint on the outside and rip off a saucer-sized "scab" from the inside and send it bouncing around the crew compartment at supersonic speed: MESSY! ( and there is no annoying armour penetration to patch up if the remains are recoverable).
Ground pressure is also very relevant in the heavy equipment world, that’s why you’ll see dozers and excavators with LGP on the side- low ground pressure. This is also referred to as flotation
Nice video! I would like to add that aside from India, China and USA that are investing on light tanks, countries in Southeast Asia are also having their own light tanks. Some examples are like Indonesia’s Harimau Medium Tank and Philippine’s Sabrah Light tank. It’s kind of surprising that light tanks are starting to return in certain regions like South Asia, East Asia and South East Asia considering that MBTs are considered superior. But I guess that certain advantages of mobility such as ease of transportability and ability to go through more complex terrain brought light tanks back.
Singapore meanwhile has gone for the full-sized Leopard 2 (which're like 20T too heavy for most of our road bridges) but its invested significantly in other lighter armoured vehicles too e.g. Hunter & Bionix IFVs (only ~15T), the (Renault-based?) Protector troop carrier, Bronco/Terrex APC/ICV-mounted anti-tank & air missiles/rockets e.g. Mistral
@@lzh4950 I guess it is ok for Singapore considering they only need to defend the island itself. Other SEA countries like Philippines and Indonesia have to transport their armor from one island to another. But it would be interesting if Singapore makes a light tank version using the Hunter as its platform with a new turret and a 105mm gun.
@@gabiejae3616 just checked and looks like bangladesh is the first export customer of type 15, ordered this in 2019. Wonder who is the enemy of bangladesh, is it Myanmar or india?
@@hatanokiripres possibly they bought it to have more force multiplier of their tank force considering both Myanmar and India have lots of AFVs. Maybe its also there to replace their older Type 59 tanks but I'm not entirely sure though.
@@gabiejae3616 Indonesia actually have leopard 2 MBT, but it often bogged down in a soft tropical terrain this is why Indonesia develop a 30 ton medium tank with Turkiye.
Anyone remember the Dieppe raid in WW2? British and Canadian troops putting Churchills on the beach and because of the shale, they were stuck. We decided after analyzing the raid, that putting heavy tanks on a beach assault is a bad idea. The Allies decided that the M4 was capable enough to take on Panthers, Tigers and were light enough to get off the beach quickly. The heavies could be brought in later.
The active armor that goes off if hit by a laser is going to be fun to play with. I can see drones "spraying" a battle space with laser pulses just to set them off to ID targets. This is so much uncharted territory in warfare still it looks like the same old things seem to be key. Will to fight, Weather, Supply, and a Plan. Those were all the things that have decided wars from the start of time.
Not only that usually the smoke that tanks for smokescreen is made out of white phosphorus so if the tanks job is to accompany infantry I feel sorry for them
I am not sure where you got your information on the use of WP but vehicles like tanks generate smoke by injecting fuel into the turbos or equivalent hot exhaust stream. They also have smoke grenades that can be launched up and out in a pinch around the vehicle but these are normal smoke like what the infantry would carry in a different package. In the West WP is rarely used and is designated for signaling only not screening. For countries like russia it is primarily used as an offensive weapon. @@Pumpernickel745
Love your videos learn so much and get a good laugh here and there wish you could have more out more often(videos) I do understand it takes time and people have lives but I'm selfish and enjoy them so send it!!!
Shipping vehicles by sea is almost always limited by volume not mass. It doesn't matter whether a vehicle weighs 20 tons or 60 tons if you can only fit 20 of each and have 2000 tons available. Vehicle carrier's capacities are measured in square feet (or meters).
The scariest thing is that China has the most precise missiles and best rocket force, their standard gg middle range missile is precise enough to aim and hit through air vents, taking out air defenses won’t be a problem for them. Plus, they have the best hypersonic weapons including the DF-18, which uses change in flight patterns by playing around with air flow to make it hard or close to impossible to intercept
We have T-72s and now T-90s stationed in Ladakh near Depsang plains where a Tank battle is most likely plausible. Plus we are going to get 2S25 sprut SD self propelled gun and L&T 105mm Medium tank which will be having the same bustle autoloader system like it's ZT-15 counterpart.
He is just ok on us light weapon.. most of his content on China and Russia is load of shit… if you want to learn about these foreign forces.. go to Army university channel
When you said "Tiny Tank" in the title, I was expecting about the size of the British Scorpion/Scimitar tanks... where the crew have to be checked for size to see if they would fit in it...
Awww, Scorpion!!! 😍 So kewt! I keep telling my niece to get me one for Christmas. A 76mm gun that fires HESH rounds. A guy about 12 miles from here was selling one he had fixed up a few years ago. He rode it in local parades. He wanted $30,000. Umm, no. They are impossible to repair because the spaces are so tight.
Here on Brazil, where we still uses the Leopard 1A5 with 44 tons, there's a consideration of swap the actual turret with a 105mm cannon for a Hitfact mk2, which can equip an 120mm L/44 cannon, maintaning the original chassis and weight.
Personally I think this tiny tank is perfect for invading Taiwan where the streets are narrow and the country side rice field soil is soft, etc. It is all about how you best use the tanks under certain battle field conditions to your tactical advantages.
the problem is getting them there. Taiwan has something, Ukraine didn't. A pretty big "moat". Unless China has VERY good precision missiles and accurate up to date intel on AA positions and anti-ship positions OR are willing to resort to the modern-day equivalent of carpet bombing, it is going to be difficult for, China to take, Taiwan. I'm sure they have assets in, Taiwan already but they would need to be able to take out the Civilian and military leadership before the first shots are even fired OR completely disrupt their targeting and fire control capabilities via electronic warfare. This will not be a WWII amphibious landing scenario. If it gets to the point where, China is able to safely air drop or even land these tanks in port then chances are, Taiwan has either been completely taken over or they are in a guerilla style warfare due to massive losses. Landing any heavy equipment on, Taiwan would mean that, China has already won for all intents and purposes.
@@brandonlevy8680 Taiwanese separatists need imports coming in through that "moat" to even equip themselves. Mainland China already has the more powerful geography that's your problem. Of course this is not a WW2 amphibious landing scenario when China has way better technology.
@@brandonlevy8680 Taiwan. is the name of an island. The full name of this so-called "country" is "Republic of China". Established in Nanjing, China. 99% of the world's countries recognize that "Taiwan Island belongs to the scope of China's sovereignty. It is part of China" This "Republic of China" is in Taiwan. It is a puppet oligarchic regime protected by the United States. The Americans can't protect them for long. They know it. The Taiwan issue is not just a Taiwan issue. . It is a question of the sphere of influence of China and the United States.
@@brandonlevy8680 I think someone in the US has come up with a smart alternative. That is to disperse power. Increase China's crackdown burden. Consume the number of Chinese missiles. Ha ha ha ha.
5:45 now that's a useful ability. Could airdrop tanks in locations they could NEVER reach otherwise. EDIT: a huge downside is they'd be massive immobile targets the whole way down. Lacking extra armor they would be incredibly vulnerable to a vast array of weapon systems just floating in the breeze. Not to mention the speed and maneuverability of the aircraft dropping them will drop significantly leaving it open to heavy attack. I wouldn't want to fly that mission nor sit in one of those tanks on the way down.
I wouldn't want to be anyone fighting NATO or a NATO supported country. However, that being said, I think they plan to have a large missile and air campaign to cripple Taiwan before sending in the ground forces. Hopefully they miss some manpads and SAMs though.
So it’s not like parachute dropping like how troops jump out of planes. Basically an aircraft almost skirts the ground, and the vehicles are dropped from incredibly low altitude. They’re on the ground before they really run the risk of being a target.
It's perfect for fighting a home grown insurgency. Chinese Han racial supremacist tactics are gonna cause some serious problems for them in the future.
Images can be easily confused, and there are differences between the VT 5 and T15 (VT5 is primarily for export). However, the VT5 is closer to a traditional Main Battle Tank (MBT). Its composite armor on the turret can defend against 3BM42 rounds at a range of 1500m+. On the other hand, even with the Full Armor Ver. equipped with FY4 heavy ERA, the T15 turret cannot withstand 3BM42 rounds. The military intends to make the T15 resistant to 30/45/57mm medium-caliber cannons and anti-tank missiles. While the technology used may be similar, the design philosophies behind them are different.
PLA decision-makers have even abandoned the 99B project because the current leadership does not favor heavy MBT. As of 2024, they are unwilling to incorporate heavy additional armor designs on the front and sides of the 99A/15/04A to counter FPV or ATGM. It can be said with certainty that PLA decision-makers prefer light to medium-weight armored vehicles. Furthermore, the future direction of the army is focused on missiles as the primary weapon, with the main gun being secondary. Ten years ago, PLA was already capable of domestically producing the DT30, a multi-purpose articulated tracked carrier with a heavy articulated chassis that is most suitable for the 4th generation MBT chassis in China's geography. However, due to the conservative nature of the PLA Army, the 4th generation MBT will still utilize traditional chassis designs.
