That sounds very impressive. The fire control system must be first rate. The system in PLA's tanks are very secretive. I do wonder how accurate the system can be. Even with the 98G, I think the first round hit round will only be about at most 80%. unlike the US tanks, I doubt that we will see the latest Chinese tank in action for a while. The perform of them will be very difficult to judge
errors of the past.
- Thread starter utelore
- Start date
I think there needs to be a little thought put into why the Russian tanks are designed the way they are. Every tank has both a heritage and an operational concept it was designed by and it is important to understand the difference between the American and the Russian concept on tanks.
Todays T-80 and T-90 tanks are evolutions of the T-34, now, before you all scream and tear me to peices let me explain why i say this.
The T-34 and the T-34 85 where the tanks that won the war for the Russians. Yes the IS-1/2/3 super heavy tanks where the badasses of the war (wich could prolly still give a modern MBT a run for its money, a 122mm cannon is still a 122mm cannon regardless of the year) they where never available in enough quantities nor did they have the operational flexibility of their smaller brothers.
The argument is that Russia uses numbers over quality but that is not necessarily true. Russia no less wants to fight a war with an obviously inferior tank than the U.S. or Germany. The issue with Russian fighting vehicles is that they are simple to build and use, and as close to the best available tech as possible before they start to become too complex and unreliable for real battle. It just realises that in a long war that rate of production as well as ease of use will ALWAYS win out over a 5 - 10 year technical lead.
In a short duration war there would be no contest against the latest western tanks, they have fantastic targeting systems, advanced engines, and work brilliantly as long as there is a logistics train stretching all the way back to their manufacturer. But lets think on the flipside for a second.
Its two years into a full scale war, both sides have been mauled over the last two years, the elite unites are all but gone, the rate of supply for the computer targeting systems, depleted uranium armour, e.t.c is nowhere near the rate of loss, and the gps, glonass and galileo sattelites are all sitting in the bottom of the pacific ocean.
The western powers are trying to repair as many of their tanks back at depot as possible because it is simply not possible to produce M1A2's at a wartime capacity whereas the Russians or Chinese are pumping out their 'obsolete' t-80's or T-96 tanks like gangbusters.
Sounds a little far fetched i know but the Russians dont design tanks to run over camelherders in the desert, they design tanks to fight major wars, wars that go into years not just weeks or months.
Other countries just dont have the willpower or manpower to fight the type of war the Russians and to a lesser extent the Chinese excel at. Therefore they try to fight a fast sharp war against western powers using equipment that is just not designed for that kind of battle. AND LOSE MISERABLY
As for the t-80 and t-90 being descendants of the t-34 well we can all agree that the T-55 to the t-90 series tanks where basically evolved from the previous design.
The T-44 was the link, the stepping stone between the t-34 and the t-54, look it up, it never made significant service yet was to be the stopgap that wasnt needed. It shows the evolution very well, it looks pretty much in between a t-34 and a t-54.
thanks guys :coffee:
Todays T-80 and T-90 tanks are evolutions of the T-34, now, before you all scream and tear me to peices let me explain why i say this.
The T-34 and the T-34 85 where the tanks that won the war for the Russians. Yes the IS-1/2/3 super heavy tanks where the badasses of the war (wich could prolly still give a modern MBT a run for its money, a 122mm cannon is still a 122mm cannon regardless of the year) they where never available in enough quantities nor did they have the operational flexibility of their smaller brothers.
The argument is that Russia uses numbers over quality but that is not necessarily true. Russia no less wants to fight a war with an obviously inferior tank than the U.S. or Germany. The issue with Russian fighting vehicles is that they are simple to build and use, and as close to the best available tech as possible before they start to become too complex and unreliable for real battle. It just realises that in a long war that rate of production as well as ease of use will ALWAYS win out over a 5 - 10 year technical lead.
In a short duration war there would be no contest against the latest western tanks, they have fantastic targeting systems, advanced engines, and work brilliantly as long as there is a logistics train stretching all the way back to their manufacturer. But lets think on the flipside for a second.
Its two years into a full scale war, both sides have been mauled over the last two years, the elite unites are all but gone, the rate of supply for the computer targeting systems, depleted uranium armour, e.t.c is nowhere near the rate of loss, and the gps, glonass and galileo sattelites are all sitting in the bottom of the pacific ocean.
