Body Armour ended when firearms were first invented, but then they reappeared later on.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Body Armour ended when firearms were first invented, but then they reappeared later on.
Yup! MBT is still useful when using against very weak opponent with no modern Anti-tank weapon... You can easily bull blozer them. But when against opponent with modern ATGM like the top attack weapon, MBT might be in big trouble.
Not all your opponent is US or Western countries armed forces.
Not all your opponent is US or Western countries armed forces.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
And so We see the movement from heavy armor too active protection systems of both the hard and soft types. like trophy, Hard kill, Arena, LEDS, Iron fist, AMAP-ADS , Zaslon ... ecta... ecta... The Advantage of the tank is not just it's hull it's a very very powerful weapons platform a cannon not just too kill tanks but also make enemy infantry dread.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
MBTs are actually designed for "Traditional War", which means a regular force agains another regular force. MBT's sortie on the field can not be matched / replaced - though more and more ways to counter a MBT today, MBTs can not be replaced.
Kind like there are more and more ways to kill a foot soldier today, yet you can't "obsolete" foot soldiers.
It is ONLY because grand-scale all-out war in today's geo-politics situation is more and more unlikely, that makes MBT evolution across the world, so slow.
MwRYum
Major
MBTs will still have its place in any established military, but in terms of technology it has reach an apex, so unless there're breakthroughs in terms of material science, weapons technology (practical model of railgun or even laser cannon and particle energy weapon) or new kinds of enemy (oooo...alien invasion, anyone?), MBT developments will be concentrate on adaptation kits, mid-life upgrade package, network-centric package and defensive suites (active or reactive, take your pick).
MBT is just at the apex as modern firearms are, not that i really agree with using the term apex actually
Weapons and systems evolve depending on the threat it faces, it might stagnate or continue to develop, but it will keep evolving
before we post further, i want to remind that this thread is about ZTZ99 and it's development
Weapons and systems evolve depending on the threat it faces, it might stagnate or continue to develop, but it will keep evolving
before we post further, i want to remind that this thread is about ZTZ99 and it's development
I'm not forgetting that, paintgun. But the fact that the Dutch army is getting rid of all its tanks is still relevant.These tanks were last used against squatters in Amsterdam a quarter of a century ago, without firing their guns of course.
Not really relevant is that the Dutch navy increased the size of its latest transport ship to enable the Dutch army to use these tanks against countries all over the world and thus making the ship EUR 100m more expensive than promised to parliament.
Not really relevant is that the Dutch navy increased the size of its latest transport ship to enable the Dutch army to use these tanks against countries all over the world and thus making the ship EUR 100m more expensive than promised to parliament.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
No offence Delft, but the Dutch is hardly the best example of a well rounded defence strategy, and I am sure you are greatful the Netherlands is in such a stable, peaceful and prosperous party of the world. But for most of the rest of us, a powerful military is a necessity, not a choice.
The death of the tank, like so many similar things before it, has been greatly exaggerated. It's combination of protection, mobility and firepower is essential and irreplaceable in missions ranging from counter insurgency to full-blown warfare with a near peer and everything in between.
It is no super weapon and there are counters to it, but then can anyone name me a single weapons system that is threatened by nothing? Are they all obselete now?
For every counter to tanks, there are counters to them. You got ATGM teams camped in a line ready to repel a tank charge? Well good for you, but since my tanks are so much more mobile, why don't I just have them drive 60km down the line and force a breach there? Or maybe have artillery spray your whole line with air bursting frag shells while my tanks drive up, impervious to all the shrapnel while your ATGM teams gets shredded or stay hunkered down in their foxholes easy to be overrun and rounded up?
The tank brings something formidable and irreplaceable to th battlefield, and like all spear and shield arms race stories, sometimes one will have an advantage over the other, but neither have, nor looks likely to hold a decisive advantage for long. In this context, if you vastly get rid of your tanks and your opponent doesn't, then he will have a material advantage over you that he can exploit for massive, maybe even decisive, tactical and strategy advanage.
The death of the tank, like so many similar things before it, has been greatly exaggerated. It's combination of protection, mobility and firepower is essential and irreplaceable in missions ranging from counter insurgency to full-blown warfare with a near peer and everything in between.
It is no super weapon and there are counters to it, but then can anyone name me a single weapons system that is threatened by nothing? Are they all obselete now?
For every counter to tanks, there are counters to them. You got ATGM teams camped in a line ready to repel a tank charge? Well good for you, but since my tanks are so much more mobile, why don't I just have them drive 60km down the line and force a breach there? Or maybe have artillery spray your whole line with air bursting frag shells while my tanks drive up, impervious to all the shrapnel while your ATGM teams gets shredded or stay hunkered down in their foxholes easy to be overrun and rounded up?
The tank brings something formidable and irreplaceable to th battlefield, and like all spear and shield arms race stories, sometimes one will have an advantage over the other, but neither have, nor looks likely to hold a decisive advantage for long. In this context, if you vastly get rid of your tanks and your opponent doesn't, then he will have a material advantage over you that he can exploit for massive, maybe even decisive, tactical and strategy advanage.
i might have an idea where some of those Leo2s are going to 
as another tangent of wolfie's comment about Netherland not as a good example about this issue, it's cutting the tanks because of budget consideration.
If we look at the other side of the earth, armies are getting more and more tanks instead, China and India are still producing tanks in the hundreds, Thailand is buying Oplots, Japan unveiled their new Type-10 not too long ago, Russia unveiled T-90AM
if anyone want to set their mind on this issue, ask any army guy, or those who prowl tank forums, MBT is there to stay, and recent conflicts have only proven to strengthen this.
and hey even ZTZ-99 gets a new facelift every couple months or so
as another tangent of wolfie's comment about Netherland not as a good example about this issue, it's cutting the tanks because of budget consideration.
If we look at the other side of the earth, armies are getting more and more tanks instead, China and India are still producing tanks in the hundreds, Thailand is buying Oplots, Japan unveiled their new Type-10 not too long ago, Russia unveiled T-90AM
if anyone want to set their mind on this issue, ask any army guy, or those who prowl tank forums, MBT is there to stay, and recent conflicts have only proven to strengthen this.
and hey even ZTZ-99 gets a new facelift every couple months or so