New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
most western tanks pay trumendous attention to crews survivability and comfortability,reason,is that training tank crews are very expensive,second there experiences are needed in modern tank battle.
result is that western tank are far better protected (and more expensive)than soviet (or chinese) tanks.
by contrast, soviet traditionaly chose quantity over quality ,or mass production over crews protection.result is that most of crews protection were rudimentary.(to cut cost)
most of the western AFV we withness are design to fight on. axisymmetric warfare or high intensity insurgency like afgahnistan,syria,or any of the middle east arena.
syria are ill prepare for this kind mass insurgency,result large number of afv were destroyed by rebels group.this completely demoralized the syrian army.
result is that western tank are far better protected (and more expensive)than soviet (or chinese) tanks.
by contrast, soviet traditionaly chose quantity over quality ,or mass production over crews protection.result is that most of crews protection were rudimentary.(to cut cost)
most of the western AFV we withness are design to fight on. axisymmetric warfare or high intensity insurgency like afgahnistan,syria,or any of the middle east arena.
syria are ill prepare for this kind mass insurgency,result large number of afv were destroyed by rebels group.this completely demoralized the syrian army.
drunkmunky
Junior Member
Get real...
Russia uses their tanks in COMBAT, in Chechnya.
The American's use their tanks in COMBAT in the Middle East.
Chinese use their tanks, against painted mountain sides inside China.
Russia uses their tanks in COMBAT, in Chechnya.
The American's use their tanks in COMBAT in the Middle East.
Chinese use their tanks, against painted mountain sides inside China.
There are so many variants of Chinese Type 96 and Type 99 tanks I've lost track of their development. If anyone knows what the latest and greatest model of each tank type is, can you please post a picture of it?
And I know there is one photo a while back of an extra heavy turret on a T-72/Type 99 style chassis, which I guess was a prototype undergoing testing. Does anyone know if anything came of it?
And I know there is one photo a while back of an extra heavy turret on a T-72/Type 99 style chassis, which I guess was a prototype undergoing testing. Does anyone know if anything came of it?
And you are the one who knew the Chinese do not pay attention to crews survivability and comfortability? Or that the training of tank crews are cheap in China? I think this is the mentality that is seriously funny. The reason for Soviet and Chinese tanks to be different in design might derive from the fact that different philosophy or strategies are being employed by both Chinese and Soviet (Russian) tanks, maybe someone more expert in this area should come in.
Secondly... I am not sure if Soviet choose quantity over quality... not sure where you heard that from. In second world war, the Soviet tanks are in great numbers... but they don't break down that easily too and was easy to drive as compared to Germans' tanks. And if quality is no good... then you can see mass number of them not even moving in the battle field. Again... came in the funny mentality.
I am not sure what you mean AFV are design to fight on... all AFV are designed to fight on... you mean the Soviet and the Chinese don't do that? Plus no matter what AFV who took a direct hit by ATGM would be put out of action... true crew might survive but that tank could not fight anymore in that battle.
Finally... the Chinese tanks had not really see war or battle, so nobody actually know if it could stand up to anything yet. But both Russian and Chinese tanks spotted active defensive systems nowadays... if the Russian and Chinese don't put any effort in protecting their crews, would they actually bother with that?
Last edited:
Your point being?
drunkmunky
Junior Member
My point is pretty transparent.
China does not have any targets that hit back. No need for side armour.
A presumption that there is inadequate side armour, is the result of lack of information.
China does not have any targets that hit back. No need for side armour.
A presumption that there is inadequate side armour, is the result of lack of information.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
In that case, you make a very shallow and silly point and/or is just here trolling.
To make as preposterous a presumption as you just did is just plain nonsense and a shocking display of a lack of knowledge and even basic common sense.
Do honest think that the only way designers and engineers can foresee the vulnerabilities of their designs is to have their tanks get blown up in combat? Has computer modelling and field testing never crossed your mind?
If you have even the most basic idea of what designing something entails, you would know that design is all about balancing all sorts of different and often mutually exclusive requirements and factors, and the designers of tanks would know full well the risks and costs their choices have on their design.
But just to give you a dose of reality, all western super heavies that are lauded now were first designed in peace time and were only shooting paper targets until they cut their teeth in Iraq, how would they have been different form the Type 99 right up to 91 if we go by your 'logic'?
OTOH, If you send the Type 99 of today out into battle against the T72s of the Iraqi Republican guard of 1991, they would have also totally wiped the floor with the Iraqis.
'Combat proven' means very little when the caliber of the opposition was so low and the odds stacked so high against them.
drunkmunky
Junior Member
My comment is based on the context, not presumption. The Chinese application of tanks is not in a war time environment and in documented situations and events as provided by this forum and the internet; they do not accurately reflect/showcase the capabilities of the tank accurately.
No, I do not 'honest'ly think that. I work with computer modelling with my staff every day. Field testing is an everyday component of design, and life. All designers understand the vulnerabilities and strengths of their products based on economic constraints, life cycle analysis and effective deployment under environmental parameters and pre-modeled case studies.
I am a professional architect. My entire career has been based on design, manufacturing, and the application, negotiation, and delegation of staff, equipment, projects, and ultimately an end product.
I'm confused here because you have made a conclusion that I am ignorant and I do not know what I'm talking about, and then you've addressed me with some kind of logic, so I'm going to have to ignore that and await you to pose the same question again after you've read this reply.
I agree.
'Combat proven' has been essential to the development of the AP2, as well as the T-90's defensive capabilities. Syrian T-72's are encountering a lot of problems with their side mounted armour and hinges, where as the current T-90's used to utilize the same mounting design and mechanisms, which you no longer see on the T-90MS revisions.
As per the Syrian example, combat applications identify weaknesses in design that outline the issues with economic constraints, design systems, and design considerations that will be accounted for in future applications of russian tanks. There are russian convoys that interview syrian tank crews for their reviews of the now, outdated T-72.
In the event of Chinese tank applications, where no chinese tank has been in active combat, the development phase is a learning and application process from 'other peoples mistakes'.
The point that I identified is that there are no combat situations where side armour needs to be deployed in China, where as in active combat zones such as Chechnya as well as the Middle East, the war time situation warrants absolute protection. In the event Type-99's are deployed in a case scenario such as North Korea after the mobilization to the borders, rest assured that adequate side impact armour as assessed by the PLA will be still present against NK M-2002's.
Designers constantly run into issues where products on paper look good, test good, and are the best product based on economic feasibility, but during deployment, issues occur, and problems need to be corrected. That is the evolution of design to constantly revise under economic parameters. Under combat conditions, those revisions are forced in conditions of mortality, which enhance and increase the urgency of product evolution, changing the economic parameters.
I would argue that if the MBT-2000 were to be deployed in active combat in a current world conflict such as Burma, the realities of product design and evolution would improve the next revision of the Type 99 chassis with much greater urgency, and a much greater and more appropriate response to the immediate threat that has developed, as a result of that conflict.
RedMercury
Junior Member
Rest of your post was fine, this is wrong.