Challenge: you have a source for that? That seems to be some random posting from a forum, with fanboy speculation (US composite armor with DU inserts are incredibly difficult to destroy, and in real life, you're more likely to be destroyed before you can blind a gunner or a weapons system with a dazzler). Some of the matter seems quite favorable, and since my Chinese is shaky, would you mind correcting some points?
There seems to be a segment describing an anti-tank missile. If I'm correct, it's talking about a terminally-guided kinetic ATGM, but I'm not really clear on what it's discussing. The part about "rubber sticks" and "dry sticks" is also hard to understand.
rhino123/pla101prc:
I'm discussing hypotheticals. My point of view is that at the current point there is no need for a 140mm gun, but the future may necessitate it, so that it's best to have a development program while not paying the money for full-scale production, which along the way, scares the neighbosr.
About your first point, there's conflict between China and Russia over Siberia, but it's one of those things that sound interesting in the media but have no relevance. With the recent North Korean port lease, the Chinese no longer need Vladisvostok to provide a port for the northeastern provinces. However, you never know what could happen between China and Russia. Russia still has a massive army, and in many respects its military ability is still more modern than China's. Russia still has the larger tank fleet, more self-propelled howitzers, better logistics ability, and has a vast nuclear arsenal.
But potential flashpoints... who knows? Maybe Putin will drop dead and a color revolution will occur in Russia and a pro-US government will be installed. It's not likely, which is why it's not a contigency that would require 140mm tank development, but in the case it does happen then it would necessitate better tanks.
In the case of India taking over Tibet; it's also rather unlikely, but if it does happen then the Indians will control the high ground, as well as the source of the Changjiang and I believe the Pearl and Mekong?
Regarding Central Asia, the United States, outside of Afghanistan, with which China shares a narrow border, does not have troops on Chinese land borders. North Korea buffers South Korea; Japan, Guam, Taiwan (I don't believe US troops are still stationed there in significant numbers, are they?), the Philipines, all of these are separated by ocean. The United States has naval superiority, but they'd have to obtain a beachhead and at the end of the day they can be pushed back to sea. A lot more trouble than having troops on the other side of a border in a sovereign state.
Regarding the M1A2, the M1A2 is still ahead of the ZTZ-99 in the sense that it has a Western 120mm gun, which when loaded with DU still has significantly higher firepower than Eastern-bloc 125mm gun. Apparently, this was a design flaw the Soviets were racing to fix but plopped dead before they could implement it. The M1A2 also runs some maintenance-intensive, heavy, or expensive silicon carbide / depleted uranium composite armor, which is probably twice (or more!) as effective as the transparent alumina armor on the Type 99, given that transparent alumina is supposed to be three times as effective as hard steel and that silicon carbide by itself is supposed to be five times as effective as hard steel. The power plant is also on schedule for replacement by a more efficient variant, which should drop the weight back down to 60 or so tons, reduce fuel consumption, and increase range. That potentially means that the technology is ready for even more powerful power plants.
As to India, India feels that Tibet's "freedom" is their security, which is to say, right now, the Chinese hold the high ground against them and have a reasonable level of fortification over the headwaters of the... I believe it's the Brahmaputra. Remember that racket they threw up a while ago when the Chinese were considering diverting the headwaters for the North-South Water Diversion project? There's also a lot of indigenous support for the Tibetan independence movement, and they host the government-in-exile. Further, the Indians feel that the Chinese are encircling them, with closer relations with their neighbors (that's partially India's fault for attempting to play hegemon in its region), so that punching out Tibet and making it either a buffer state or an Indian satellite is the best way to turn the tables on the PRC.
Vietnam is pointless; the borders have been agreed upon, and while I have a lot of black swan scenarios I'm not expecting another border war with Vietnam.
Regarding North Korea, the PLA is historically bad at logistics; if the Chinese had a better logistics train they would have defeated the UN forces in Korea, but they didn't, so... we're all enjoying our Korean Wave pop culture, aren't we? Regarding North Korea, the North Koreans have a very militarized state; given the choice, they'd rather starve their people than abandon their guns. Further, the terrain there is very hilly; it's what destroyed the Sui Dynasty, humiliated the Tang dynasty, forced the Ming Dynasty to send up southern Chinese armies instead of northern Chinese armies as the latter was optimized for steppe warfare, not fighting in hilly and muddy terrain, and turned the Korean War into a stalemate as neither the UN nor the PVA + NKPA could use armor to good effect.
I'm getting really tired, so let me continue on other points later. Sorry.
