ZTZ-100 or Type 100. Formerly known as "ZTZ-201" or "New Chinese MBT"

I’m more interested in China getting the AFT10, but this MBT would be nice

The new MBT was introduced as the “Type 100” in today’s parade. No information on specs though.

Type 100 Tank and Type 100 Support Tank

1 Like

I guess ZTZ-100 and ZBD-100, right?

Only disapointing thing about the parade.

It was not mentioned, only the Type 100 tank and the Type 100 support tank were mentioned

The support tank may not be ZBD because it has radar and air defense requirements, as well as SPAA and IFV missions

In English stream they called it “Type 100 Fighting Vehicle”. And I´m 99 percent sure it carries up to 7 dismounts.

8bbcaf10642db024e2bade99d528fb7e_720
ZTZ100 on the parade

Image_199606538714792

2 Likes

Must be the angle or editing but the gun looks waaay too big.

1 Like

This is a Type 100 support tank

We also have ZTZ99B. I think Gaijin should first add ZTZ99B

1 Like

Yes though theres not much different aside from new and more powerful gun. Its APFSDS specs got leaked last year. Its better than DM53 but nothing special by todays standards. In any case, we should discuss that in a thread about the ZTZ-99 tank.

what’s this new gun you’re talking about? I’m genuinely curious

Updated unmanned weapon warfare

We don´t know its name yet, just that last year we got full leaked specs on a new APFSDS “DTC-201” (we got declared dimensions of penetrator, weight and muzzle velocity, will post L-O below) stated to be compatible with “ZTZ-99A-1” and “ZTZ-99B”, achieving extremely high muzzle velocities in both and even a bit higher in the latter, indicating that both tanks are using a more powerful gun with differing barrel lengths.

DTC201
DTC201 b

So, penetrator is 650x22mm and MV from 99B is a whopping 1860 m/s. Which yields:
image

And this is the last I write here derailing the thread, which is about Type 100.

2 Likes

This was leaked?

It has APS I think

This is the forward-pushing projectile design for the DTW-125. It was a suggestion previously submitted in the issue section, but it was removed due to confidentiality concerns.