Let me briefly summarize the current issues with VT-5：
1.Firstly, the relationship between ztq15 and vt-5. VT-5, like ZTQ15, was a product developed by China to address the complex terrain in the south but also to meet the demand for armored forces. VT-5, on the other hand, failed in this competition for new armored units and became a foreign trade product. Here we can answer why there is also the word “15e” on the VT-5 exhibition board at the Zhuhai Airshow. The reason is that the two are essentially of the same origin, and some countries have special needs (such as wanting PLA’s own products), which has led to the current situation of ZTQ15e/VT-5.
2.Next is the definition problem, which is also the most important issue. As is well known, tanks can be simply classified into three categories: light, medium, and heavy. The main battle tanks in the world today evolved from medium tanks, starting with early main battle tanks represented by the T-54/55, Centurion, and Leopard1. Their main characteristics are good mechanical performance, generally excellent protection, and the ability to block full caliber armor piercing shells of small and medium caliber.
However, light tanks gradually became marginalized during their evolution. Today’s light tanks are mainly responsible for support and patrol, and have mostly evolved into wheeled assault guns, such as the Italian Centaur and the American M1128. Of course, tracked weapons still exist, but they have mostly undergone specialized design and can be roughly divided into two branches: artillery based and machine gun based weapon selection. This has led to the emergence of two armored units, modern light tanks and modern infantry fighting vehicles. The former focuses on anti armor/anti engineering as the main design direction, while the latter focuses on accompanying infantry and providing fire cover as the main design direction.
Let’s get to the point here: What kind of armored unit is VT-5? Which type should he belong to?
In our discussion, some people compared the Octopus M light tank from Russia, some compared it to the TAM light tank from Argentina, and even compared it to the latest M10 Booker light tank from the United States. However, this is actually an incorrect way of comparison. Let’s briefly analyze the Octopus M, TAM, and M10 Booker tanks respectively.
Firstly, the positioning of Octopus M is an airborne armored unit designed for VDV requirements, which results in extremely strict weight requirements. VDV requires its firepower to be strong enough to resist enemy main battle tanks, so it chose the 125mm 2A75 anti tank gun, but at the cost of almost no anti ballistic performance. The front can only withstand 12.7mm bullets with a specially designed anti ballistic shape, and the side can only withstand rifle bullets. Rather than being a light tank, it is more accurate to say that it is a self-propelled anti tank gun with basic protective capabilities that can be airborne, and the Russian military indeed believes so.
Then there is the M10 Booker (TAM is placed at the end because it is closer to the positioning of VT-5). Firstly, we know that the M10 Booker is a product of the Mobile Protective Fire (MPF) program. Prior to this, the US military considered the Stryker Artillery System, but it has now been halted for various reasons. The fundamental purpose of the MPF program is to provide direct fire strikes for infantry and emphasize the strategic deployment and battlefield mobility of vehicles. Its positioning is more similar to China’s PTL02/ZLT11 wheeled assault gun or Italy’s Centaur wheeled assault gun than what we call light tanks. The official positioning of the M10 Booker by the US military is only: “The M10 Booker is a mobile platform that provides protected firepower for infantry, aimed at supporting our infantry brigade combat teams by suppressing and destroying defensive works, artillery systems, and trench routes, and then providing protection against enemy armored vehicle fire, Not some ‘light tank’.”
(Off topic: The M10 Booker is much heavier than a normal light tank and has poor protection performance, making it difficult to call it a light tank.)
Finally, we generally believe that TAM is the closest to VT-5. I think everyone should know that the full name of TAM is the “Tanque Argentino Mediato” program. So what is actually quite counterintuitive is that TAM’s official designation is actually a medium tank, rather than the light tank we usually consider. The tam2ip in the tam family is closest to the design concept of the VT-5: a special armored unit specially customized for its own needs. This demand is reflected in Argentina as a threat from surrounding countries and a need for armored units to replace their equipment; In China, 96/99 can’t drive normally in the complex terrain in the south and Xizang plateau, and the demand caused by armored threats in Central Asia, South Asia and Central South Asia. So from a demand perspective, the positioning of VT-5 is more similar to TAM2IP.
Among the three types of light tanks that we generally considered earlier, there is actually one medium tank (TAM), one airborne specialized self-propelled anti tank gun (Octopus M), and one tracked assault gun (M10 Booker) that provides direct fire for infantry.
Now let’s take a look at the VT-5. First of all, in the official definition, the VT-5 is a “lightweight main battle tank”, which means that the VT-5 should be seen as a lightweight VT-4. The VT-4 weighs 52 tons, and the VT-5’s 33 tons are naturally considered “lightweight”. This is very reasonable.
Therefore, in the definition of “lightweight main battle tank” in vt-5, the subject is not “lightweight”, but “main battle tank” behind it, because only in this way can the armored threat from Central Asia, South Asia and Central South Asia be resisted, and after “lightweight”, the tank can quickly maneuver in the complex terrain of southern China and the plateau of Xizang.After all, it should be noted that under the influence of advanced materials science and engineering today, a 33 ton armored vehicle is not a realistic product, while a 33 ton tank can completely achieve it.