It is worth discussing that, in the face of Taiwan, I personally believe that the PLA should place more emphasis on the 05-105 Tank Destroyer rather than relying on landing ships to reach the island. Time is crucial in a potential conflict with Taiwan, and both the 15 and 05-105 have thin armor. However, the 05-105 can reach the beachhead quicker and launch a faster assault on central Taiwan, which the 15 cannot do.
One additional potential role is its use in rapid(or long term) expeditionary roles in Africa, filling the role of the comparable french vehicles. Africa is potentially a hot bed for the new cold war. China needs to protects its economical and political investments. This could be a perfect fit for the Ethiopia/Eritrea/Djibouti/Sudan/South Sudan area.
This tank is small to counter India in Himaliyas....there is less oxygen for Engine so they need powerful tank for which bigger engine in smaller tank.....
not sure how often you check your comments but I have to ask. I currently work with a transportation company that specializes in transporting M1s. I can tell you that I loathe the main battle tank. from a pure logistics standpoint They consume absurd amounts of fuel. Break down all the time. and are a nightmare to transport or recover even under ideal circumstances. The Army is currently "upgrading" the M1 making them even heavier and likely more difficult to maintain. This seems counter to the way warfare is changing where 100K rocket can take out a multi million dollar tank. My question is why do we still have main battle tanks?
@@rhumandlove393 Force projection would imply there was reasonable strategic mobility. Which isn't really the case given the lengthy mobilization required.
The short answer: Because the modern MBT serves an important role, and we don't have anything better for it. And don't look at the M1, even upgraded, for the future of tanks. Look at stuff like the KF-51 panther. It used to be that tanks were mobile, armored fire platforms. They still are, but they are also turning into mobile sensor and communications clusters, local artillery support, and mobile command centers. E.g. the KF-51 comes with a specialist station that can be configured for skmething like a dedicated local commander, who can operate the local forces with all the data and processing and comms equipment that comes with the tank. Or stuff like a local drone controller, or specialist coordinator to interface the infantry and tanks with artillery and aerial fire support. And yes, MBT's consume large amounts of fuel, especialy the M1. But while the chinese light tanks for example consume less, they will still require tons of fuel, considerjng they are pretzy fast and weight 36 tons. And yes, M1's break down often. But pretty much any tank does, and anything else will as well. Keep in mjnd you can't compare them to normal road vehicles, but rather to all terain work vehicles like tractors or such, which also break down a lot because they operste in difficult and varrying terrains.
when it comes to snow alone, heavy weight can be a bonus, as it compacts the snow beneath the vehicle, a very heavy vehicle makes it as if the snow wasnt there at all, but a lighter vehicle will get "hung up" on the snow building up beneath the hull, and thereafter loose all traction.
I like the idea of a light tank. We have seen the overwhelming effectiveness of ATGMs and shoulder fired launchers destroying tanks despite having heavier armor in Ukraine. Now yes these are T-72s and not the western style tanks that are superior but I see the benefit in being able to produce more light tanks at a cheaper cost, that require less fuel, and that are more maneuverable. Especially if you are the aggressor and not the defending country.
@@obama8573 doesn’t matter if u have javelins, if u send enough fodder. U can basically burn all of the ammo and the time it takes to reload them. This is dangerous. Overwhelm rather than fight one on one.
Sure, ten years time and the last officers with combat experience will retire. But the only way to get experience is to go to war. Which isn't politically easy to do.
@@rerror3577 they're not the US and they don't have any nuclear power carriers. Cannot project their power around the world. Can't get into conflicts around the world. Nobody's about to invade China, so they're not about to do anything other than war games.
More like those gaining experience from bombing weddings and killing aid workers and children, must be extremely valuable training since none of those murderers get any form of punishment! State Sponsored Terrorism at its best!
I love the idea of Light tanks and believe they are the future of armoured warfare with the amount of advantages they have over modern MBT's however I have to ask with all the special capabilities of this vehicle how much crew protection is there and what is the cost per unit. btw by crew protection I am not talking armour but rather things like where the ammo is stored (Isolated with blowout panels like in Abrams or autoloader rack with blowout turrets like in T-72) because if your crew have no protection in the case of vehicle loss and your vehicle is lightly armoured then you are going to run out of qualified tank drivers quickly in a proper conflict. Also, if the cost per unit is high for a lightly armoured vehicle then you are going to find yourself spending a lot of money replacing combat losses. Part of what made the T-34 so great in WW2 was the incredibly low cost and fast production for such a capable (if unreliable) vehicle which meant the russians could produce enough to give themselves the numbers advantage in armoured combat.
Although the t-34 had most of the corners cut and was very bare bones, crew would often get pillows as the metal they sat on gave them great discomfort.
@@xxkrazykrewxxl6254 Yes, I wasn't saying the T-72's are survivable. I actually listed them as an example of poor ammo placement in regards to crew safety.
@@asscheeks3212 You can say that about literally everything in the military. In fact you can say that about the entire global economy. Everything runs on logistics that's not unique to the T-34
As always, great video!! Love your great sense of humor while providing in depth researched information! Respectfully, Real TC C-33 3rd Battalion 63rd Armored Brigade 1st ID
Hey man, I like your videos, but that tank on street scene in China was part of an act for the August 1 military parade, August 1 being their version of the veterans day, a day that celebrates the creation of the PLA and honors past war heroes/service men. You do great research on military related topics maybe do your due diligence for these things as well.
Do you have any evidence that Russian cargo planes were shot down? I tend to take what US officials say with a grain of salt. Ukrainian AA defense systems suffered heavy losses from the beginning of the war. It's unlikely that they managed to identify these planes as hostile, because they are quite similar to civilian ones. We all know that a lot of Russians have been able to reach the airport near Kyiv. So classic WWII style operations are still possible
Thanks for watching guys , what do you think of the Type-15? Is the United States copying China with their new Light Tank?
unironically hooah photos: instagram.com/cappyarmy/
uniornically hooah tweets twitter.com/Cappyarmy
Hey Cappy you do a lot if videos about different vehicles and weapons but is there a possible video in the future focusing primarily on infantry? Thanks
i thought a vehicle capable of withstanding a 50 cal tops is called an apc, when armed then it's a ifv, but this one has no auxillary crew.. or maybe they travel on top, like russians?
vs civilians, great
vs Taiwaneese, sucks bottom and full of holes
that nintendo pistol brings back a lot of fond childhood memories. I'll never forget my asian friends playing Duck Hunt. they all shot the dog multiple times & wondered why the game never registered any hits. ofc they became even more enraged when the doggo covers it's face with one paw & starts snickering
You know these tanks will fall apart to javs
Since the tank came out in 2017, yup the United States copied it. Which is OK because it’s probably better than any thin skin IFV where MBT can’t go to. Hell, it probably can be equipped with a mine flail for mines and IEDs.
This tank looks to be designed to counter India in Himalayas more than supporting the first wave of offensive against Taiwan
Wouldn't stand a chance in the valleys. Still far to heavy and wide for some the passes. Mountains are won and held with artillery supported by infantry. A tank is just a bullet trap in the mountains.
Yup, but it’s also a useful scout tank or an IFV escort that is not deployed at a mountain area.
@@ilovedetails Probably which is why it’s fast, probably want to rush at Indian defences before their arty can zero in.
We have T-72s and now T-90s stationed in Ladakh near Depsang plains where a Tank battle is most likely plausible. Plus we are going to get 2S25 sprut SD self propelled gun and L&T 105mm Medium tank which will be having the same bustle autoloader system like it's ZT-15 counterpart.
@@ilovedetails coming from a very mountainous region myself, I understand your point
Back in WW2, the British were fighting the Japanese in the jungles of Burma. The Biggest tank they could get down tight & steep jungle mountain roads was the 30 ton Grant tank. Their 75mm gun gave the Brits the edge over the Japanese, in the battle of Admin box. I bet there are still many parts of the World, with weak bridges, twisty mountain roads & narrow urban streets, where you cannot use a tank of more than 30 or so tons.
whats interesting is when the M3 was developed, it was a medium tank, or even a moderately heavy tank
that is exactly why Japan built the Type 16 MCV. Japan being pretty mountainous has lots of bridges that can support heavy vehicles but a small(ish) wheeled vehicle with a 105 gun could easily move across them and support troops
*🔫 delet this* 😱
You don't need a light tank to quell a rebellion. You just need some officers to put a knee to the neck of protestors.
RIP George Floyd
@@Gubers Depends. Sending a column along a road, without air recon first, is unwise. However, if you send a mixed force with air overwatch, then the risk switches to the ambushers.
