Chinese 96-A

Orthan said:

Click to expand...

I hadnt noticed it before, but it did happen. The chinese tank BROKE DOWN at 1:11:09 and the crew got the replacement tank at 1:13:17.

Just like 2 years ago, chinese tanks give a bad quality image of themselves in the tank biathlon. Chinese tank factories really need better quality control.

Well that is pretty embarrassing. Engine or transmission failure. Thought those problems were a thing of the past but appears there are still issues. VT-4 testing in Pakistan allegedly also exposed engine and/or transmission issues making the performance less than ideal. Desert conditions there though. Not sure what the excuse would be here. And to think they probably selected unstressed units that were thoroughly tested and checked to avoid such embarrassments Shooting was also bad but that is down to crew ability since FCS are severely limited by game rules.

Orthan said:

I hadnt noticed it before, but it did happen. The chinese tank BROKE DOWN at 1:11:09 and the crew got the replacement tank at 1:13:17.

Just like 2 years ago, chinese tanks give a bad quality image of themselves in the tank biathlon. Chinese tank factories really need better quality control.

Click to expand...

Looks to be an intentional brake judging from how the tank jerks forward. Usually when tanks break down, they gradually roll to a stop as its engine either loses power or something in the transmission breaks. You can see this in the multiple incidents of T-72s breaking down in Tank Biathlons over the years, they usually just roll for a while before coming to a stop. The 96B crew probably overheated or redlined the engine by overexerting it in the heat of competition, forcing them to change vehicles lest they worsen the damage to their vehicle.

ougoah said:

Well that is pretty embarrassing. Engine or transmission failure. Thought those problems were a thing of the past but appears there are still issues. VT-4 testing in Pakistan allegedly also exposed engine and/or transmission issues making the performance less than ideal. Desert conditions there though. Not sure what the excuse would be here. And to think they probably selected unstressed units that were thoroughly tested and checked to avoid such embarrassments Shooting was also bad but that is down to crew ability since FCS are severely limited by game rules.

Click to expand...

There is no need to overreact when we don’t have all the facts.

Tanks were not designed to be raced around like sportscars like that, and the course was especially designed to give tanks a hard time.

When they are racing tanks around the course like that, they are pushing those tanks right to the edge, or even beyond their designed tolerances. That’s where skill and experience comes in - to see who can eek out as much performance as possible without pushing the vehicle to actual breaking point.

You see examples where drivers have miss-judged that fine line and broke their vehicles all the time in the various commercial racing events.

That’s just the nature of racing, and not a representative view of how reliable the tanks are.

The russian team won the tank biathlon final. china came second, belarus third, kazakistan fourth. But what impresses me is the time gap betwen russia and the other teams. russia was first by 12:32 minutes, while less than 2 minutes separated the second from the third place and less than 2 minutes from third to fourth.

Even though China won, most Chinese military fans were disappointed by the atrocious marksmanship displayed by the Type 96B crew.

Orthan said:

The russian team won the tank biathlon final. china came second, belarus third, kazakistan fourth. But what impresses me is the time gap betwen russia and the other teams. russia was first by 12:32 minutes, while less than 2 minutes separated the second from the third place and less than 2 minutes from third to fourth.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Russia only picks their cream of the crop tankers to participate in the tank biathlon and they've got the home field advantage since they are familiar with the terrain. Rumor has it that this year's team 3 from China only converted from Type-59 to Type-96B a year ago.

Orthan said:

I hadnt noticed it before, but it did happen. The chinese tank BROKE DOWN at 1:11:09 and the crew got the replacement tank at 1:13:17.

Just like 2 years ago, chinese tanks give a bad quality image of themselves in the tank biathlon. Chinese tank factories really need better quality control.

Click to expand...

Calm down. The quality control of these tanks is for the PLAGF to judge, not for some amateur military enthusiast who continually exaggerates things to judge. And who cares if the Type 96B receives a bad rap ... it is not an export vehicle and was never meant to be.

ougoah said:

Well that is pretty embarrassing. Engine or transmission failure. Thought those problems were a thing of the past but appears there are still issues. VT-4 testing in Pakistan allegedly also exposed engine and/or transmission issues making the performance less than ideal. Desert conditions there though. Not sure what the excuse would be here. And to think they probably selected unstressed units that were thoroughly tested and checked to avoid such embarrassments Shooting was also bad but that is down to crew ability since FCS are severely limited by game rules.

