New Type98/99 MBT thread

[chuck731]

Leopard 2A6 and M1A2 are comparable in weight, and their engines are comparable in power and torque, so I don't see leopard suffering in power to weight ratio to the M1. But it is well know M1A2's turbines has much higher specific fuel consumption than diesels. So it would be significantly harder to keep a M1A2 fueled and moving than it would be with Leopard 2. All else being equal, M1A2's tactical mobility is probably no better than Leopard 2A6's, but its high fuel consumption would make its operational mobility substantially worse.

 

[Blackstone]

Xi Jinping's administration is supposed to reorganize and revamp the army portion of the PLA, and downsizing is probably in the offing. If they maintain army spending on or above current levels, there would be more RMBs per soldier to spend for new toys and for servicemen and women benefits. Until then, the Type 98/99x is good enough for any adversaries that boarders China.

 

[antiterror13]

SK K2 is just prototypes, yes. Are they going to be prototypes for all of eternalty? Again... funny mentality.

Again... Singapore Leo 2SG is nothing in comparison to China Type 99 in term of numbers. And Singapore even with all of her military is nothing in comparison to China's one region only. So we do not need to look at Singapore.

Japan's Type 10, Russia T-90 (might not be as good as the Chinese's Type 99 - actually not sure up to this point) that doesn't mean China had the best in the region. Even if China had the best tank now... that doesn't mean she would have the best tank forever. Like I have mentioned, China, US and all other powers needed to move forward, don't they?

Or are you implying that since no one could attack the Chinese now on land, means they could relax their ground force or tank development (pretty short-sighted, I would say).

Plus, I did mentioned that the Chinese new tanks could also appeal to international market which actually had quite a big demand if the quality, prowess and price is right.

stop accusing me without any proof. I've never mentioned China should relax on tank development and land force. China should continue to develop tank and land force but there is no need to build thousands of new and more modern tank, etc. Just continue to build new type of tank, etc in relatively low number (50-75) for now until 2025 when China navy and Air would be strong enough, even against the USA in western pacific. The priority now is Navy and Air force. That's exactly what China is doing right now

PLA is the most powerful land force in the world (defensively), nobody would ever think to invade China (by land) in the foreseeable future, including the US.

 

[hkbc]

Leopard 2GS is nonetheless the best protected and most survivable tank in Asian service, better than even leopard 2a6 in German or Swedish service. The firepower of leopard 2 with 120mm L55 is the best in the world, and the fire control and network capability at least equal to the best elsewhere. So leopard 2SG should be the bench mark to aim for if you want a real 21st century tank.

The fact that leopard 2, designed 40 years ago, should remain the basis of the best tanks in the world, suggests one should not too easily write off an adaquate chassis in pursuit of something new whenever the whim strikes. Unless these is something fundamentally wrong with the type 99 chassis, it could probably remain an adaquate base upon which continuous upgrades can build a competent tank for a long time to come.

So often these debates decompose into equipment A is superior to equipment B, surely the question is one of "despite equipment A being superior to equipment B can the inferior piece of equipment do material harm to the superior one"?

In other words is this just all angels on the head of a pin stuff! A 2GS is better than a 2a6 but in an actual shooting war do those marginal differences actually matter enough to be significant?

 

[Equation]

Look fellas the M1A1 Abrams tank has the best firing system. Meaning it can fire while on the move in rough terrain. All other tanks can't.

The coolest thing about the M1's weaponry is its advanced fire control system. An array of sensors constantly monitors the tank's tilt, the turret's motion and any gusts of wind, and a computer adjusts the gun accordingly to keep it aimed at its target. With this system, the M1 can take out other tanks while it's on the move. Less sophisticated tanks have to come to a full stop to hit targets reliably.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

actually a number of modern MBT's can, particularly those built after the M1. and more modern concepts like the K2 even goes so far as to include a fire hold system that prevents the gun form firing on the move unless the sights line up.

 

[PanAsian]

Australia is it's own content, now looking at it from protection alone the SG leopard 2 is better protected and slightly better armed. AMAP modular armor, L55 main high pressure main gun. The American Abrams has better power to weight from its gas turbine engine but its armor is slightly inferior, its only been in the last few years that she got reactive armor as part of tusk. Her main gun is based on the L44, which is shorter then the Leopard 2's giving a lower pressure to make up for it the US uses Depleted uranium rounds, still we have yet to see the next Abrams the M1E3 is under development and will hopefully up the game.
Personally I would have argued the Israelis merkiva 4 as being tops, great frontal armor, state of the art hard kill, modular armor good gun, and secondary fire power. But chuck's point stands and its one of the points I was trying to make. Right now type 99 is not a world beater, but then no one has a world beater. Unless its third Generation vs second generation there is no easy win.
its like the battle between the Csa Virginia and the Uss Monitor, both were iron clads both went in and slugged it out but the only reason the battle was "won" was because the Virginia realized the futility of the fight.

Second that. Not to mention Israeli hard-kill active protection systems, I am only aware of the PLA having dazzler types.

Not to go off-topic too much, I have always thought that the engine-in-front layout of the Merkava makes more sense for crew survivability than the traditional engine-in-the-back layout, is there an obvious reason I am missing as to why no other tank design has adopted that? Do most tank designs expect being shot in the back, in which case the engine-in-the-back provides some extra protection where armor is thinner than in front?

 

[chuck731]

Second that. Not to mention Israeli hard-kill active protection systems, I am only aware of the PLA having dazzler types.

Not to go off-topic too much, I have always thought that the engine-in-front layout of the Merkava makes more sense for crew survivability than the traditional engine-in-the-back layout, is there an obvious reason I am missing as to why no other tank design has adopted that? Do most tank designs expect being shot in the back, in which case the engine-in-the-back provides some extra protection where armor is thinner than in front?

There is significant cross country and obstacle crossing performance panelty to putting the engine up front and making the tank excessively nose heavy. Such tanks are more likely to get stuck in ditches and sink in mud, and has reduced capability to climb and cross low vertical obstacles.

Putting the drive sprocket up front instead of a idler wheel also increase the chances that common damage suffered by tanks in cross country maneuvers would result in more significant damage to important parts of the drive train like transmission and final drive, and thus result in larger number of tanks being out of action due to greater need for more lengthy repairs.


Ultimately, the Merkava puts lower premium on tactical and operational mobility than other modern MBTs. This is why it can adopt a unique layout detrimental to both of those qualities.

 

[kroko]

Finally, there's a DMZ and 1 million men of the North Korean People's Army between South Korea and the Chinese border so unless NK plan to wave them and their entire logistics train through or those superior SK tanks plan to swim, in which case the PLA needs better ships and subs not tanks, there's not going to be a tank battle with SK or for that matter Singapore or the Japanese.

What if NK goes down and is annexed by SK? or if china is forced to station troops in NK?

 

[Blackstone]

What if NK goes down and is annexed by SK? or if china is forced to station troops in NK?

It's reasonable China and ROK would come to an agreement where China helps stabilize northern Korea in return for US troops off the peninsula. Once ROK is ready to assume responsibility, the Chinese Army will go home.