To clear up a bit of confusion around this tank:
Yes, it does have an oxygen generator, but it's not for the engine. The engine is an electrically assisted turbocharged diesel to prevent turbo lag and adjust for changes in altitude. The oxygen generator uses lithium hydroxide in a chemical reaction (like the rescue masks in airplanes that drop down) to generate pure oxygen so the crew doesn't suffer from hypoxia at altitude. Remember these tanks are intended in part to operate on the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayas. Crews passing out from hypoxia would be a mission kill without firing a shot.
I'm too lazy to do the numbers, but I doubt that the tank could carry enough LiOH to be useful.
I am impressed they have a 900 hp diesel that they are confident will perform in battle at those altitudes.
@@Adiscretefirm its light and it makes that hp at altitude
@@NadeemAhmed-nv2br I said I was impressed, what more do you want?
@@Adiscretefirm well, China’s Diesel engine is quite advance and achieved very high heat coefficient, but wouldn’t say so about their durability though.
Actual PLA tanker here. I serve on a ZTZ-99A. The video is mostly correct and ZTQ-15, I think, is a welcome addition to our force. There are a few caveats though
1- The said tanks on street were not for suppressing a protest. Henan is quite far away from there. You can see people taking photos in the photo. When the party wants to suppress a protest it usually doesn't crack down on the protest itself.
2- It is true that the ZTQ-15 lacks composite armor on most of its surfaces. But it is not rated for 12.7 mm. It is still harder than any IFV as you would expect from a vehicle of the said weight (35-37 tons) and internal volume. Otherwise, its existence wouldn't make any sense. Its purpose is bringing a 105 mm gun to the battlefield and being immune to anything less than an anti-tank weapon.
3- It has a bustle autoloader not carousel. All of its ammo and the autoloader are stored at the blow-off compartment.
Note: There is actually more than one ZTZ-99A model. There are differences between the batches and older ones get renewed but I won't elaborate on that. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic and I am not sure how sensitive the topic is.
w
Me when I lie:
@@biteof78 having a bustle autoloader is publicly known lol
@@BillyBurnsfield not even the point lol
Sorry, but anything you say living in China of a remotely political nature can't be believed as it's said under duress.
A couple things that are worth mentioning in a feedback:
1. The ZTQ-15 is suitable not only for Taiwan & the Sino-Indian border, but all of the PRC's southern frontier, which is composed entirely of either mountainous (e.g. Himalayas) or hilly jungle (e.g. Yunnan) terrain. Moreover, North Korea also has heavily mountainous/hilly terrain. In other words, all of the PRC's likely potential conflict zones, along with roughly half of China's border frontiers need light tanks more than traditional MBTs. With the prospect of conflict vs Russia negligible at this point, the PLA's focus on light tanks is a no-brainer. An introductory overview of the PRC's current potential conflict zones & geography would've been far more informative to setup the rest of this video, rather than deviating into seemingly obligatory cope on Gordon Chang-style "predictions" about "impending Chinese economic collapse";
2. The overwhelming majority of Taiwan's tanks are not M1s, but largely outdated M-60 variants, which the ZTQ-15 can handle in a TW scenario;
3. According to Tradoc's official site & the Army Recognition website, ZTQ-15 can also use 105mm APFSDS rounds, although may not be as effective as a larger 125mm smoothbore variant. It appears there was some ambiguity in the wording of this video that could've been interpreted otherwise;
4. While ZTQ-15 has been seen operating with companion drones, it currently doesn't appear to have a dedicated docking station mounted on the turret for drones. That could be a useful feature to experiment in future variants of this model.
the hilly jungle of yunnan & guangxi really poke at a certain country...
...well i wont beat around the bush anymore, have to inform my countrymen about this
holy crap
12:26
it really hits home
don't forget South East Asia. heavier tanks limited the amphibious landing options.
@@khairulhelmihashim2510 Meanwhile Singapore has gone for ~100x full-sized Leopard 2 MBTs which is 20t too heavy for most of our road bridges. A possible theory is that they're intended mainly for counter-attack in response to a theoretical attack by neighbouring bigger Malaysia (via the Causeway), to gain & maneuver in the greater land area it has (where more conventional warfare that MBTs are intended for could be used) that other defensive assets could occupy & get more breathing room from
Taiwan/ROC is planning to buy M1 tanks but the USA might baulk that they're outdated for the more asymmetrical warfare that it's expected to face
One of the main reasons for this tank is that China's average soldier has grown taller and wider over the past two decades, leading to cramped tanks and other equipment problems. They simply don’t fit in old Soviet designed tanks anymore. Almost a decade ago The PLA started measuring troops on 28 different metrics to figure out how to redesign military equipment for the now-larger force. This is kind of the reason they needed a bigger small tank.
Sounds kinda red tapey. 28 different metrics.. or put a short guy in the turret and ask him "Stuffy? Yes or no?'
I love this idea and it's probably true as there economy has developed considerably and along with that their standard nutrition. I feel like this is one of those things that a lot of casual people don't tend to think about when looking at a force that would actually have a large impact on capability.
If those were Soviet designed, weren't Russians tall and broad 🤔
:)) gezz
Thats why Russian tankers were restricted to 5'9"
Great video!
But it doesn't "produce oxygen"; it compresses the air, making it denser like air at sea-level. It's a supercharger, pretty common piece of tech on aircraft, and some high performance cars, but I think this might be the first tank to use one.
t 72m1 had supercharger
@@pepelajuandeag1696 they sold it for vodka
The hospitals are full of machines that extract oxygen from the ambient air. They are used for patients with emphysema etc. The older such units used limiting oxygen bottles for enhanced breathing.
@@kukulroukul4698 hence why he said "had" :D
Oh man that was a giggle to hear a supercharger be described like that xD
Cappy at this point has more info on Chinese military than Taiwan government.
😆
No kidding, the Taiwan government is pretty delusional. Why does their conscripts serve only 4 months for their service.
@@Alex-pj8nz Because people don't want to serve longer? Same reason most of the world has zero months of conscription.
Blame it on War Thunder.
@@rerror3577 The other thing is, Taiwan has been preparing for invasion almost seventy years now. They have special forces trained by us who will destroy command and control, they have air force bases built into the mountains, and they have a small, professional army that can quickly mobilize their reserves, so no large standing army is needed. Plus it's really hard to cross the Taiwan Strait except two months out of the year, and satellite images will easily show any buildup of troops necessary to invade. it's not like crossing an imaginary line on land like the Russians did. The Chinese don't have near enough transport ships to do the job.
Weight is one of the primary reasons the M4 Sherman tank was deemed adequate in early WWII. Unlike the Soviets and Germans American made tanks had to be transported cross country by trains and across the ocean to Europe by ship. Size was a major factor followed closely by reliability. No depot sized maintenance facilities for the M4. The gun and armor were secondary considerations.
*Shermans did NOT have to be capable of deflecting SwitchBlades, Javelins, Rafael Spikes and all the rest*
Modern tanks do.
China's 'Slack Panthers' are going to need hellishly good ERA because the hull armour is beyond *Light*
Where is China getting all the chips it needs for these things anyway?
BARS
This tank’s engine is specially designed for high altitude which lack of oxygen. It has turbo for the turbo. It means it got four turbos. T72 or T90 will face significant power drop. Sometimes won’t even start. It’s not simply put a high power engine in a light tank. The engine is carefully designed for high altitude. It doesn’t matter it’s 1500hp or 500hp without special design you won’t work properly at 4000 or 5000m altitude.
What good is a tank on a mountain when aircraft and apaches are hunting tanks? Seems like a waste of resources. But hey, what do I know.
@@mattipps could be for positioning tanks before apaches come in and attack? I don’t know too
@@evagineer9165 so your plan is to drive a tank to the top of a mountain, wait for helicopters with laser designated missiles to see you, and then shoot them down with a tank round? 😉 brilliant.
@@mattipps absolutely, so I can never see the horrors of 4chan ever again, man they are horrible
@@mirandela777 that's why we use planes bud.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the chinese. The same ways the germans underestimated the soviets, or the russians underestimated the ukrainians
Literally nobody is doing that.
You could say the same exact thing about the free country of Taiwan.
The real danger is China doesn't know about its own military. Russia's disaster in Ukraine was the result of it thinking it was the second most power military on Earth.
You went to public school didn’t you
@@shikharashish4839 Literally a lot of people are doing that
Remember this tank doesn't have to beat M-1s. It has to beat Marines and Paratroopers and be rapidly transportable by their C-17 copy. There it checks the block.
who ?! NO WAY !
Me watching Nlaws shread mvt with era
It will also be able to support infantry in areas where M1's can't operate and instead only has to beat other light vehicles that are also there to support infantry, not fight tanks.
@@t2force212 Most of which have autocannons greater than .50 caliber and a much higher rate of fire that'll chew this thing to shreds. Due to the higher rate of fire, they don't need to use their laser range finders to range, they can afford to walk shots on target so this light tank would never know it was getting shot at. Because of its lack of armor, this tank is also vulnerable to old recoilless rifles which India still uses in small numbers. Basically, everything that an IFV is vulnerable, this thing is to but doesn't have the rate of fire to make up for it.
