Chinese 96-A

Engineer · Aug 10, 2016

sequ said:
The only reason I can come up with for the terrible accuracy, is the 2A46 tank gun and it's Chinese derivative. Compared to their western analogues, they are leagues behind in terms of accuracy. You can see for yourself googling for "120mm L44 accuracy".

The problem with that line of reasoning is that aside from the diameter of gun barrel, Chinese 125mm gun has no similarity with the 2A46. China came up with its own method of manufacturing the barrel, one that is suitable to China's own industrial capabilities, but made the resulting gun an entirely different animal in the process. Also, Soviets' mentality was that T-72 is a single-use item thus didn't care much about quality. In contrast, China needed that gun to be good as there was no money for a tank replacement.

sequ · Aug 10, 2016

Engineer said:
The problem with that line of reasoning is that aside from the diameter of gun barrel, Chinese 125mm gun has no similarity with the 2A46. China came up with its own method of manufacturing the barrel, one that is suitable to China's own industrial capabilities, but made the resulting gun an entirely different animal in the process. Also, Soviets' mentality was that T-72 is a single-use item thus didn't care much about quality. In contrast, China needed that gun to be good as there was no money for a tank replacement.

The Chinese 125mm tank gun is a derivative of the 2A46 just as the Italians and Israeli's produce their own 120mm gun based on the German L44 gun. It may not be the same or a copy, but one is definitely derived from the other.

Bear in mind that the Chinese had acces to the 2A46 gun via the T-80 and/or the T-72. And it was the best they could get after the tiananmen square debacle which led to a western arms embargo.

PanAsian · Aug 10, 2016

Engineer said:
The problem with that line of reasoning is that aside from the diameter of gun barrel, Chinese 125mm gun has no similarity with the 2A46. China came up with its own method of manufacturing the barrel, one that is suitable to China's own industrial capabilities, but made the resulting gun an entirely different animal in the process. Also, Soviets' mentality was that T-72 is a single-use item thus didn't care much about quality. In contrast, China needed that gun to be good as there was no money for a tank replacement.

sequ said:
The Chinese 125mm tank gun is a derivative of the 2A46 just as the Italians and Israeli's produce their own 120mm gun based on the German L44 gun. It may not be the same or a copy, but one is definitely derived from the other.

Bear in mind that the Chinese had acces to the 2A46 gun via the T-80 and/or the T-72. And it was the best they could get after the tiananmen square debacle which led to a western arms embargo.

I don't know how the 96B's gun compares to others but isn't it entirely possible that China doesn't want to show off the full extent of the 96B's capabilities? Especially when it comes to something as sensitive as the FCS.

There is also the secondary but still valid issue of poor form for the PLA to keep bringing its own equipment and showing up the host's.

The PLA can use this event to selectively test or showcase particular aspects of the 96B while just muddling through with other aspects.

Engineer · Aug 10, 2016

sequ said:
The Chinese 125mm tank gun is a derivative of the 2A46 just as the Italians and Israeli's produce their own 120mm gun based on the German L44 gun. It may not be the same or a copy, but one is definitely derived from the other.

Saying something is a derivative something else doesn't actually mean anything. It doesn't substantiate what you claimed earlier with regards to performance, especially when the Chinese themselves admitted to building the guns to different specs using different methodologies.

guancha said:
99式的125炮并不是国外125炮的复制品。兵器科研人员对125炮进行了应力分析、烧蚀分析，采用了全新的炮钢、镀层技术和液压自紧工艺等，一门完全新型的125炮诞生了，中国兵器在坦克炮方面终于达到了世界先进水平。

With regards to performance, the Chinese didn't claim better performance than Western countries (they had no mean of conducting such testing anyway), only that performance is comparable. However, they did claim better performance than Soviet's 125mm gun.

guancha said:
国产125炮的性能明显超过了国外的125炮。靶场试验时，99式进行了超过设计寿命要求的射击试验，射弹数百发，精度依然没有变化。而俄罗斯的2A46只打了300发，炮膛就已经烧蚀了3.4毫米，精度下降明显。

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

vesicles · Aug 10, 2016

I don't know anything about tank guns. However, just from how badly the 96B failed in the shooting contest, it doesn't sound like something related to the design or fundamental quality of the gun.

If the 96B consistently shoots about 10-20, even 30% worse than other types of tanks, then it is possible that the 96B's main gun has an inferior design and quality. PLA might have, for some reason, allowed their main gun to underperform to some extent.

Yet, the particular 96B in question missed the targets so badly. I don't see how the PLA would allow something so inferior to be installed onto their backbone tanks. And I also don't see how the PLA would send tanks with such inferior design abroad to a major tank competition, where everyone is watching. Such face-losing would be unthinkable...

