How do the next generation of Asian tanks compare?

In fact, this thing is an MBT, but more than that, it's not convenient for me to say.
Just a reminder, AESA is not only used for active defense. Armor-piercing resistance is not the main design concept of this vehicle. Based on the results discussed over this period, there's a joke that claims it like this.
"The sensors on this vehicle might be more than a platoon of T-14s"
The last they should be the first batch of trial-installed equipment, but the specific time it was equipped, I have to keep it a secret until after September 3rd to say.
Based on the available information, this one isn't cheap.
I suggest everyone has certain expectations for September 3rd, as there will be a lot of things this time.
 
This is the closest thing I could find to a VT-4 thread, so it might be a slight OT. Let me know if this has to be moved.

Slightly suboptimal

20251213_064822.jpg
This is the 1st picture of its kind, a RTA VT-4 MBT with its barrel blown clean off and damages to both optics (part of the FCS) and laser warning system.

It is unknown what happened to the VT-4, but these aren't quick / easy to repair battle damages.

Thai sources claim the barrel overheated.
 
ComradeVortex said:
This is the closest thing I could find to a VT-4 thread, so it might be a slight OT. Let me know if this has to be moved.

Slightly suboptimal

View attachment 794931
This is the 1st picture of its kind, a RTA VT-4 MBT with its barrel blown clean off and damages to both optics (part of the FCS) and laser warning system.

It is unknown what happened to the VT-4, but these aren't quick / easy to repair battle damages.

Thai sources claim the barrel overheated.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1999478452089684191
View: https://x.com/i/status/1999478452089684191
 
It's currently unclear what this VT4 has gone through. If I remember correctly, the barrel life of the VT4 is basically 500 rounds. Considering that the first batch of VT4s was delivered in 2017, if it really underwent high-intensity and high-frequency firing without timely maintenance, this kind of failure is to be expected. There's still too little information at the moment.
 
DWG said:
WRT the launchers tucked under the turret front, they're in the same position on the turret of the MICV, which doesn't seem to have another set of smoke grenade launchers, so I think it's a reasonable bet they're a second set of smoke grenades. Note that the set inset in the turret roof of the tank appear aligned to fire to the sides/rear, there's no front coverage unless the ones on the turret chin cover that.
Click to expand...
I agree. There is no logical reason to believe these are part of an APS.

The only APS with such is the T-14's Afghanit but that was an experimental design and not meant to intercept relevant threats.
SUPER=BUG said:
It's currently unclear what this VT4 has gone through. If I remember correctly, the barrel life of the VT4 is basically 500 rounds. Considering that the first batch of VT4s was delivered in 2017, if it really underwent high-intensity and high-frequency firing without timely maintenance, this kind of failure is to be expected. There's still too little information at the moment.
Click to expand...
It makes sense if the barrel pops because of an unexpected blockage, which happens.
If it's from steady wear of the barrel then that's incompetence on some level. Either logistics or QC but it's more a Thai failure than a Chinese one no matter how you twist it.
If the barrel has 50 shots left in it and you still send it - that's a calculated risk.
If it failed 100 shots too early, you activate your warranty and get a replacement barrel and turret.
If it happens consistently you should replace the tank before that happens.
 
ComradeVortex said:
This is the closest thing I could find to a VT-4 thread, so it might be a slight OT. Let me know if this has to be moved.

Slightly suboptimal

View attachment 794931
This is the 1st picture of its kind, a RTA VT-4 MBT with its barrel blown clean off and damages to both optics (part of the FCS) and laser warning system.

It is unknown what happened to the VT-4, but these aren't quick / easy to repair battle damages.

Thai sources claim the barrel overheated.
Click to expand...
According to the artillery development path here, Chinese tanks for export have three artillery options. Thailand chose the worst one at the time—but it was still 125mm caliber, with a relatively shorter lifespan.
Although it has been a while since the post was made, the information I received back then was that they were squatting near the ammunition depot and fired two hundred rounds with this vehicle as self-propelled artillery, possibly without even cleaning the barrel during that period.
The last time there was an issue after firing 200 rounds in a day was with the Pzh2000. You can’t expect developing countries to have a high level of understanding of main battle equipment. After all, Indians have also crashed quite a few Rafales and Su-30MKIs. As Mao Zedong once said long ago: "In war, the decisive factor is people, especially their subjective initiative, wisdom, and courage, not merely the advanced level of weapons and equipment."
Their maintenance personnel might have started working on such large and complex equipment without even finishing high school, which is bound to lead to various unexpected problems.
You can’t walk into a bar and ask the bartender to serve you a plate of edible fried rice, just as you can’t expect a group of NATO officers who haven’t systematically studied information-based warfare to lead Ukrainians in physically resisting FPV drones.
NATO officers not the General Brasch,Ukrainians also not the helldiver.
 