Up until it meets the javilen that they are using
This seems like a wild oversimplification, but it almost gives me the vibes of a Sherman tank in WWII... Light, fast, easy on fuel, with the ability to get large numbers on the battlefield.
That is exactly what i was thinking. The rifled gun could come in very handy to for infantry support. HESH for giving enemy infantry a very bad day and concrete training rounds for wall breaching. I bet they're cheap aswell, and easy to mass produce.
Yup.
Ironically the Sherman 105 actually had better armor that could stop at 30 cannon at all but very close range and not at all against the jumbo
100% agreed.... These are not for a Island invasion, these are for mass deployment in large numbers in urban/forest/mountain/plains environments. India being in the crosshairs as well as other Asian countries attached to the continent.
The Japanese had a better light tank(technically just a light artillery gun in a mobile armour chassis) that could according to British and USA troops who saw it in action during ww2 could go up and down the tropical rainforest mountains of South East Asia like nothing while the Sherman was to heavy and slow in that terrain, tho because it's gun was small (good enough for pill boxes and infantry and armoured cars) and it was also way to lightly armoured (great for rifle and smaller arms) to take on a Sherman, the USA troops had praise for its speed and movability on types of terrains a Sherman would pray for help form God, it wasn't made for tank duels and Sherman's could just sit still and have a nice targeting/range day.
4:15 How did a military parade became "protect the bank"? These two events are seperated by half a country and 3 month of time, and somehow suspiciously connected by a bunch of random medias?
哈哈哈
别叫醒他们。我最喜欢看猴戏
It's funny how the M10 Booker has been built as a light tank but it's as heavy as Russian MBTs. 😆
Great writeup Chris and Justin. This is a lot of legwork to compile this much info on the Type-15. A bit of clarification on the rifled gun, it can indeed fire Sabot rounds. An example of this is the M900 APFSDS-T. The Type-15 is also not quite air-droppable, but uses something similar to the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES) that hucked a Sheridan out the back of a C-130.
Yeah I tried finding footage of that specifically with the type 15 but couldn’t find any. It probably would have helped clarified what we meant.
An urgent warning to Aus...
th-cam.com/video/ewb8fwtfMfw/w-d-xo.html
🤔
This tank is not air dropable in any form,the 105 mm missiles are capable of over 700mm rhea penetrating power.
@@jeffreyprezalar220 Do you know if it’s tandem charge like the newer Russian 100mm missiles are?
@@tim4570 based off the same tech just different dimensions. The 105mm is the base gun for most light tanks in china and fire support afv but yet they have over a thousand vn4 and vn4a afv with the bmp 3 style turrets with the 100mm 2a70 low pressure gun that use 9117 bastion missiles.
Germany also revealed a light-tank like configuration for the Lynx IFV, pairing it with a 120 mm smoothbore. It seems armor isn't dead on the battlefield, but it is evolving.
Germany, France and USA to name few are also making new MBTs by 2030. Poland is buying about 1000 K2PL tanks and Greece just decided to upgrade hundreds of their Leopard 2A4s into 2A7 standard.
Tanks are not gone by a long shot regardless of how much public might think they are.
@@esanahka9284 Polish Leopard 2PL is 58,8 tonnes. The PT-91 Twardy - less than 46 t. The K2PL will not be light but it won't get over 60 t.
BTW. If you guys wonder what the quietly and slowly modernized PT-91 is worth, it is equipped similar way this Type 15 is. APS, two thermal cameras, passive IR, GPS, and Battle Management System on display such as used in Polish AMV Patria (KTO Rosomak.)
The new capable light thing will be AS21 heavy IFV with a 40mm or 50mm autocannon.
Light tanks might not survive against modern ATGMs. A missile carrier IFV with an autocannon might be a better choice for light armor.
It's dead. No one has ever waged a large scale armor battle.
@@fallinginthed33p MBTs aren surviving ATGMs now, these New ATGMs are something else.
No Chris . the ZT-15 has a belt based Bustle autoloader , similar to that of
1)Type 90 MBT of Japan
2) Type 10Next gen MBT of Japan
3)AMX Leclerc of France
4) K-2 Black Panther of South Korea
They seen to have reverse engineered the Semi autoloader similar to a 2S1 Gvozdika (probably from the PLZ 89 ) and used it with the belt based Bustle autoloader instead of a carousel one. Plus Ukraine actually offered India a similar bustle autoloader technology for its Arjun Mk1 and Mk1 M /Mk 2 MBT.
@@jack99889988 I know ,that's why I told based on it ,not entirely a copy . And Ukraine did propose a bustle autoloader technology to Indian govt for their Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 .
@@jack99889988 you just did Not understand what he was saying lol
Many of what the blogger said is wrong. The research and development of this tank is not for fuel economy, but for fighting on plateau and mountain areas. Many heavy tanks are deployed in places that cannot be reached. Because of its light weight, strong climbing ability and fast speed, this is the significance of the existence of 15 tanks.
17:30
Fun fact, since the Chinese word "bao" doesn't distinguish between panthers and leopards, the name "hei(black) bao" really means just panther(distinguished from leopards), not necessarily black panther.
It also means bun
@@DudeDerfus So, when some india internet warrior knowing this tank name they would say like this? "Hey guys look! Chinese named their tank bun! Its not tofu dreg anymore but bun dreg! Hahaha...jai hind-jai hind!" Like a m00ron.
A lot of people will hurl criticism to China's equipment. But it's definitely not absolute crap quality and is still getting better.
only a matter of time till we find out
1. China doesn't have T-72s.
2. The Type-15 weighs 36 tons. The vehicle that weighs 33 tons is the VN-17 export IFV which shares the same hull as the Type-15 but has its engine placed in front.
3. The T-72 in its basic form weighs 38 tons. In fact, the majority of T-72s operated by China's neighbors who use them - India especially - are still in this config. That's only 2 tons heavier than the Type-15. The reason this thing even qualifies as a light tank is because the Type-96 weighs 42.8 tons.
4. The main purpose of the vehicle is mountain warfare, yes, but it's a different kind of solution from the old Type-62. The Type-15 achieves this purpose by having a 1,100 hp engine.
5. While we're on the subject, the Type-62 is derived from the T-34-85, not the Type-59. It ended up looking like the Type-59 because that's what the trend was at the time of its design. Also, the Type-59 isn't a Soviet tank. The Soviet original is the T-54.
6. The Type-15 is not airdroppable in combat configuration. It must be stripped down to 30 tons with all ammo and applique armor removed to be dropped, so this isn't a viable way to send it into combat.
7. There are literally multiple videos on YT showing clearly that this thing can't eject spent casing outside of the tank. It dumps them onto the turret floor. Also, why show the T-72 loading animation? You literally showed a clip of some grunt reloading this thing's BUSTLE AUTOLOADER.
8. The EFFECTIVE range of tank main guns firing APFSDS is 2km. This is the same for everyone because it's based on the accuracy of the targeting system. In the West there have been efforts to push this to 3km but the standard is still 2. The only time the max range matters is when firing HE shells as ad-hoc artillery. To be fair, this is still important for the PLA because they still have that capability burned into their doctrine.
Wait in which way is Type 62 derived from T-34-85?
@@neillathotep7386 Actually the concept of T-34-85 as a Medium tank deployed like shocktroopers as well as the Gun caliber (85mm) . The Gun in Type 62 Light Tank is based on on both the 85mm Tank gun as well as the 85mm Divisional gun D-44. Plus both are paper thin armored tanks lol XD.
it can stop armor piercing 50cal ? Thats HUGE ! but i doubt it
Wrong about the Indian T-72s. Most are in T-72 Ajeya Mk1 and Mk2 configuration. It would be rare to find a base model T-72 these days.
Great comments
A full fledged 50-60 ton MBT's compressor might struggle a bit at higher altitudes under all the weight and light tanks are mostly employed for infantry support anyways. There's that but I also think due to the growing prevelance of APS systems that can swat large salves of at weapons and some that can now shoot down full fledged armor piercing sabots like Iron Fist it's looking increasing like heavy composite armor is a risk of being rendered obsolete.
Ztq-15 has a bustled mounted auto loader, not the soviet style carousel - as you alluded to in this video.
Bangladesh 🇧🇩 also bought VT-5 version of Chinese tank. ♥️
The amount of work you put in those, great job sir!
Misinfo: the tank footage in Henan was not taken during the same period of time when bank froze account withdrawals
你以为它们会真不知道？
春秋笔法嘛，这唐氏不是第一次干了。
Taiwanese generals while watching Cappy: WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWM
On one hand it can be airdropped.
On the other hand Patriot exists.
