Re: new Chinese supertank,question....
RedMercury wrote:
[] could not grasp high school physics. I would take the word of the chief designer of the ZTZ-99 over his any day.
Please do not insult other members. And that member by the way is a former professional tanker, who knows a great deal more about tanks and tank warfare than I, a former infantryman, let alone you, who is neither a tanker nor an infantryman.
Or an alternative possibility is general improvement in manufacturing, or willingness to spend more money in making a better quality gun, resulting in a stronger barrel that can withstand higher bore pressures and avoid significant deformation.
One would certainly expect the ZPT-98 to be produced to rather superior quality control standards than the 2A46M. The Chinese 125 mm clearly has superior performance to the Russian original.
The best ballistic computer cannot predict a randomly zigzagging target. It can only give a prediction based upon the past history of movement, which doesn't help against a truly random zigzag. 2+ seconds gives even a modestly moving tank, at say 36kph, 20+ meters of movement in which to change enough to dodge a shell. And this is even before the unevenness of the ground adds movement in height that can be more or less unpredictable.
CIWS are able to shoot down many missiles with just shells; the ballistic computers on many tanks even while moving themselves have been able to hit with great consistency (figures of 90% hit probability on moving targets at xxxx m, range etc.) are not idle claims, but longstanding tactical realities. For a generation, it has been a given for the more modern tanks to do so. This is not news. A tank does not move anything like as quickly as would be necessary to avoid many, even most, good fire solutions. This is not ballistic missile defence.
You have to detect the ATGM launch in the chaos of battle to activate your smoke grenades. If you move fast enough, you'll out-run your own smoke screen. Smoke screen blinds yourself as well as an incoming munition.
By the time you move out of your smokescreen, the enemy ATGM gunner has not only lost you, but has also lost the "capture" on his missile. That missile is spent.
Most modern tanks carry sensors that alert the crew to their being illuminated by either laser of active infra-red; often these sensors automatically pop smoke grenades (out to 90 m in some cases).
Actually, 1780m/s is more like mach 5+.
instantaneous and accurate at the moment of launch, but not necessarily for the moment of impact.
Once, again, tanks don't move that fast across the battlefield, and the firing solution calculated by the ballistic computer is not only quickly produced, but the round is on the way and hitting the target the vast majority of the time well before any movements the target tank makes can get it out of harms' way.
Do you have evidence for this? Unless you have high speed photography for comparison between tanks, I remain skeptical.
Try Brassey's for a quick start on matters of and relating to artillery and ordnance. Then move on to more detailed stuff, such as from DTIC, Dsto, DRDC, etc..
As to the rest of your posts, you seem very fond of repeating yourself. How do the claims that NATO 120mm shoot out to such and such have anything to do with if the ZPT-98 shoots out to such and such? Repeating your mantra that western hardware is superior doesn't contribute at all to the issue at hand. I find it rather tasteless grandstanding.
To the extent that I find myself having to repeat myself it is due to the persistent contrarianism of your posts. You produce little or no evidence for your claims even as you utterly ignore or reject most evidence (often from public and sometimes even official sources) provided in counter-claims. The issues with the 125 mm and guns developed from it have been a matter of public debate in the military and defence industry communities for decades now; are you not aware of this? Try digging for in-depth information. I have provided a number of sources on this thread, and others as well as myself have provided many sources on the old Type 99 thread. Those are good for starters.
Tasteless grandstanding? You provide little in the manner of verifiable facts or even awareness of the tactical issues (admittedly the latter tend to require some military experience to have a
really comprehensive grasp of - more or less) surrounding the battlefield use of armour, and when someone provides counter-claims to yours, often backed by sources, you resort to simple rejection, denial, and even rudeness, to both the other member mentioned in your post and to me. This discussion with you is going nowhere; I'm not demanding that you accept what I'm claiming or counter-claiming and backing either with sources or professional military experience, but I do expect civility in the course of discussion and a genuine effort on your part to reciprocate with sources, either books or links where possible to give force to your claims and counter-claims. Even if we differ, that's fine, as long as we lay out our respective positions with as much in the way of useful, credible sources to lend them credibility. Until such reciprocation and civility is genuinely demonstrated, there is just nothing more for us to discuss with each other.
And this is such an utter distraction from the purpose of this thread. My apologies to other members.
Ryz05 wrote:
In any case, the PLA could well be looking for a new tank caliber that's unique to their needs.
It would certainly be something to consider, although Pointblank on the Type 59 thread made the point about 120-125 mm being perhaps about the largest bore size possible for all practical purposes. Still, that would in no way prevent the PLA from developing its own unique calibre if it saw fit to do so. I have to admit to some admiration for the historic examples of the Russian 122 and German 128 mm guns; both were fine calibres as produced (both were rifles too), and China certainly has experience with the former calibre, as its Heavy Tank units used to be equipped with IS-2s back in the day. And unless barrel calibres are greatly lengthened, bore calibres will probably have to increase substantially in order to deal with progressive improvements in composite and ERA armours. Of course, increasing the length of barrel calibres, while offering benefits, also brings disadvantages.
Perhaps we should be asking if China needs a range of new future tanks. First off, there is the long northern frontier with Russia, Mongolia, and Central Asia, much of which is classic armour country with open steppe or desert, and lending itself to dominance by heavy tanks. Secondly, there is the southern frontier and the interior of China itself, which features tight, often mountainous or with steep hills, sometimes thick vegetation or difficult terrain such as paddyfields, and of course, very large cities and wide rivers, and that would seem to lend itself to medium tanks. Thirdly, China is more and more a Maritime state, not just a Continental one, and amphibious and airborne operations require armour support if possible; medium tanks once again tend to be best for the amphibious role, but light tanks are the way to go for airborne operations, and of course can be used in amphibious operations or in the light reconnaissance role. As the existing tanks in the PLA's inventory will someday require replacement, what then might make for the best replacements for these roles?
