New Chinese Military Developments
- Thread starter challenge
- Start date
Roger604
Senior Member
Re: new Chinese supertank,question....
China definitely does not need a supertank. Who is China going to fight in a pure land war? China can roll over any bordering country in a conventional war. Money should not be wasted on a supertank.
Something light enough to be transported across the strait and packing sufficient punch would be perfect.
And let's not be fooled by misleading one-on-one comparisons of equipment. LeClerc, Challenger, Leopard 2, Merkava.... how much do these things cost?? With the money you spend on one of these, you can buy multiple Chinese Type 99's capable of outnumbering and defeating them on battle. Funny how it's always the fans of western European militaries trying to claim bragging rights based on these silly one-on-one comparisons.
Ditto argument for super-duper elite special forces.... they lose if they face off against masses of conscripts.
China definitely does not need a supertank. Who is China going to fight in a pure land war? China can roll over any bordering country in a conventional war. Money should not be wasted on a supertank.
Something light enough to be transported across the strait and packing sufficient punch would be perfect.
And let's not be fooled by misleading one-on-one comparisons of equipment. LeClerc, Challenger, Leopard 2, Merkava.... how much do these things cost?? With the money you spend on one of these, you can buy multiple Chinese Type 99's capable of outnumbering and defeating them on battle. Funny how it's always the fans of western European militaries trying to claim bragging rights based on these silly one-on-one comparisons.
Ditto argument for super-duper elite special forces.... they lose if they face off against masses of conscripts.
Last edited:
Shahid
New Member
Re: new Chinese supertank,question....
Oh no! Not a super tank...Not again! Please
And we are not yet settled about which is the best "current" supertank : Leo2, T-90, M1A2, Merkava 4 ...
I hate those big, costy, complicated, maintenance hungry super tanks. Long live the good old Kornet that blows them all to smitherins!:nono:
Oh no! Not a super tank...Not again! Please
And we are not yet settled about which is the best "current" supertank : Leo2, T-90, M1A2, Merkava 4 ...
I hate those big, costy, complicated, maintenance hungry super tanks. Long live the good old Kornet that blows them all to smitherins!:nono:
Re: new Chinese supertank,question....
Dear Sirs:
Of all the urgent tasks in its on-going modernization, the RAPID developement of a "supertank" is not a very high priority for the PLA. It has other, much more important things to do, and limited (though growing) resources with which to carry it out.
As such, I believe China will continue with the steady, step-by-step improvement of its T-98/T-99G(?) series. It will develop the gun, the armour, the engine and (most important of all) the target acquisition and targetting system. While this is improvement is going on, the T-98/99 will be given to certain training and elite units in small numbers - maybe replacing a tank company or at most a tank battalion at a time.
In the interim, it will be the Type 96, which will be fielded in increased numbers into the Main Force units - and these new tanks will benefit from the developement lavished on the Type 98/99. In this way the PLA gets to continuously experiment with and improve upon its' AFV technology, while slowly incorporating those improvements in a cheaper mass-produced platform.
The steady induction of the Type 96 will also allow the PLA to gradually retire and replace the T-59/T-69 series (which like the J-7 fighter of the PLAAF), still constitutes the great bulk of its armoured forces.
This go-slow approach serves several purposes. First, it allows China to gradually upgrade its' vast (though obsolete) armoured force. Second, it means that at least some of the armoured units will have tanks with the latest technology available. And third, it conserves China's limited and valuable resources for other things.
There is also the issue of mission and doctrine. Many military theorists argue that the day of large scale armoured operations (pioneered in the German Panzer divisions of WWII) are long gone. They say that modern armies will operate in smaller numbers relying on long-range precision attack weapons. If this is so, then there is little point in expending vast resources on tanks!
We have yet to see what modern warfare between to closely-matched adversaries will look like. We cannot yet pass judgement on the future of the tank. But we do know that most armies would rather have it than not have it. There is something very comforting in having these great armoured beasts around.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
Dear Sirs:
Of all the urgent tasks in its on-going modernization, the RAPID developement of a "supertank" is not a very high priority for the PLA. It has other, much more important things to do, and limited (though growing) resources with which to carry it out.
As such, I believe China will continue with the steady, step-by-step improvement of its T-98/T-99G(?) series. It will develop the gun, the armour, the engine and (most important of all) the target acquisition and targetting system. While this is improvement is going on, the T-98/99 will be given to certain training and elite units in small numbers - maybe replacing a tank company or at most a tank battalion at a time.
In the interim, it will be the Type 96, which will be fielded in increased numbers into the Main Force units - and these new tanks will benefit from the developement lavished on the Type 98/99. In this way the PLA gets to continuously experiment with and improve upon its' AFV technology, while slowly incorporating those improvements in a cheaper mass-produced platform.