@@davidty2006 Patriots will no longer exist when the Y-20s start droping these.
one thing you messed up on is the Type 15 doesn't uses a carousel autoloader like on the T-72 and other derivatives. the autoloader is a caseate style autoloader in the bustle of the turret similar to the Japanese type 10 and Leclerc mbt. this is because the 105mm ammo is single piece not two piece so having a carousel autoloader with one piece ammo would make the turret ring incredibly wide.
The scene with the two Canadian Leopard 2's was in Gagetown... that place has swamps on top, on the side and at the bottom of hills. If your tank gets stuck there it will probably take a few hours to extract.
Great write up on the PLA's new light tank. Cheers!
A downside to its lighter armor is its increased vulnerability to artillery. 105’s and 155 are not traditionally viewed as tank killers, but if the armor specs are real coming in at only stoping a 50 bmg, it might be a good time to be an FO 😂
Honestly if the armor is that light. I'd be curious what standard 40mm or hand grenades would do to the tank.
@@mr.browning7.624 Taiwan's new Revolver drone dropping mortar rounds might be enough to kill it, especially if they have/develop a dedicated AT round for it.
@@nunyabusiness9433 I'll be honest I was unfamiliar with that until now, had to look it up. You're probably right. I bet that thing would be seriously effective against that light tank
F.O.s have become almost obsolete after the introduction of observer drones. Here's a link to the Azerbaijanis doing just that (bear in mind that some of the footage is of suicide drones and some from armed drones, as well as those drones acting as F.O.s for arty. You'll be able to tell which is which, though).
th-cam.com/video/UNQb_f5dFWc/w-d-xo.html
Not really. MBT have paper thin side and rare armor, and there is fair chance is artillery shots will land anywhere around the tank. So better front armor won’t do much to save you.
I feel like that one time we went to war with China in Korea was the all time low in the US-China relationship. Just my opinion.
China's massive involvement in the Forgotten War tends to go even more forgotten. Our Korean War vets deserve better.
Most people only think in terms of their generation or since the last important historic event (End of Cold War).
Read a paper lately
@@np8139 It is partly forgotten because it caused the longest US military retreat in history (this when China was still outnumbered with 300,000 against 700,000 UN forces). And without air or artillery support, just good old bolt-actions.
It is better for moral to forget that chapter in history.
@@sw36jl that's not true lmao.
100k battle scarred north Koreans and 300k FRESH chinese troops from the best equipped units in the country attacked 90k Koreans and 325k Americans, who'd been marching and fighting for weeks or months at this point.
A surprise attack, mind you.
Not only that, but another hundred thousand Chinese troops joined them before they were able to push the Marines out of Chosin Reservoir.
The south Korean army had practically collapsed after that until months later, which put 300k Americans against 400-500k Chinese during the withdrawal. Minimum.
China was caught lying so often that we know they lost literally tens of thousands of combat deaths more than they claimed. So their numbers are almost certainly higher everywhere else in the record than they said.
Interesting that the Chinese Lights look like Mini Centurions, Makes sense considering how well the Centurion climbs Sand Dunes and Mountains.
Makes sense because of the sandy plains and mountainous terrain in areas disputed by China and India in the western Himalayas.
The blogger is completely talking nonsense. The design requirement for this tank is to be used in high-altitude or swampy terrain, and there is also an infantry fighting vehicle version VN17. To be precise, its function is positioned as a tracked assault gun or tank destroyer, because traditional tanks would obviously get stuck in those conditions of combat, which the Germans should have experienced. The Chinese also tried to deploy traditional main battle tanks in these areas, but it was clearly not practical, even resorting to using the outdated Type 59 tank.
I bought a Norinco 7.62 x 39 rifle with a milled receiver that used the 30-round box magazine. The one I bought in the box did not have an attached bayonet.
I bought it with yellow boxes of 7.62 non-corrosive ammo. It was a bargain at 300.00 each circa 1985. I wish I had bought six of them and packed them in cosmoline to sell now.
I can think of better investments if one had a time machine to back then.
@@tamlandipper29
Yeah I would have bought an ounce of gold each month. But I did sell that norinco for 3200.00. As a college student living on the VEAP college plan, I was lucky enough to get the one I did.
"Even the US is developing a light tank after not operating any for the last 50 years."
The US M551 Sheridan would like a word with you...
Thats what he said, Sheridans are from the 50s, or 60s.
@@SuperChodot Its from 1967, so its actually more than 50 years
@@SuperChodot And were used by the airborne into the 90s.
@@yae_123 The actual statement was that the US hasn't had a light tank in service for 50 years. The mid-90s is NOT 50 years ago.
@@swaghauler8334 IC 😂
France’s 1960s AMX-30 tank is a similar concept: greater tactical and strategic mobility at the cost of protection.
The idea was that a the time modern tank shell could defeat a 60t tank so making a smaller, more mobile 30-35t might be better. The idea was viable for a MBT until modern composite armor appeared.
Those were true light tanks. France also mastered the armored car concept that other countries ignored for some reason. It saved French lives in Africa in recent years. But these new light tank designs, even the French ones, to me don't to bring any unique capabilities versus something like an IFV with a 30-40mm cannon and AT missiles. The fighting in Ukraine has shown how auto cannons on even outdated vehicles are still beastly. And the IFV can take on many different roles like crew served drones, medevac, etc. And now the US wants a light tank? I guarantee you could do more with less with a modern fighting vehicle. The US wants an IFV that will ultimately have a 50mm ultra modern cannon with ultra modern munitions and they also want a light tank with a 150mm gun? Why? They already have the Stryker and the future is ATGMs and drones anyhow. Keep the Abrams, hold off on a new MBT design, field a new IFV, and put money into the future weapons systems that are playing a huge role in Ukraine. I'd definitely want more HiMARS than a new light tank.
Nowdays the logic is sort of "equal and opposite" of the 1960's. Light tanks still make a ton of sense, because taking out a heavy MBT is now the work of an infantry dude with a Javelin, or a drone attacking from the top. Loading your tank with anti-tank weapons is a waste of space because other stuff can handle that role with less risk these days because the MBT has so much of that modern composite armor that you just never want to go head-on against one with a gun.
@@guaposneeze And then active Protection systems and better ERA came along. The javelins are pretty lack lusher in Ukraine with a lot of whining about why Russian tanks are still moving like normal after one or two hits.
The Leopard 1 was designed to a similar doctrine and shares many common features with the AMX-30.
Served on a AMX13 ,they were integrated in a recon platoon with M113
and Lynx vehicles, impressive cannon 105 mm on the Dutch version, fast
but not amfibious like the rest of the platoon.
Light armour,petrol engine, weak clutch but good IR and aiming gear.
Couple of dozen were serving with artillery units for protection.
During World War II, my dad was a driver of a M2A1 Stuart Light Tank, that had TWO V-8 Cadillac engines and a top speed of 45 MPH. It was used by the Seventh Armored Division, (and others, of course), as a Recon tank. Once, his tank got hit by German fire and had one of its tracks blown apart. Everyone jumped out and hoofed it towards the Front lines, carrying as much as they could, including, (for a while), the breech for their tiny 37mm cannon.
Side note: for some reason, at the start of the war, every single country that fielded tanks, had some fitted with a 37mm cannon.
Well, they got back to base, (or I wouldn't be here), and lived to tell the tale.
So, yeah, fast, light tanks are a good thing.
Interesting. I do believe it would have been an M5 Stuart, since that would match the details given. Don't blame you or him for the misidentification though. Memory is quite fickle tbh.
Just a side note though.
talking about your dad in wwIi, i can’t help but thinking about your age.
That's incorrect. Britain did not field a 37mm gun equipped tank, neither did the USSR.
@@hendi1571 Technically they did. The British Empire and USSR operated the Stuart, Lee, and Grant tanks, all with the 37mm gun. The British also operated the Locust tank, also armed with 37mm cannon.
Both also had weapons with similar performance to many of the high-velocity 37mm cannons. The 2-pdr and 45mm were very much in the same class and capability as the 37mm weapons, with many of the same strengths and importantly, limitations. All were considered small, easy to move by their crews, and requiring small vehicles to tow, but lacked the power to kill more heavily armored tanks at anything but suicidal distances and had a small HE round.
Only the Germans addressed the issue of lack of power with the Stielgranate 41, which is basically a large spigot-type HEAT rifle grenade. While very potent, it had very limited range and accuracy due to the low velocity.
It should be noted the Soviets had BT-2 armed with 37mm guns, but these were by WWII likely in reserve units.
@@classifiedad1 Stuart, Grant and Lee were not in service with the British and soviet Forces at the beginning of the war.
But I actually did not know about the BT-2's 37mm gun, thank you man
IIRC Taiwan’s MBT’s are M60 types. Which could be vulnerable to a 105mm anti-tank round
Taiwan probably doesn't need to rely heavily on its own tanks due to its small land coverage. So spending money on ATM is a better solution.
@@demoncore7275 It can't make as much in either area, that's why.
