Nobody is asking China to base on any exact model... China had her own military doctrine. But what it actually matters is the effectiveness of the doctrine and tactics. Modern battle is fought at a much quicker pace than older battles that could drag on for months and months - even for years.
In this modern era, heavy tanks no matter how much the developer wanted to boast about her ability was actually sitting ducks to much more mobile forces.
Then you seriously need to start thinking for yourself and actually see the reality of war instead of the ill-educated headlines of tabloids.
recent ground wars have been so quick because the opposing sides were so overwhelmingly biased. Pitch to near-peers against each other and you have a very different sort of war.
Blitzkrieg worked best when one side had a key advantage over the other. Whenever the two sides were evenly matched, Blitzkrieg breaks down into grinding attributional warfare. Look at North Africa and the entire western front in WWII.
The fundamental motto of the military is to train (and prepare) for the worst and hope for the best. Blindly copying western powers with the expectation of beating up on some hopelessly outmatched little power is not how that works.
And I seriously doubt that the next battlefield will be in CHina but in other nations, and no matter where you look (except for Mongolia and part of Russia), terrain make it quite impossible for China's ultra heavy tank (if they wanted to use these type of weapon). Plus if you looked at Lebanon war and how many tank casaulty the Israelis suffered, you will get a picture on how 'effective' tanks are against well trained anti-tank units.
And thats a very selective example of history to advance you viewpoint. Its also a woefully dated example which might give an indication that things have moved on a tad since.
Taking your Israeli example. How did the Israelis respond to those losses? Did they downgrade or upgrade the armor protection on their tanks again?
Heavy tank, being heavier and bigger, were easier targets for enemy's anti-tank units.
Thats a blissfully simplistic view of how things actually work and an almost willful avoidance of one of the key strengths of heavy tanks - their protection. For lighter tanks, a hit might equal a kill, but not necessarily so for heavier tanks with better armor protection. There are plenty of clips on utube of Merkavas taking multiple ATGM hits in far more recent conflicts and keep going.
So what is the point, other than making these weapon - highly mobile artillery platform.
If thats what you think, then it is you who clearly haven't a clue about tank warfare.
We acknowledge that China's strenght is in their ground force and not helicopter building, but at this present time and since war is not brewing, I think China should be spending resources in helicopter developement and training, rather than developing something that is grossly outdated.
OMG! There are weapons that can kill tanks, they must be grossly outdated! Lets develop attack helos. Wait, there are counters against them too, they must also be outdated!
Please. The entire history of warfare is a constant race between ever more complex evolutions of the spear and shield. Advancement in one does not make the other obsolete.
Know that the main opponents now, if there happen to be a war, are all well equipped with anti-tank weaponries and had their own very effective tanks too.
Even more reason to develop a new tank that can face such threats and survive.
If China happen to want to build and deploy these tanks in great number, then I would suspect that their tactics are still quite outdated and are still on an defensive nature... The People War Doctrine... and maybe they can win if the war is waged in China... but casualty rate will be high... not really a bright idea.
I don't mean to cause offense, but that's just pathetic.
True insight comes from an objective evaluation of facts to try and form a theory that best fit with reality. Less detached minds might try and make facts fit an existing theory they already believe in, but rarely do you see people trying to deny facts with an argument as ridiculous as 'if they do this then they don't know what they are doing'.
What hubris to think you know better then thousands of others who have devoted their lives to understanding tank warfare and what folly to think others are stupid enough to think that the development of a heavy tank is an extension of the people's war.
How that even make sense is beyond me. As building bigger, better and more expansive tanks that you send in in far smaller numbers then light tanks is the polar opposite of the people's war doctrine.