Click to expand...

It really does depend on the climate I think. For instance, the Thai Military did not report any VT-4 engine/transmission issues to my knowledge ... compared to the problems encountered by the Pakistani military. That just means Chinese tank makers really need to focus more on reliability in the desert (which is surprising since they shipped a bunch of reliable Type 69 tanks to Iraq). Personally, the pretty bad shooting performance was even worse than the tank issue ... the Chinese team should either improve or just scrap this competition altogether.

plawolf said:

There is no need to overreact when we don’t have all the facts.

Tanks were not designed to be raced around like sportscars like that, and the course was especially designed to give tanks a hard time.

When they are racing tanks around the course like that, they are pushing those tanks right to the edge, or even beyond their designed tolerances. That’s where skill and experience comes in - to see who can eek out as much performance as possible without pushing the vehicle to actual breaking point.

You see examples where drivers have miss-judged that fine line and broke their vehicles all the time in the various commercial racing events.

That’s just the nature of racing, and not a representative view of how reliable the tanks are.

Click to expand...

Yeah T-72s also break down, commensurate with how many T-72s run through this competition. India's T-90 also "broke down" last year. The stresses are hard on these tanks and I'm not singling out the Type 96, just ignoring the bad performance of the others because that's not what I was responding to. Not sure what made the Type 96 stop but they did need to change tanks so we make our own guesses. These tanks are built rough with that old soviet numbers doctrine.

Figaro said:

Calm down. The quality control of these tanks is for the PLAGF to judge, not for some amateur military enthusiast who continually exaggerates things to judge. And who cares if the Type 96B receives a bad rap ... it is not an export vehicle and was never meant to be.

It really does depend on the climate I think. For instance, the Thai Military did not report any VT-4 engine/transmission issues to my knowledge ... compared to the problems encountered by the Pakistani military. That just means Chinese tank makers really need to focus more on reliability in the desert (which is surprising since they shipped a bunch of reliable Type 69 tanks to Iraq). Personally, the pretty bad shooting performance was even worse than the tank issue ... the Chinese team should either improve or just scrap this competition altogether.

Click to expand...

It's strange that Al Khalid and Type 69 are at least acceptable desert operators while the more modern ones are problematic according to clients. Maybe they've raised their standards or the more powerful engines aren't able to handle the dust for some design reasons. The modern export options are based on 96 and 99 which are both developed for the PLA and definitely not for desert operations so I guess there's that explanation. I think the shooting is forgivable and not reflective of the tank at all since they all disable the computer. All crews miss targets except Russia. I don't believe they are naturally just better than every other crew so maybe there's some favouritism there.

Orthan said:

The russian team won the tank biathlon final. china came second, belarus third, kazakistan fourth. But what impresses me is the time gap betwen russia and the other teams. russia was first by 12:32 minutes, while less than 2 minutes separated the second from the third place and less than 2 minutes from third to fourth.

Click to expand...

That's typical every year. The competition takes place in Russia, on a course that the Russians train through year-round while other teams get a quick familiarization of them pre-competition (assuming they even get that; I don't know if they do). The Russians know every turn, nook, and cranny on that route and can do the course while eating coffee and donuts like your morning drive to work. If they ever relocate the course to a different host country or if the host country rotates amongst the competitors, then we'll see what the Russians are made of (and it might still be great stuff). Until then, the real prize is second.

manqiangrexue said:

That's typical every year. The competition takes place in Russia, on a course that the Russians train through year-round while other teams get a quick familiarization of them pre-competition. The Russians know every turn, nook, and cranny on that route and can do the course while eating coffee and donuts like your morning drive to work. If they ever relocate the course to a different host country or if the host country rotates amongst the competitors, then we'll see what the Russians are made of (and it might still be great stuff). Until then, the real prize is second.

Click to expand...

Don't forget Russia uses the T-72B3M with a retardedly powerful engine while giving everyone else the T-72B3. Throw a 1500hp engine in the 96B and the Chinese team can win gold every year too.

Of course, the tank is not the only determinant of performance seeing as the Indians get wrecked every single year even when they bring their own T-90.