Came here to say I just adore your silly animations, they've been getting more creative too
Love the edits! Super cool how you edited yourself in the cockpit of that Chinese plane and on top of the tanks 😆 I know I know, I should focus on all the insane amounts of details and research he puts in these instead of the silly edits, but still. Little things that make these fun! Keep up the great work yo!
Dude, I love it when you embed yourself in a still image. Keep up the good work!
The 105mm can kill an MBT - just not likely from the front. The US army has been considering and testing (then cancelling) prototype light tanks since the 1980s, all of which were armed with a 105mm gun. If multiple countries are coming to similar conclusions about future weapons programs, I'd say they are likely correct. How many tanks are now named "panther" or Black Panther now? is it 5?
There is only one Panzerkampfwagen V that can be called Panther. By order.
@@williamzk9083 there's the panther 2 prototype, the K2 black panther, the type 15 black panther, and I think one other. Don't be pedantic for the sake of it.
Well in the 1980s the US and entirety of Europe was focused on defending against a potential Russian onslaught of tank rush where they will be attacking frontally so NATO was more interested in guns capable at destroying soviet tanks from the front. Now we know that wont happen and a lot of tanks end up getting killed from getting hit in the side by either anti-tank rockets or other tanks.
MBT’s won’t be a problem in locations that the ZTQ-15 is deployed in. Plus, it’s far more likely to face ATGM’s in actual combat anyway.
105mm is actually a good choice for lighter tanks to carry ~40 rounds.
This is why I love modern light tanks. Kindof look like MBTs, but are super light.
Hey Chris, a huge fan of your analysis pieces. I was just wondering if you can do a short analyzing the wearable gear of the Ukrainian army. With major gear supplies coming from at least a dozen countries, I was curious about what the majority (or at least the biggest portion) of the Ukrainian army actually wears on the frontlines. Once again, thats for the content
The Army should have gone with BAE's light tank over GD's, the scalable weight and air droppable capability alone would be huge for the airborne and light infantry forces. Hopefully the USMC chooses BAE.
Main issue with the BAE light tank was unspecified "noncompliance issues", likely related to the fact that they delivered the final of 12 prototypes about 1-1/2 years later than anticipated. Not an entirely great start.
1:35 that is not the autoloader of type-15
your viewers will get the wrong impression
type-15 has a modern western autoloader like in french leclerc
which has blowout panels.
With today's antitank weapons, light tank are economic and provide the same level of action as the heavies. US in WW2 preferred lighter tanks for a reason. If u plan a landing expedition, mobility is better than armor imo.
You're wrong. it is necessary to look at the future theater of military operations, against which enemy will you fight? it's one thing to chase shepherds with kalashnikovs. and another thing is to fight against a professional army with a bunch of artillery (I'm not talking about the presence of aviation or at least attack drones), the next question is whether the enemy has prepared a defense at the place of your offensive or not?.
And there can be a lot of such questions from the ways of transferring troops, supplies, etc., the type of terrain, forests, fields, desert, swamp.
Editing on this was great. The effort is appreciated.
As always - production value is top-notch!
Type15's main gun is the Chinese L7 variant. L7 is still very widely used globally. Type15 can surely fire APFSDS (pretty common in other tanks with L7s) and ATGM munitions.
Er, Cappy, a 33 ton light tank is NOT going to be able to move easily through deep snow or mud. The Soviets figured this out during WWII. Even their light T-40 tanks at 6-7 tons would get stuck in deep snow. The main purpose of this tank would be to use it for hilly/rough terrain where the heavy tanks would have more trouble
Yes definitely. I used wheeled vehicles In iraq only saw tracked vehicles operating. Type 15 would Not handle easily but it will handle it better than a t72
These tanks also had thin tracks
@@xxkrazykrewxxl6254 true. The Soviets kept going in the East because they had tracks that were substantially wider than the Panzers. It has been weird watching the Russians NOT learning the lessons of their forebears. You got stuck in the mud? In Ukraine? 🤨
9:26 it uses a bustle autoloader and has blow out panels like the leclerc
you forgot TYpe-90 Kyu Maru , Type 10 Next Gen MBT and K2 Black Panther that easy?
a correction, there was no tank or PLA deployed in bank crisis, the only force own by local government is police, and they did send polices against the protestor.
thats all because Xi did some military reforms in 2020, which abolish the "national guard" of China, those milita still exist but local government can't use them(by the way, they don't have tank ever).
This best military analysis channel hands down. This channel is better than Covert Cabal and Funker360 combined. No BS. No Propaganda of Western superiority etc. Straight facts. Kudos Cappy.
What the world needs is for the FV101 Scorpion to be modernised and put back into production. That happens and I'm a happy camper.
Make it less of a maintenance hog like it was!
I prefer a new tank than some old relic.
@@Alex-pj8nz Protip: Go get a dictionary and look up what 'modernised' means.
Bruh just delete that abomination. AMX light tanks are better .
@@Nihtglom it’s easier to make a new tank from ground up than attempt modernisation on an old relic.
A light fast amphibious tank is exactly what is needed in the South Pacific for may nation. Lots of water, lots of islands.
Does this tank come with an outboard or an inboard. And, havin watched scuba divers examining the DD Shermans from D-Day, I'd say a "from the ground up" design 😮.
Let's face it 60 tons + main battle tanks have reached the terminal point of their weapon platform ,
a bit like the battleships of late WW2 , still useful but in less and less circumstances
Yes.
Eh, kinda; top-down attacks really fuck with the oldschool need for frontal armour only, but what tanks are really meant for is combat in ranges over 1km (putting the out of the range of the majority of handheld atgms) to take and recieve hits - kinda like direct-fire artillery. They're also supposed to operated as part of a combined arms platform using infantry to scout, engage and lock down opponents before you bring the tanks in to obliterate the opposition - the old idea of blitzkrieg with imitations of Rommel's charge across the Ardennes is outdated. Tbf though, even back in the day it was stupid to send tanks into cities or along pre-determined routes since a single mine or a molotov thrown from a 2nd story window onto the engine deck of a tank was enough to cripple it. To put it another way, Russia has really fucked up its tank doctrine and it's not even outdated it's just plain bad.
However, consider that should an army not have purpose-built atgms, MBTS are damn near invincible to small-arms, so it makes outfitting your infantry more expensive and makes them less mobile if every squad needs an ATGM just in case they encountered armoured resistence, meanwhile they effectively 'harden' your infantry so that a single MG nest or sniper isn't enough to pin down/massacre your men and it's significantly easier/cheaper/safer to have a $6 million tank on standby throwing cheap HE shells than to continuously send strike-fighters like the $337 million F-35 launching half-million dollar missiles while having a cost-per-flight-hour of $35,000 or have loitering aircraft like the AC-130 or Warthog which can also be taken out by a single missile but are more expensive to loose. If you aren't gonna be using it for breakout attempts (since in modern warfare, it's suicidal to have tanks without infantry support) you might as well have big tanks with big guns and good frontal armour to give them the best range/survivability you can.
They definitely still have a purpose. In Iraq and Afghan they were used to shoot groups of targets from a very far distance like a mortar crew but have the ability to move quickly. They are literally armored and maneuverable mortar crews. The only thing that could really replace them in that category is the M142.
@@Neion8 'attack of the strawmen'..
@@HAYAOLEONE Not sure what you're saying, but if you'd like to make a meaningful contribution please go ahead.
If you can get armour some where someone else cant and you can effectively support and supply that combat element effectively you have a incredible edge on the battlefield.
Just look at the U.S armoured strike trough the desert when the Iraq high command was convinced they could not.
If the type 15 can get you that edge then its great.
Great video on the Type-15. It seems that there might be a re-emergence of the classic light-medium-heavy system of tanks with MBTs being akin to heavies and new light/medium tanks being developed to fill specific roles. It would be great to do a comparison video of the Type-15 and the new U.S. light tanks.
MBT was originally a medium sized tank combining the best characteristics of heavy (guns, armor) and light (mobility) tanks.
Are the cannon shells still placed for semi-spontaneous combustion? If they are, they could make the tank even lighter by removing the overhead armor....since it doesn't stop modern anti-armor missiles.
The new Chinese "Cope Cages" will be modelled on the Beijing Olympic Stadium. Majestic!
Easy movements and can squeeze into small hidden coverage and blend with the terrain.Well done China.Imperial Japan had these too during WW2.
Most countries has light tanks in ww2
The carousel magazine will help the turret fly really well just like the T72.
Bad comparison. Japan was mostly fighting enemies with no tanks at all. Stuarts were superior to most Japanese models, and Shermans certainly were. Japanese tank design stagnated early because of a lack of opposition, and they didn't have the industrial capacity to keep up as designs progressed. They had light tanks because of logistical and strategic concerns, not because they were making a considered tactical decision
Those tanks really turned the tide and helped them win WWII, too
@@williamzk9083 I was going to say. And being so light and being blown to sh*t at altitude means that all the Russian turret flight records will be in serious jeopardy.