The steady induction of the Type 96 will also allow the PLA to gradually retire and replace the T-59/T-69 series (which like the J-7 fighter of the PLAAF), still constitutes the great bulk of its armoured forces.
This go-slow approach serves several purposes. First, it allows China to gradually upgrade its' vast (though obsolete) armoured force. Second, it means that at least some of the armoured units will have tanks with the latest technology available. And third, it conserves China's limited and valuable resources for other things.
There is also the issue of mission and doctrine. Many military theorists argue that the day of large scale armoured operations (pioneered in the German Panzer divisions of WWII) are long gone. They say that modern armies will operate in smaller numbers relying on long-range precision attack weapons. If this is so, then there is little point in expending vast resources on tanks!
We have yet to see what modern warfare between to closely-matched adversaries will look like. We cannot yet pass judgement on the future of the tank. But we do know that most armies would rather have it than not have it. There is something very comforting in having these great armoured beasts around.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
Re: new Chinese supertank,question....
IMO, The very notion of a so-called ‘supertank’ sounds more like an idea from a Bond movie or Clancy book which reflected western paranoia more than anything else, and shouldn’t really be in a serious military discussion.
However, if we are talking about a tank gun larger than 120mm/125mm, then it has already been done 20 years ago, the Swiss made a 140mm, and installed on Leopard2, the German have also done quite extensive research, what kept it being introduced into active service, beside the end of cold war and all that it entails, I believe, a number technical problem exited, one of the being how to reduce the enormous recoil that came with such a large gun, will it be stable enough to fire it while moving on tough terrain? and how do you handle the heavy round, yes, you may separated the round as on the 120mm, but its still going to weight a lot, almost to exceeding the limit of what a man can lift in a tight space, and yes you can tried to develop an autoloader, but there are many disadvantages associated with the current generation of autoloaders, for one thing, the mechanics of an autoloader is very complex, and prone to breakdown, Japan’s Type-90’ autoloader has a reliability rate of 95%, this may sounds high, but in fact it means for every 20 rounds fired, there is likely to be a jam or other problem, and reverting back to manual loading during the heat of a battle may cost the crew’s lives.
Hi, Dusky, I believe your argument are sensible because it takes into account China’ current doctrine on armour, its strategic thinking on modernization and various limitation and constrains, I have long been frustrated by arguments that only focused on the technical aspects of a weapon while totally ignored doctrine and other important factors. Simply put, weapons are created by men to fit with his fighting doctrine, not the other way around, this has been true in the past, at the present and into the future.
Doctrines are largely the product of ones unique and specific military environment, by that, I mean both its capabilities and limitation. To talk about China’s current armour development, we ought to understand the historical factors here, why did it manufactured such large number of the Type-59/69 series? How come it still has them as the majority mark in its armour fleet today? Many who wish China well seem to be very frustrated and disappointed with this fact. And my answer to that is to take a long term view, in fact not just tanks, but every category of arms has gone through a similar process. It has been a pragmatic and successful approach I have to say. It basically involved cutting the military budget substantially in the early 1980s, very difficult for the military to swallow, but Deng’s paramount authority ensured it was carried out, use that freed up resource in general economic investment while diversify the product all those arms factories were making into civilian goods, then in mid 1990s when the government had much more revenues, invest them back into the military-industrial sectors, these investment are beginning to show results in the new decade as we can all witness today. I still remember how people were so pessimistic about Chinese military hardware in the 1990s.
China dose not envisage large-scale armour battle on its soil because its current external security environment dose not warrant such scenario, that’s why it is not spending billions of dollars on a huge shiny Type-99 fleet, but it still want to keep up with the latest development in MBTs design, therefore we are seeing continuous improvement of the Type-99. At the same time, it can not simply scrap all its Type-59/69, because 1st, it has a very long and complicated land border to protect, old tanks with some upgrade works can be quite potent for some of its much weaker neighbours, 2nd, it would created big personnel problem within the military, many of these units had long tradition, the brass would definitely resist it, Jiang and Hu weren’t prepared to do that, 3rd, money could be better spend on “softwares” meaning training, logistics and maintenance, which often can play a more decisive role in actual combat.
IMO, The very notion of a so-called ‘supertank’ sounds more like an idea from a Bond movie or Clancy book which reflected western paranoia more than anything else, and shouldn’t really be in a serious military discussion.
However, if we are talking about a tank gun larger than 120mm/125mm, then it has already been done 20 years ago, the Swiss made a 140mm, and installed on Leopard2, the German have also done quite extensive research, what kept it being introduced into active service, beside the end of cold war and all that it entails, I believe, a number technical problem exited, one of the being how to reduce the enormous recoil that came with such a large gun, will it be stable enough to fire it while moving on tough terrain? and how do you handle the heavy round, yes, you may separated the round as on the 120mm, but its still going to weight a lot, almost to exceeding the limit of what a man can lift in a tight space, and yes you can tried to develop an autoloader, but there are many disadvantages associated with the current generation of autoloaders, for one thing, the mechanics of an autoloader is very complex, and prone to breakdown, Japan’s Type-90’ autoloader has a reliability rate of 95%, this may sounds high, but in fact it means for every 20 rounds fired, there is likely to be a jam or other problem, and reverting back to manual loading during the heat of a battle may cost the crew’s lives.
Hi, Dusky, I believe your argument are sensible because it takes into account China’ current doctrine on armour, its strategic thinking on modernization and various limitation and constrains, I have long been frustrated by arguments that only focused on the technical aspects of a weapon while totally ignored doctrine and other important factors. Simply put, weapons are created by men to fit with his fighting doctrine, not the other way around, this has been true in the past, at the present and into the future.
Doctrines are largely the product of ones unique and specific military environment, by that, I mean both its capabilities and limitation. To talk about China’s current armour development, we ought to understand the historical factors here, why did it manufactured such large number of the Type-59/69 series? How come it still has them as the majority mark in its armour fleet today? Many who wish China well seem to be very frustrated and disappointed with this fact. And my answer to that is to take a long term view, in fact not just tanks, but every category of arms has gone through a similar process. It has been a pragmatic and successful approach I have to say. It basically involved cutting the military budget substantially in the early 1980s, very difficult for the military to swallow, but Deng’s paramount authority ensured it was carried out, use that freed up resource in general economic investment while diversify the product all those arms factories were making into civilian goods, then in mid 1990s when the government had much more revenues, invest them back into the military-industrial sectors, these investment are beginning to show results in the new decade as we can all witness today. I still remember how people were so pessimistic about Chinese military hardware in the 1990s.
China dose not envisage large-scale armour battle on its soil because its current external security environment dose not warrant such scenario, that’s why it is not spending billions of dollars on a huge shiny Type-99 fleet, but it still want to keep up with the latest development in MBTs design, therefore we are seeing continuous improvement of the Type-99. At the same time, it can not simply scrap all its Type-59/69, because 1st, it has a very long and complicated land border to protect, old tanks with some upgrade works can be quite potent for some of its much weaker neighbours, 2nd, it would created big personnel problem within the military, many of these units had long tradition, the brass would definitely resist it, Jiang and Hu weren’t prepared to do that, 3rd, money could be better spend on “softwares” meaning training, logistics and maintenance, which often can play a more decisive role in actual combat.
Re: new Chinese supertank,question....
Actually China has a 140mm tank gun that they experiment with the type 99. I read from the chineses website that future type 99 will be equipped with the 140mm guns. There are already pictures floating on the net showing type 99 with what seem like a 140mm gun testing. The current 125mm gun already has better penetrating power than the m1a2 120mm gun which is made by germany. This is agreed by an american schoolar. The new chinese super tank is reportedly to be field with an 152mm gun of russian origin. Germany is reportedly willing to supply a 88mm gun to China for the supertank. The 88mm tank gun is supposedly to be a radpid firing gun with autoloading.
Actually China has a 140mm tank gun that they experiment with the type 99. I read from the chineses website that future type 99 will be equipped with the 140mm guns. There are already pictures floating on the net showing type 99 with what seem like a 140mm gun testing. The current 125mm gun already has better penetrating power than the m1a2 120mm gun which is made by germany. This is agreed by an american schoolar. The new chinese super tank is reportedly to be field with an 152mm gun of russian origin. Germany is reportedly willing to supply a 88mm gun to China for the supertank. The 88mm tank gun is supposedly to be a radpid firing gun with autoloading.
Re: new Chinese supertank,question....
Mmm im not anti china..
But i thing the chineese army is not very modern if you look to western armys.
The have a nice amout of arms and soldiers.
Type 99 wil not be a bad tank.
And about the oftopic stuf....Im a rebel 1e klass:rofl:
Demian.
Mmm im not anti china..
But i thing the chineese army is not very modern if you look to western armys.
The have a nice amout of arms and soldiers.
Type 99 wil not be a bad tank.
And about the oftopic stuf....Im a rebel 1e klass:rofl:
Demian.
renmin
Junior Member
Re: new Chinese supertank,question....
Its true that china cant compare to western standards now, but china is growing FAST. The PRC will catch up to the west before you know it. Type 99 would probably be china best tank design yet. It is a powerful tank and can take on quite alot. You dont always have to point out the weak spots of china, that is giving us the impression that you are anti china. Please remain on topic now. You can get banned easily here:nono:Dutch Infantry said:Mmm im not anti china..
But i thing the chineese army is not very modern if you look to western armys.
The have a nice amout of arms and soldiers.
Type 99 wil not be a bad tank.
And about the oftopic stuf....Im a rebel 1e klass:rofl:
Demian.