The western powers are trying to repair as many of their tanks back at depot as possible because it is simply not possible to produce M1A2's at a wartime capacity whereas the Russians or Chinese are pumping out their 'obsolete' t-80's or T-96 tanks like gangbusters.
Sounds a little far fetched i know but the Russians dont design tanks to run over camelherders in the desert, they design tanks to fight major wars, wars that go into years not just weeks or months.
Other countries just dont have the willpower or manpower to fight the type of war the Russians and to a lesser extent the Chinese excel at. Therefore they try to fight a fast sharp war against western powers using equipment that is just not designed for that kind of battle. AND LOSE MISERABLY
As for the t-80 and t-90 being descendants of the t-34 well we can all agree that the T-55 to the t-90 series tanks where basically evolved from the previous design.
The T-44 was the link, the stepping stone between the t-34 and the t-54, look it up, it never made significant service yet was to be the stopgap that wasnt needed. It shows the evolution very well, it looks pretty much in between a t-34 and a t-54.
thanks guys :coffee:
The trace of soviet MBT development doesen't stop to T-34. The "sotka" as we finns call it is itself development of the Bt-7 series fast tanks which are in effect a soviet improved version of american Christie tank.
But to the issue. Chakos got a point there. Most of the time when soviet/russian equipment are critized in the west, people tends to forgot that those machines are designed in different missions and operational philosofies in mind. This apllyes in all aspect of military. Soviet warship classifications are good example of it, hardly any soviet naval vessels have a direct counterpart in the west and vice versa.
As Chakos said russians tends to design far more simpler systems in order to achive quantitical edge. Thats true. There is also another reason for this kind of thinging. Soviet army was (and also other Warsaw pact states) a coscription army. That ment that there wasen't resources nor time to give all the units similar leght and sophistigated training as can be done in western type proffesional army. This however dosen't mean coscripts being anyway inferior soldiers, as one of myself i have strong belive in coscription system and its benefits and genreal possipilityes to execute the task given to these units.
The soviet "low sophistication" thinking came clear to me several times when i did my service time. I got a change to get familiar to several soviet weaponsystems, most notably the Kalashnikovik type assault riffles and D-30 howitser. I've also got great opportunity to compare soviet philosofies to western ones as i operated both western and soviet artillery pieces. Now i've told about the benefits and down sides of these two systems about million time, so i wont do it again. But few things can always be mentioned. As i've stated above and also told several times, the soviet artillery system was very simple and easy to use (meaning theoreticaly, it always worked as it should, tough it required enourmoss ammount of swet) and train with. Ofcourse there was some irritating features in russian logig, like not providing an handles to ammunition cases and all the tools were single purpose; you had to use five different openers even to properly maintanence the breech.
The finnish artillery system, representing western thinking was far more complex and sophisticated system. It required foar more comprehensive training and adjusment. Of course the sheer ammount of automaticy and the precence of APU eased the muscle workload of us all, but the "prainwork" was much bigger (we finns have this saying, dum, dummer, artillerymen...so they don't ecpect much from us in the iteligense field...). Dupped whit the fact that the gun was still bran new and suffered many minor "childs ilnesses", we propaply have to learn the basic things all over again when our refress training comes. Also the limited timeschedule ment that only one guy in the gungroup (me ofcourse...) actually knew all the little secrets of the gun so if i was to went down..the whole team would be in trouple...The finnish system is clearly designed proffesional use in mind so the whole system is bit contradic to our current conscription policy...a climpse of future? Who knows but this isen't the thread for speculating that.
Lets drift back to china and her choises in military philosofies. China is already rapidly transforming it's armed forces into more western style proffesional style which is in my obinion a vise move from country as big as china. This is evident in many major new weapon system aqustions, but is it in the MBT filed? (as this topic orginally was about the erros of chinese MBT program)
The new ZtZ-99 (or what ever should it be called) is far more sophisticated that the previous chinese tanks but it's orginal concept remains that of a soviet "coscription style". Tough this may be sole due the overall capapilityes of chinese MBT development industry, but is it aceptable excuse? In my obinion it isen't. China should have chosen the non-soviet tank philosofy back in the eightyes when the choises reflecting the current situation were made. This is becouse the changed doctrines and tactics requires equipment designed in line of those. The soviet tank desing represent completely different way of warfare than the modern chinese armed forces should and propaply will practise. It needs weapons and systems suited for these new tasks and therefore a new, even more sophisticated MBT than ZTZ-99 should be developted.