Made it under 5 minutes, love what your doing cappy.
Rifled barrels are fine with APFSDS projectiles. That long Tungsten Carbide dart CAN be fin stabilized, but high-speed rotation does not adversely affect terminal performance.The classic HEAT shaped charge warheads work more efficiently from smooth bores HESH rounds don't seem to care about the barrel type because they work on a totally different principal; i.e., scorch the paint on the outside and rip off a saucer-sized "scab" from the inside and send it bouncing around the crew compartment at supersonic speed: MESSY! ( and there is no annoying armour penetration to patch up if the remains are recoverable).
Task so ahead of the game when
Alexander Bell invented the phone he had 2 missed calls from him
Ground pressure is also very relevant in the heavy equipment world, that’s why you’ll see dozers and excavators with LGP on the side- low ground pressure. This is also referred to as flotation
Nice video! I would like to add that aside from India, China and USA that are investing on light tanks, countries in Southeast Asia are also having their own light tanks. Some examples are like Indonesia’s Harimau Medium Tank and Philippine’s Sabrah Light tank.
It’s kind of surprising that light tanks are starting to return in certain regions like South Asia, East Asia and South East Asia considering that MBTs are considered superior. But I guess that certain advantages of mobility such as ease of transportability and ability to go through more complex terrain brought light tanks back.
Singapore meanwhile has gone for the full-sized Leopard 2 (which're like 20T too heavy for most of our road bridges) but its invested significantly in other lighter armoured vehicles too e.g. Hunter & Bionix IFVs (only ~15T), the (Renault-based?) Protector troop carrier, Bronco/Terrex APC/ICV-mounted anti-tank & air missiles/rockets e.g. Mistral
@@lzh4950 I guess it is ok for Singapore considering they only need to defend the island itself. Other SEA countries like Philippines and Indonesia have to transport their armor from one island to another.
But it would be interesting if Singapore makes a light tank version using the Hunter as its platform with a new turret and a 105mm gun.
@@gabiejae3616 just checked and looks like bangladesh is the first export customer of type 15, ordered this in 2019. Wonder who is the enemy of bangladesh, is it Myanmar or india?
@@hatanokiripres possibly they bought it to have more force multiplier of their tank force considering both Myanmar and India have lots of AFVs. Maybe its also there to replace their older Type 59 tanks but I'm not entirely sure though.
@@gabiejae3616 Indonesia actually have leopard 2 MBT, but it often bogged down in a soft tropical terrain this is why Indonesia develop a 30 ton medium tank with Turkiye.
@1:01 Russia’s T-54 not the Type 59, the Type 59 was the licensed version of the T-54 that China domestically produced.
Chinese army captured a USSR light tank T62 in early 1960's, that was the starting point of the first generation of CHina's light tank.
@@jensensean7118 yes they captured a T-62 during one of the border clashes after the Sino Soviet split
Anyone remember the Dieppe raid in WW2? British and Canadian troops putting Churchills on the beach and because of the shale, they were stuck.
We decided after analyzing the raid, that putting heavy tanks on a beach assault is a bad idea.
The Allies decided that the M4 was capable enough to take on Panthers, Tigers and were light enough to get off the beach quickly.
The heavies could be brought in later.
tanks move at night is a obvious good move to not disrupt the busy traffic in the morning.
The active armor that goes off if hit by a laser is going to be fun to play with. I can see drones "spraying" a battle space with laser pulses just to set them off to ID targets. This is so much uncharted territory in warfare still it looks like the same old things seem to be key. Will to fight, Weather, Supply, and a Plan. Those were all the things that have decided wars from the start of time.
Not only that usually the smoke that tanks for smokescreen is made out of white phosphorus so if the tanks job is to accompany infantry I feel sorry for them
I am not sure where you got your information on the use of WP but vehicles like tanks generate smoke by injecting fuel into the turbos or equivalent hot exhaust stream. They also have smoke grenades that can be launched up and out in a pinch around the vehicle but these are normal smoke like what the infantry would carry in a different package. In the West WP is rarely used and is designated for signaling only not screening. For countries like russia it is primarily used as an offensive weapon. @@Pumpernickel745
Love your videos learn so much and get a good laugh here and there wish you could have more out more often(videos) I do understand it takes time and people have lives but I'm selfish and enjoy them so send it!!!
Shipping vehicles by sea is almost always limited by volume not mass. It doesn't matter whether a vehicle weighs 20 tons or 60 tons if you can only fit 20 of each and have 2000 tons available. Vehicle carrier's capacities are measured in square feet (or meters).
Shipping yes, but landing no...
The smoke pops when you laze at it 12:15, I would never wanna be infantry next to that tank
The scariest thing is that China has the most precise missiles and best rocket force, their standard gg middle range missile is precise enough to aim and hit through air vents, taking out air defenses won’t be a problem for them. Plus, they have the best hypersonic weapons including the DF-18, which uses change in flight patterns by playing around with air flow to make it hard or close to impossible to intercept
We have T-72s and now T-90s stationed in Ladakh near Depsang plains where a Tank battle is most likely plausible. Plus we are going to get 2S25 sprut SD self propelled gun and L&T 105mm Medium tank which will be having the same bustle autoloader system like it's ZT-15 counterpart.
this guy needs more subs, his videos are so damn entertaining & informative.
and wrong. try fact checking him
He is just ok on us light weapon.. most of his content on China and Russia is load of shit… if you want to learn about these foreign forces.. go to Army university channel
@@ngmui430 ok CCP ROBOT
@@bryananderson3772 ok CCP ROBOT
@@jgl270 ok CCP robot
When you said "Tiny Tank" in the title, I was expecting about the size of the British Scorpion/Scimitar tanks... where the crew have to be checked for size to see if they would fit in it...
Awww, Scorpion!!! 😍 So kewt! I keep telling my niece to get me one for Christmas. A 76mm gun that fires HESH rounds. A guy about 12 miles from here was selling one he had fixed up a few years ago. He rode it in local parades. He wanted $30,000. Umm, no. They are impossible to repair because the spaces are so tight.
i thought it was going to be like a german hetzer or something, this things looks pretty capable and not as small as the video would suggest
@@randyjackson7584 It's the size of a T34 or a Sherman. It's light only because heavy tanks got huge.
Awesome! Thanks for addressing air drops are not so hot of an idea. You ROCK.
Here on Brazil, where we still uses the Leopard 1A5 with 44 tons, there's a consideration of swap the actual turret with a 105mm cannon for a Hitfact mk2, which can equip an 120mm L/44 cannon, maintaning the original chassis and weight.
Personally I think this tiny tank is perfect for invading Taiwan where the streets are narrow and the country side rice field soil is soft, etc. It is all about how you best use the tanks under certain battle field conditions to your tactical advantages.
the problem is getting them there. Taiwan has something, Ukraine didn't. A pretty big "moat". Unless China has VERY good precision missiles and accurate up to date intel on AA positions and anti-ship positions OR are willing to resort to the modern-day equivalent of carpet bombing, it is going to be difficult for, China to take, Taiwan. I'm sure they have assets in, Taiwan already but they would need to be able to take out the Civilian and military leadership before the first shots are even fired OR completely disrupt their targeting and fire control capabilities via electronic warfare. This will not be a WWII amphibious landing scenario. If it gets to the point where, China is able to safely air drop or even land these tanks in port then chances are, Taiwan has either been completely taken over or they are in a guerilla style warfare due to massive losses. Landing any heavy equipment on, Taiwan would mean that, China has already won for all intents and purposes.
@@brandonlevy8680 Taiwanese separatists need imports coming in through that "moat" to even equip themselves. Mainland China already has the more powerful geography that's your problem. Of course this is not a WW2 amphibious landing scenario when China has way better technology.
Reunifying.. .. You can't invade your own territory
@@brandonlevy8680
Taiwan. is the name of an island. The full name of this so-called "country" is "Republic of China". Established in Nanjing, China.
99% of the world's countries recognize that "Taiwan Island belongs to the scope of China's sovereignty. It is part of China"
This "Republic of China" is in Taiwan. It is a puppet oligarchic regime protected by the United States.
The Americans can't protect them for long. They know it.
The Taiwan issue is not just a Taiwan issue. . It is a question of the sphere of influence of China and the United States.
@@brandonlevy8680
I think someone in the US has come up with a smart alternative. That is to disperse power. Increase China's crackdown burden. Consume the number of Chinese missiles.
Ha ha ha ha.
5:45 now that's a useful ability. Could airdrop tanks in locations they could NEVER reach otherwise.
EDIT: a huge downside is they'd be massive immobile targets the whole way down. Lacking extra armor they would be incredibly vulnerable to a vast array of weapon systems just floating in the breeze. Not to mention the speed and maneuverability of the aircraft dropping them will drop significantly leaving it open to heavy attack. I wouldn't want to fly that mission nor sit in one of those tanks on the way down.
