New Type98/99 MBT thread

C

challenge

Banned Idiot
according to Chinese article, Chinese engineer consider the T-72 tank auto loader unreliable,therefore plan to "debug" the problem, 29 modification and later computer was added,likely for ammunition selection.
the artilce do not provide detail.
 
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
news,that thailand selected ukraine T-84/120 over Korean K-1,german leo-2.russia t-90s and chinese type-99 tank.
while thil army lobby for korean K-1,thi government opt for T-84,reason is cost.leo-2 conider the most expensive.
accoding to feb-2011 issue of DTM,Ukraine has developed new gen. of APDSFS round.able to penetrate 800mm armour plate at 2km down range.and new FCS,unlike to mediocre use by iraqi T-72 tank,data input are automatic.during the test firing,gun achieve hit at 3200m away
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I can't imagine China would have offered the Type 99... Are you sure it wasn't a variant of the Type 96 or a downgraded Type 99?
 
pugachev_diver

pugachev_diver

Banned Idiot
challenge said:
news,that thailand selected ukraine T-84/120 over Korean K-1,german leo-2.russia t-90s and chinese type-99 tank.
while thil army lobby for korean K-1,thi government opt for T-84,reason is cost.leo-2 conider the most expensive.
accoding to feb-2011 issue of DTM,Ukraine has developed new gen. of APDSFS round.able to penetrate 800mm armour plate at 2km down range.and new FCS,unlike to mediocre use by iraqi T-72 tank,data input are automatic.during the test firing,gun achieve hit at 3200m away
Click to expand...

This would be very weird, since Thailand is a tropical country with countless waterways and swamps. The sheer weight of those main battle tanks would simply sink deep into the ground and not be able to move. The same problem exists in China, which the southern areas are very similar to Thailand, just not as bad. This is why they don't have a lot of Type-99s, despite China's ability to afford buying more.

The best tanks for Thailand would be the smaller T-84 and T-90, those do not exceed 45 tons.
 
R

Red___Sword

Junior Member
i.e. said:
I beg to differ.

US Army did a study in tank engagement in Korea and concluded that Tanks are useful most if not all of the time. in mountain warfare tanks are extremely useful for use as infantry support. same type of experience borne out from Chinese experience in Northern Vietnam in '79-mid 80s.

......
Click to expand...

I think you get the wrong impression. I am emphasising "M1A2, Type99 kind of monster" is not suitable for Korea Peninsula. I am not saying "armor is no use."

You already know that T34/85 and M-4 firefly has been used during korea peninsula war - have you wander how much IS-2 and M-26 kind of monster being used? why they are not used in mess?

More than 50 years later, when MBT getting even heavier and more big-ass (widths), why not MBT? - I guess this question is selfexplanatory.
 
R

Red___Sword

Junior Member
kroko said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The USSR no longer exists. Its 48.000 tank army (more than the rest of the world combined) is no more.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link.

That's soviet type of PARADE - they'd rather do it at field than at the narrowed Red Square.

At those days, NATO's answer is "I am not hesitate to use TACTICAL NUKE."

China's answer is the world's No.1 reserve of GAPs - countless Q-5, the exact number havn't been figured out even today. (Don't believe any statistic claim from ANY SOURCE regarding this issue, Chinese manufacturers didn't really tracking the NUMBERs, when they have only (around) 10 years to boost a whole new army (of GAPs) from zero to something gives the soviets a pause.

It sounds like a "side tracked anwser" to the thread at "Strategic Defence" forum that "why China didn't boost her nuke stockpile even during cold war." - She's been busy at something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top