But to the issue. Chakos got a point there. Most of the time when soviet/russian equipment are critized in the west, people tends to forgot that those machines are designed in different missions and operational philosofies in mind. This apllyes in all aspect of military. Soviet warship classifications are good example of it, hardly any soviet naval vessels have a direct counterpart in the west and vice versa.
As Chakos said russians tends to design far more simpler systems in order to achive quantitical edge. Thats true. There is also another reason for this kind of thinging. Soviet army was (and also other Warsaw pact states) a coscription army. That ment that there wasen't resources nor time to give all the units similar leght and sophistigated training as can be done in western type proffesional army. This however dosen't mean coscripts being anyway inferior soldiers, as one of myself i have strong belive in coscription system and its benefits and genreal possipilityes to execute the task given to these units.
The soviet "low sophistication" thinking came clear to me several times when i did my service time. I got a change to get familiar to several soviet weaponsystems, most notably the Kalashnikovik type assault riffles and D-30 howitser. I've also got great opportunity to compare soviet philosofies to western ones as i operated both western and soviet artillery pieces. Now i've told about the benefits and down sides of these two systems about million time, so i wont do it again. But few things can always be mentioned. As i've stated above and also told several times, the soviet artillery system was very simple and easy to use (meaning theoreticaly, it always worked as it should, tough it required enourmoss ammount of swet) and train with. Ofcourse there was some irritating features in russian logig, like not providing an handles to ammunition cases and all the tools were single purpose; you had to use five different openers even to properly maintanence the breech.
The finnish artillery system, representing western thinking was far more complex and sophisticated system. It required foar more comprehensive training and adjusment. Of course the sheer ammount of automaticy and the precence of APU eased the muscle workload of us all, but the "prainwork" was much bigger (we finns have this saying, dum, dummer, artillerymen...so they don't ecpect much from us in the iteligense field...). Dupped whit the fact that the gun was still bran new and suffered many minor "childs ilnesses", we propaply have to learn the basic things all over again when our refress training comes. Also the limited timeschedule ment that only one guy in the gungroup (me ofcourse...) actually knew all the little secrets of the gun so if i was to went down..the whole team would be in trouple...The finnish system is clearly designed proffesional use in mind so the whole system is bit contradic to our current conscription policy...a climpse of future? Who knows but this isen't the thread for speculating that.
Lets drift back to china and her choises in military philosofies. China is already rapidly transforming it's armed forces into more western style proffesional style which is in my obinion a vise move from country as big as china. This is evident in many major new weapon system aqustions, but is it in the MBT filed? (as this topic orginally was about the erros of chinese MBT program)
The new ZtZ-99 (or what ever should it be called) is far more sophisticated that the previous chinese tanks but it's orginal concept remains that of a soviet "coscription style". Tough this may be sole due the overall capapilityes of chinese MBT development industry, but is it aceptable excuse? In my obinion it isen't. China should have chosen the non-soviet tank philosofy back in the eightyes when the choises reflecting the current situation were made. This is becouse the changed doctrines and tactics requires equipment designed in line of those. The soviet tank desing represent completely different way of warfare than the modern chinese armed forces should and propaply will practise. It needs weapons and systems suited for these new tasks and therefore a new, even more sophisticated MBT than ZTZ-99 should be developted.
Last edited:
Interesting points.
I think however, between yourselves you have probably answered the question. I do not think China is facing a conflict between Professional and Conscript philosophies or Qualatitive and Quantatitive doctrines. I suspect China is evolving both, simultaneously in order to capitalise on its natural strengths.
Like any other modern nation, China realises that it needs a very strong, Professional Core Army, and is I dare say developing the equipment necessary for such a force to function.
In the event of a major conflict however, China would want to use its massive numerical superiority to simply overwhelm any adversary. This means raising a large conscript force to fight alongside and protect/preserve its profesional core. As conscripts are raised and trained quickly, it make sense to provide them with equipment that is both relativly simple to operate and cheap and quick to produce.
