Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

That's why I proposed the 23mm Co-ax, not only that it can be used to aim the main gun better, it can also share the fire control with the main gun, much better accuracy than 7.63 mm machine gun.

With the Type 99 currently on the upper end and the 96 just below it and built in reasonable numbers, I don't think another top-end tank wich will be even heavier, more expensive and difficult to maintain is necessary. These tanks can be upgraded over time with new optics, FCS and perhaps armor.
What I sometimes think about is a light support tank for those. Armed with a 76mm rapid fire main gun and perhaps modular additional weapons. A 40mm grenade launcher on top that can be indepandantly aimed. A coax. cal.50 MG.
Good enough to take out everything below a tank and to withstand up to 20mm guns.

in the future, a tank are more likely to fight highly dense population urban area such city.this is according to US marine . there are now dozen super metropolis with over 10~20 million souls.just read at the newspaper,israel in west bank and gaza,Bagdah....etc
With this, a lot country are investing in active defense system such as israel trophy and Iron fist, US quick kill,Ukraine's Drosk(?),italy germany,sweden,Uk also have similiar project.

IMO the type 99 and type 96 hi-low combo is adequate for china needs and possible they could also gain the upper hand as long as they are fighting on home soil. They have reasonable firepower, mobility and protection and I can ensure you china is doing more to upgrade the armor then u think, I'll provide more info when I get them. However I do believe they need to improve the optics, FCS and get that extend range missle and new sabots round out in order to gain the upper hand in firepower over top nich like Abram and Leopard.

My 2 cent is that as long as the PLA can get a round out of these tank which has the capablitiy of killing a Abram or Leopard at the same or a longer range then round from these tank then the PLA is doing alrite since the Type 99 or 96 is cheaper then the Abram and Leopard or any modern westen tank

Wouldn't the 76mm Super Rapid be a bit too top heavy? What about the 60mm HVMS?
and would 20mm-defeating armour be enough? A lot of armies use 30 and 40mm guns also.

Shooting with the coaxial gun. I was implying all optics including periscopes. How hard would it be to hit those instead of your everyday electronic optics?

sumdud said:

Wouldn't the 76mm Super Rapid be a bit too top heavy? What about the 60mm HVMS?
and would 20mm-defeating armour be enough? A lot of armies use 30 and 40mm guns also.

Shooting with the coaxial gun. I was implying all optics including periscopes. How hard would it be to hit those instead of your everyday electronic optics?

Click to expand...

1. Yep.
2. Yep.
3. Good enough to deal with most APC's and IFV's. I know that the NATO 25mm round will sail through the turret of the Leopard 1 tank using practice shots.
4. Much more difficult. The electronic optics are more vulnerable, and the backup sights are much more durable and protected.

Uh, on the HVMS, yep as in top heavy or yep as in plausible? The Chileans used it and probably still do. Would anyone know of any link with information on the gun? (Excluding israeli-weapons.com)

sumdud said:

Uh, on the HVMS, yep as in top heavy or yep as in plausible? The Chileans used it and probably still do. Would anyone know of any link with information on the gun? (Excluding israeli-weapons.com)

Click to expand...

It is mainly a AT weapon, very limited use otherwise. A tank's gun has to be dual purpose.

There is no point with a multi-turreted tank; we've already tried it, and it didn't work. It limited upgrade potential, and increases complexity, which is not good for produceability and ease of use.

??? What do you mean multi turret? Never said there should be? But can HVMS not shoot other sorts of rounds?

sumdud said:

??? What do you mean multi turret? Never said there should be? But can HVMS not shoot other sorts of rounds?

Click to expand...

The explosive power of the 60mm round is insufficient for most applications. You want something of at least 105mm to do real damage against both armoured and unarmoured threats. It is kind of like the situation with the old British 2 pdr and 6 pdr gun that was mounted on most early British tanks during WW II. Fine gun for AT work during the early stages of the war, kind of lacking in the HE department, as the HE round for them both was extremely light.