I wouldn't want to be anyone fighting NATO or a NATO supported country. However, that being said, I think they plan to have a large missile and air campaign to cripple Taiwan before sending in the ground forces. Hopefully they miss some manpads and SAMs though.
So it’s not like parachute dropping like how troops jump out of planes. Basically an aircraft almost skirts the ground, and the vehicles are dropped from incredibly low altitude. They’re on the ground before they really run the risk of being a target.
It's perfect for fighting a home grown insurgency. Chinese Han racial supremacist tactics are gonna cause some serious problems for them in the future.
@@ztheguy222 OH YEAH INTERNAL PROBLEMS ARE A THING
Norinco always made the best SKS and AK rifles back in the 90s, so many ended up in the hoods of America
Unless they've moved the ammo out of the turret they're still zippo lighters: "Lights on the first try".
Images can be easily confused, and there are differences between the VT 5 and T15 (VT5 is primarily for export). However, the VT5 is closer to a traditional Main Battle Tank (MBT). Its composite armor on the turret can defend against 3BM42 rounds at a range of 1500m+. On the other hand, even with the Full Armor Ver. equipped with FY4 heavy ERA, the T15 turret cannot withstand 3BM42 rounds. The military intends to make the T15 resistant to 30/45/57mm medium-caliber cannons and anti-tank missiles. While the technology used may be similar, the design philosophies behind them are different.
PLA decision-makers have even abandoned the 99B project because the current leadership does not favor heavy MBT. As of 2024, they are unwilling to incorporate heavy additional armor designs on the front and sides of the 99A/15/04A to counter FPV or ATGM. It can be said with certainty that PLA decision-makers prefer light to medium-weight armored vehicles. Furthermore, the future direction of the army is focused on missiles as the primary weapon, with the main gun being secondary. Ten years ago, PLA was already capable of domestically producing the DT30, a multi-purpose articulated tracked carrier with a heavy articulated chassis that is most suitable for the 4th generation MBT chassis in China's geography. However, due to the conservative nature of the PLA Army, the 4th generation MBT will still utilize traditional chassis designs.
It is worth discussing that, in the face of Taiwan, I personally believe that the PLA should place more emphasis on the 05-105 Tank Destroyer rather than relying on landing ships to reach the island. Time is crucial in a potential conflict with Taiwan, and both the 15 and 05-105 have thin armor. However, the 05-105 can reach the beachhead quicker and launch a faster assault on central Taiwan, which the 15 cannot do.
One additional potential role is its use in rapid(or long term) expeditionary roles in Africa, filling the role of the comparable french vehicles. Africa is potentially a hot bed for the new cold war. China needs to protects its economical and political investments. This could be a perfect fit for the Ethiopia/Eritrea/Djibouti/Sudan/South Sudan area.
This tank is small to counter India in Himaliyas....there is less oxygen for Engine so they need powerful tank for which bigger engine in smaller tank.....
Electronic fuel injection with turbo makes that possible nowadays.
not sure how often you check your comments but I have to ask. I currently work with a transportation company that specializes in transporting M1s. I can tell you that I loathe the main battle tank. from a pure logistics standpoint They consume absurd amounts of fuel. Break down all the time. and are a nightmare to transport or recover even under ideal circumstances. The Army is currently "upgrading" the M1 making them even heavier and likely more difficult to maintain. This seems counter to the way warfare is changing where 100K rocket can take out a multi million dollar tank. My question is why do we still have main battle tanks?
Force projection.
@@rhumandlove393 Force projection would imply there was reasonable strategic mobility. Which isn't really the case given the lengthy mobilization required.
The short answer: Because the modern MBT serves an important role, and we don't have anything better for it.
And don't look at the M1, even upgraded, for the future of tanks. Look at stuff like the KF-51 panther.
It used to be that tanks were mobile, armored fire platforms. They still are, but they are also turning into mobile sensor and communications clusters, local artillery support, and mobile command centers. E.g. the KF-51 comes with a specialist station that can be configured for skmething like a dedicated local commander, who can operate the local forces with all the data and processing and comms equipment that comes with the tank. Or stuff like a local drone controller, or specialist coordinator to interface the infantry and tanks with artillery and aerial fire support.
And yes, MBT's consume large amounts of fuel, especialy the M1. But while the chinese light tanks for example consume less, they will still require tons of fuel, considerjng they are pretzy fast and weight 36 tons. And yes, M1's break down often. But pretty much any tank does, and anything else will as well. Keep in mjnd you can't compare them to normal road vehicles, but rather to all terain work vehicles like tractors or such, which also break down a lot because they operste in difficult and varrying terrains.
bureaucracy. MBTs are a thing of the past.
T & P definitely my favorite graphics on TH-cam.
when it comes to snow alone, heavy weight can be a bonus, as it compacts the snow beneath the vehicle, a very heavy vehicle makes it as if the snow wasnt there at all, but a lighter vehicle will get "hung up" on the snow building up beneath the hull, and thereafter loose all traction.
I like the idea of a light tank. We have seen the overwhelming effectiveness of ATGMs and shoulder fired launchers destroying tanks despite having heavier armor in Ukraine. Now yes these are T-72s and not the western style tanks that are superior but I see the benefit in being able to produce more light tanks at a cheaper cost, that require less fuel, and that are more maneuverable. Especially if you are the aggressor and not the defending country.
The question becomes if the light armour can be penetrated by AT weapons such as Carl Gustaf M3
@@obama8573 that armor would be paper for those weaponrs
@@xxkrazykrewxxl6254 it depends on the the effectiveness of the ERA namely Fy-5
@@obama8573 doesn’t matter if u have javelins, if u send enough fodder. U can basically burn all of the ammo and the time it takes to reload them. This is dangerous. Overwhelm rather than fight one on one.
@@dscorpio1626 well if you knock enough out to block the path it won't matter how much they can send.. there's also artillery that would destroy thos
If I was a Chinese general my first concern would be the whole forces lack of experience.
Sure, ten years time and the last officers with combat experience will retire.
But the only way to get experience is to go to war. Which isn't politically easy to do.
Not bad compared to those who deliberately invade and spread their imperialism overseas
@@Ausworthar you mean the thing Chinas threatening to do?
@@rerror3577 they're not the US and they don't have any nuclear power carriers. Cannot project their power around the world. Can't get into conflicts around the world. Nobody's about to invade China, so they're not about to do anything other than war games.
More like those gaining experience from bombing weddings and killing aid workers and children, must be extremely valuable training since none of those murderers get any form of punishment!
State Sponsored Terrorism at its best!
I love the idea of Light tanks and believe they are the future of armoured warfare with the amount of advantages they have over modern MBT's however I have to ask with all the special capabilities of this vehicle how much crew protection is there and what is the cost per unit. btw by crew protection I am not talking armour but rather things like where the ammo is stored (Isolated with blowout panels like in Abrams or autoloader rack with blowout turrets like in T-72) because if your crew have no protection in the case of vehicle loss and your vehicle is lightly armoured then you are going to run out of qualified tank drivers quickly in a proper conflict.
Also, if the cost per unit is high for a lightly armoured vehicle then you are going to find yourself spending a lot of money replacing combat losses. Part of what made the T-34 so great in WW2 was the incredibly low cost and fast production for such a capable (if unreliable) vehicle which meant the russians could produce enough to give themselves the numbers advantage in armoured combat.
Although the t-34 had most of the corners cut and was very bare bones, crew would often get pillows as the metal they sat on gave them great discomfort.
You realise that in the t72s there was people in the turrets
T34 would be nothing without those numerous trucks that resupply and refuel them
@@xxkrazykrewxxl6254 Yes, I wasn't saying the T-72's are survivable. I actually listed them as an example of poor ammo placement in regards to crew safety.
@@asscheeks3212 You can say that about literally everything in the military. In fact you can say that about the entire global economy. Everything runs on logistics that's not unique to the T-34
Type 15: WHAT HAVE I DONE?!
T62: *turns ignition*
Type 15, realizing: *fires into the engine compartment* What have I continued to do ;-;
As always, great video!! Love your great sense of humor while providing in depth researched information! Respectfully, Real TC C-33 3rd Battalion 63rd Armored Brigade 1st ID
Hey man, I like your videos, but that tank on street scene in China was part of an act for the August 1 military parade, August 1 being their version of the veterans day, a day that celebrates the creation of the PLA and honors past war heroes/service men. You do great research on military related topics maybe do your due diligence for these things as well.
Do you have any evidence that Russian cargo planes were shot down? I tend to take what US officials say with a grain of salt.
Ukrainian AA defense systems suffered heavy losses from the beginning of the war.
It's unlikely that they managed to identify these planes as hostile, because they are quite similar to civilian ones.
We all know that a lot of Russians have been able to reach the airport near Kyiv.
So classic WWII style operations are still possible
An excellent and very objective review of the Chinese Type-15.
I’m a simple Lithuanian, I see columns of Gediminas on an APC, I press like.