The advantage here is that instead of fielding conscripts in ancient and obsolete relics, you can field them in modern designs; albeit of simplified or reduced spec. As production would be fast (to repeat myself modular) there is no need to stockpile huge numbers of weapons that might well be totally obsolete by the time they are required.
By maintaining a development programme and building limited numbers for evaluation, training, further development etc, you refine your production and operational techniques to ensure a rapid deployment of basic, but still cutting edge weapons.
Needless to say, you would expect the Professional forces to develop in a recognisably western way.
I think however, between yourselves you have probably answered the question. I do not think China is facing a conflict between Professional and Conscript philosophies or Qualatitive and Quantatitive doctrines. I suspect China is evolving both, simultaneously in order to capitalise on its natural strengths.
Like any other modern nation, China realises that it needs a very strong, Professional Core Army, and is I dare say developing the equipment necessary for such a force to function.
In the event of a major conflict however, China would want to use its massive numerical superiority to simply overwhelm any adversary. This means raising a large conscript force to fight alongside and protect/preserve its profesional core. As conscripts are raised and trained quickly, it make sense to provide them with equipment that is both relativly simple to operate and cheap and quick to produce.
The advantage here is that instead of fielding conscripts in ancient and obsolete relics, you can field them in modern designs; albeit of simplified or reduced spec. As production would be fast (to repeat myself modular) there is no need to stockpile huge numbers of weapons that might well be totally obsolete by the time they are required.
By maintaining a development programme and building limited numbers for evaluation, training, further development etc, you refine your production and operational techniques to ensure a rapid deployment of basic, but still cutting edge weapons.
Needless to say, you would expect the Professional forces to develop in a recognisably western way.
Sanpan, your post is logical . I think with the advent and fielding of a quality airforce for gaining air supremacy and with continued work on its close airsupport function the need for a MBT that compares with the most advanced western design would not be needed. I think if your see the PRC gain further ability in gaining total battlefield situational awarness (THIS IS HUGE) you will see the role of the MBT decline. The ability to see targets with ground targeting radar (like JSTARS) and then have the ability to attack those targets with attack helo or fast movers is going to further negate the need for the PRC to field such advanced MBT.
Advanced MBT or MBT is still needed for current and future operation. It not going to die away.
I was asking these PLA Tank guy about your Professional and Conscript philosophies or Qualatitive and Quantatitive doctrines.
Anything they said it very true the Type 96 supported by Type 99 is going to be use the professional core or elites unit. While the most of the concripit or 2nd line unit according to them is going to get upgrade old tank supported by a small amount of Type 96.
I was told an all out war they want these core unit to gather all the attention, why the 2nd line unit can do massive attack or the other way around.
I was asking these PLA Tank guy about your Professional and Conscript philosophies or Qualatitive and Quantatitive doctrines.
Anything they said it very true the Type 96 supported by Type 99 is going to be use the professional core or elites unit. While the most of the concripit or 2nd line unit according to them is going to get upgrade old tank supported by a small amount of Type 96.
I was told an all out war they want these core unit to gather all the attention, why the 2nd line unit can do massive attack or the other way around.
Nethappy, you know some PLA tank guys? Well, bring them here :china:
To be honest, the PLA simply cannot afford to replace all of its old Type 59 tanks with the newer Type 96 and Type 99. I've seen Type 59/69 and Type 96 serving in mixture with those "less elite" troops, mainly the tank element of mechanised infantry divisions or brigades. The Type 99 and Type 88 are mostly found in the armoured divisions.
The PLA believes that by upgrading the Type 59 with new engine and main gun, it will at least be able to deal with lightly armoured targets such as APC and IFV.
To be honest, the PLA simply cannot afford to replace all of its old Type 59 tanks with the newer Type 96 and Type 99. I've seen Type 59/69 and Type 96 serving in mixture with those "less elite" troops, mainly the tank element of mechanised infantry divisions or brigades. The Type 99 and Type 88 are mostly found in the armoured divisions.
The PLA believes that by upgrading the Type 59 with new engine and main gun, it will at least be able to deal with lightly armoured targets such as APC and IFV.
Last edited:
