New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Red___Sword]

Although it is already off topic now, but we really should not dodging the ball.

If only we appreciate that "yes, number matters, especially during cold war." and then we can happily back to the topic.

To the topic, i.e., no doubt the "UN" (uncle sam still using the name of "UN" officially at 38 line, FYI) have some REALLY HEAVY divisions deployed at south; while China also put the HEAVIEST hitter at northeast within her own border where rumors has it when "something happen", they can race to the hot spot by "military expressway".

- but we really need to look at the geo map regarding this issue.

There's a plain over vast of N.K. territory, lead right into Pyongyang, once you pass the mountains over 38 line; there are also many "not that rugged" passes, across S.K. territory, can made G.I.s fall back all the way to 釜山(don't know how to spell the English name). These are places where armor is much needed.

But we need to face it that, the main battle, the main struggle, always took place at mountain areas where armor (especialy MBT) can not move in. It is funny that armor divisions at both side is acting like a "non-nuke deterrent" in a sense. "Deterrent" means you simply put it there, but not actually use it.

Americans using (a lot) donkeys at Afghanistan tribe areas these days where even M2 can't going in - quite a funny footnote to this topic isn't it?

 

[i.e.]

It would kill the crew inside the tanks from the shockwave... human bodies don't like being tossed around.

What the Soviets had was sheer numbers and weight of the attack; however, the individual crew training and initiative at lower levels left much to be desired. The Soviets when they did their 'live-fire' exercises behaved in well-rehearsed procedures, and the training grounds would show the treads of tanks going over the same area in the same way over and over again...

shockwave... not so sure, inside a airtight can is certainly better than sitting naked outside.

Remember in 70s US has conscript army too. its ground forces has just came out of vietnam demoralized and soviets has yet to invest in Afghanistan. M60s+M113 APC borne infantries were the front line units and they were beginning to face T-64s+BMP1 combos in their counter part in the elite formations in GSFG.

remember the training and tactical proficiency exhibited in Gulf War 1 was really a product of the reform/re-energization of the whole 80s Air-Land business....

Air-Land was really borne out of Isreali's experience in yom kippur war in Golan Heights and Sinai.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Although it is already off topic now, but we really should not dodging the ball.

If only we appreciate that "yes, number matters, especially during cold war." and then we can happily back to the topic.

To the topic, i.e., no doubt the "UN" (uncle sam still using the name of "UN" officially at 38 line, FYI) have some REALLY HEAVY divisions deployed at south; while China also put the HEAVIEST hitter at northeast within her own border where rumors has it when "something happen", they can race to the hot spot by "military expressway".

- but we really need to look at the geo map regarding this issue.

There's a plain over vast of N.K. territory, lead right into Pyongyang, once you pass the mountains over 38 line; there are also many "not that rugged" passes, across S.K. territory, can made G.I.s fall back all the way to 釜山(don't know how to spell the English name). These are places where armor is much needed.

But we need to face it that, the main battle, the main struggle, always took place at mountain areas where armor (especialy MBT) can not move in. It is funny that armor divisions at both side is acting like a "non-nuke deterrent" in a sense. "Deterrent" means you simply put it there, but not actually use it.

Americans using (a lot) donkeys at Afghanistan tribe areas these days where even M2 can't going in - quite a funny footnote to this topic isn't it?

The greatest enemy of tanks is mud (some say infantry, BUT I BEG TO DIFFER!). The M1A2 Abrams as it is, despite it's weight, actually has less ground pressure than comparable Soviet tanks (including T-72, T-80, T-90, and probably the Type 99 as well). Lower ground pressure means that the tank itself is less susceptible to uneven grounds, like mud or sand or snow.

 

[Red___Sword]

The greatest enemy of tanks is mud (some say infantry, BUT I BEG TO DIFFER!). The M1A2 Abrams as it is, despite it's weight, actually has less ground pressure than comparable Soviet tanks (including T-72, T-80, T-90, and probably the Type 99 as well). Lower ground pressure means that the tank itself is less susceptible to uneven grounds, like mud or sand or snow.

Yes, now we are talking!

M1A2 have whatever less pressure to the ground, it is (MBTs) susceptible to unforgiving ground as a whole! Korea Peninsula is a piece of "try and true" unforgiving rugged land. The non-existing path and all-year-half-melt-snow-mud land kills all the sortie of any combating side, not to mention MBTs.

(Above is about modern day Korea Peninsula deployment)
___________________________________________________________
(Below is about coldwar soviet flood)


Regarding the "tanks' threat", funny it is yourself mentioned at #1123 that "NATO infantry rocks!" even facing the soviet steel flood.

I have a recommendation that, we really need to escape out from the view of "HEAT round at that time can screw how much mm of armor..." or "SABOT round at that time can screw how much mm of armor...", that we really need to appreciate (or FEAR, more precisely) the sheer number of the soviet armor of that time, and acknowledge our incompetence of countering it in an effective way.

What's so wrong of acknowledging that "yes, we are not that good."? (Western and China included)

 

[IronsightSniper]

It's not acknowledged because it wasn't true. I myself stated that a Soviet tank rush would of been stopped dead in it's tracks by NATO Infantry portable weapons. That's really what spurred the Soviet development of composite armors and ERA and APSs.

 

[Red___Sword]

OK, fine. we can drop this never-happend scenario and self-feeling what ever conforting. There is no need for anyone lecturing any other one around, nor dose it ever success.

 

[Pointblank]

shockwave... not so sure, inside a airtight can is certainly better than sitting naked outside.

Remember in 70s US has conscript army too. its ground forces has just came out of vietnam demoralized and soviets has yet to invest in Afghanistan. M60s+M113 APC borne infantries were the front line units and they were beginning to face T-64s+BMP1 combos in their counter part in the elite formations in GSFG.

remember the training and tactical proficiency exhibited in Gulf War 1 was really a product of the reform/re-energization of the whole 80s Air-Land business....

Air-Land was really borne out of Isreali's experience in yom kippur war in Golan Heights and Sinai.

The tank will be pushed suddenly and HARD. In a test the Australians did with a Centurion tank in a British nuclear weapons test, the tank was operational after the test, but all of the shock watches in the vehicle were tripped, meaning that if there was someone inside the tank, they would be dead from being violently thrown around in the tank.

 

[no_name]

With modern technology I guess unmanned tanks can be developed. How to survive EMP and maintain communication may be another matter.

Maybe it will change the balance?

 

[IronsightSniper]

With modern technology I guess unmanned tanks can be developed. How to survive EMP and maintain communication may be another matter.

Maybe it will change the balance?

Modern military infrastructure is protected from EMPs. A Faraday cage or something to that extent would fully protect a tank's electronics from an EMP.

 

[pugachev_diver]

Modern military infrastructure is protected from EMPs. A Faraday cage or something to that extent would fully protect a tank's electronics from an EMP.

tanks are no longer as effective as they used to be, especially in conflicts between major powers. confilicts like those in iraq and afgahnistan are regions where tanks can be effective, because the US military has control of the air. otherwise, even if the enemy is China, which as significantly less powerful airforce, can still be detrimental to the american tanks through usages of MLRs, missiles, and countless shoulder launched anti-tank missiles. today's tanks face too much threat from the air, unless that military superority of air, it will not be able to make its tanks survive battles.
Although tanks are still very usseful in many cases, helicopters are gradually replacing tanks in many areas, as it is more agile and has more firepower.