In other words, the main gun of 96B should have performed to the PLA's satisfaction in all their tests. And it would be impossible that PLA's goal for their backbone tank's main gun is "to only miss the target by X meters"...

So what happened at the competition? No clue. The most likely explanation to me would be an unexpected equipment failure / malfunction...

siegecrossbow · Aug 10, 2016

vesicles said:
I don't know anything about tank guns. However, just from how badly the 96B failed in the shooting contest, it doesn't sound like something related to the design or fundamental quality of the gun.

If the 96B consistently shoots about 10-20, even 30% worse than other types of tanks, then it is possible that the 96B's main gun has an inferior design and quality. PLA might have, for some reason, allowed their main gun to underperform to some extent.

Yet, the particular 96B in question missed the targets so badly. I don't see how the PLA would allow something so inferior to be installed onto their backbone tanks. And I also don't see how the PLA would send tanks with such inferior design abroad to a major tank competition, where everyone is watching. Such face-losing would be unthinkable...

In other words, the main gun of 96B should have performed to the PLA's satisfaction in all their tests. And it would be impossible that PLA's goal for their backbone tank's main gun is "to only miss the target by X meters"...

So what happened at the competition? No clue. The most likely explanation to me would be an unexpected equipment failure / malfunction...

I think it's more likely that the crew got nervous.

vesicles · Aug 10, 2016

siegecrossbow said:
I think it's more likely that the crew got nervous.

Good training provides muscle memory that will take over when your brain gets overwhelmed in competition or actual battle.

I have no doubt they sent some of the most well-trained soldiers to the competition. So I don't believe it was the nerves.

Plus, like PLAWolf said, even assuming it was the nerves, they might miss one badly. it's impossible for them to miss 3 consecutive shots. As I said before, the training should kick in before the second shot.

jobjed · Aug 10, 2016

Engineer said:
Saying something is a derivative something else doesn't actually mean anything. It doesn't substantiate what you claimed earlier with regards to performance, especially when the Chinese themselves admitted to building the guns to different specs using different methodologies.

With regards to performance, the Chinese didn't claim better performance than Western countries (they had no mean of conducting such testing anyway), only that performance is comparable. However, they did claim better performance than Soviet's 125mm gun.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's the case with the ZTZ-99's L50 calibre gun but the ZTZ-96's gun is a cheaper L48 design derived from the 2A46. The only evident improvement over the 2A46 is barrel life but the barrel flutter issue doesn't sound like it's been solved, leading to impaired accuracy past 2km.

The PLA has only allocated the ZTZ-99 to the north and northeast part of the country which consists of flat terrain combined with the real possibility of confrontations with tanks that have long-range NATO guns like the K2 and K1. In other parts of China without much flat terrain, or in parts of China with zero chance of confrontation with NATO-standard tanks, China has allocated the comparatively shorter-ranged ZTZ-96.

I'm sure if China sent the ZTZ-99 or VT-4 to the biathlon, they'll smash it both accuracy-wise and mobility-wise. And Russia really would have no viable response to that until the Armata enters service as their T-90s are still using the flutter-prone 2A46.

kriss · Aug 11, 2016

vesicles said:
Good training provides muscle memory that will take over when your brain gets overwhelmed in competition or actual battle.

I have no doubt they sent some of the most well-trained soldiers to the competition. So I don't believe it was the nerves.

Plus, like PLAWolf said, even assuming it was the nerves, they might miss one badly. it's impossible for them to miss 3 consecutive shots. As I said before, the training should kick in before the second shot.

They only got their hands on 96 for half a year. Their muscle memory is for type 59 a.k.a doing everything manually.

plawolf · Aug 11, 2016

kriss said:
They only got their hands on 96 for half a year. Their muscle memory is for type 59 a.k.a doing everything manually.

Newer FCS should make it considerably easier to shoot accurately compared to the 59.

The lack of familiarity argument also doesn't stack with how well they are handling other aspects of the tank and course, which will arguably be much harder to master after conversion compared to putting the crosshairs on target and letting the FCS do the rest.

It is a well establish fact that the PLA operates to the principle of preferring to have people waiting on equipment rather than vice versa.

That means the PLA does all it can to make sure it has fully trained up crews waiting for new kit to be built, which they could then take and work up to full combat effectiveness in the minimum amount of time possible rather than waiting for new kit to be delivered before starting conversion training.

Just because the unit got new tanks 6 months ago is by no means any indication that the crews only started conversion training 6 months ago.

It is almost certain that they would have started conversion training much earlier, and have been deemed operational on the type to even be considered for selection to attend the biathlon.

Chinese 96-A

Engineer

Major

sequ

Major

PanAsian

Major

Engineer

Major

vesicles

Colonel

siegecrossbow

General

vesicles

Colonel

jobjed

Captain

kriss

Junior Member

plawolf

Lieutenant General