Seragina said:
Western tanks also prioritize protecting the chest area and less the foot/leg area. This tank obviously has thick roof armor on the turret.
It's a "cheap" tank they can be shipped and thrown into a fight that's just tough enough to not easily be taken out (by RPGs, drones etc.). The goal it to get it out in numbers as soon as possible. That's probably why they figured it will only needs to be used domestically and neither need to carry the tools nor is worth saving every time.
Click to expand...
Nothing about this tank is cheap, even the 105 is apparently some very high velocity monster and the low barral life that comes with that.
 
At present, it appears that China's future fourth-generation main battle tanks will consist of two models: one is a small Type 100 main battle tank, and the other will be an enlarged version of the Type 100 with a caliber of around 125mm. There is no doubt that active protection systems will become widespread on China's future tanks, whether they are second-generation tanks, third-generation tanks, or new-generation main battle tanks.
 
1780078794754.jpeg 1780086278354.png
Some images of the new MBT, below is an older picture from earlier this year believed to be the same vehicle. It sports a similar hull and side armor design as Type 100 but is stretched to be longer with the inclusion of an extra seventh roadwheel to make up for the extra weight. From the looks the front modular armor also seems to be substantially thicker than Type 100's, nothing is known about the turret as of right now but the gun that it is mounted is allegedly a 130mm, but anyhow the gun does not match any known Chinese 125mm design. Also, the gun doesn't seem to have a stealthy sleeve like the Type 100 but it could be that this is an early engineering prototype, similarly early Type 100 prototypes also just had a regular exposed barrel.
Screenshot_20260214_194644.jpg
 
There is no consistent direct correlation between number of wheels and weight.
The heaviest MBT right now is the Merkava 4 at 60-80t and 6 wheels.

The M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 both started around 55t and have 7 wheels.

Wheels correlate better to chassis length and weight imbalances.
 
Big_Zukini said:
There is no consistent direct correlation between number of wheels and weight.
The heaviest MBT right now is the Merkava 4 at 60-80t and 6 wheels.

The M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 both started around 55t and have 7 wheels.

Wheels correlate better to chassis length and weight imbalances.
Click to expand...
Another thing to note about the weight of the vehicle is that this tank actually uses double pinned (and possible wider) tracks compared to the single pinned ones used for Type 100 and basically every other known vehicle in the Type 100 family which would probably indicate a combat weight similar to current MBTs.
 
Of course, it doesn't necessarily have to be overweight. But its firepower and protection are clearly much improved compared to the Type 100. Honestly, I'm not really sure what the side protection module is; it doesn't really look like reactive armor, nor does it look like composite armor.
 
Type 10 (Defensive Operation) > K2 = T-84 > Type 10 (Offensive Operation) > Type 90 > VT4 > Type 99A > Type 96A.

As for the Type 100... it's just straight-up terrible.The official promotional claim states that it features a hybrid system—'the advantage of the all-electric mode lies in quietly approaching the target.'

Here is the picture I made
 

Attachments

  • 325325 (2).jpg
    325325 (2).jpg
    204.7 KB · Views: 45
  • 325325 (1).jpg
    325325 (1).jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 45
Last edited:
Arjen said:
?
Click to expand...
May I ask if there are any questions? If you are asking me how the improvements in protection and firepower are identified, it is because this newly disclosed tank is equipped with a larger caliber gun. The reason I say its protection is better is that the armor at the front of this tank is visibly thicker.

The Type 100 main battle tank is more suitable for southern regions of China. In this case, the Type 100 needs better combat capability in complex terrain and better air transport ability. The Type 100 will most likely replace tanks such as the Type 15 and Type 96.

The newly appearing tank, on the other hand, is more suitable for the plains in northern China, emphasizing firepower and protection. I believe this type of tank will become the superior replacement for the Type 99 tank in the future.This can actually be seen from last year's parade of armored vehicles.
 
Couldn't find any thread on Type 221 so I'll put it here. Here is a prototype of a Type 221 with a integrated laser based APS, perhaps it may be possible to integrate a similar system onto Type 100 and the new heavy MBT. Though presumably the hardkill APS radars will instead double as tracking radar for the laser system instead of adding dedicated panels like on the Type 221 given it doesn't have hard kill APS stock.

9f519e8bgy1iglovp7ej3j21o02ar4lk.jpg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom