New Type98/99 MBT thread

[chuck731]

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.

I think the chance of an amicable resolution to north Korean issue is low. The US will not give up a toe hold so near china's capital, china will not give up the buffer zone in north Korea, and south Korea will not acquiesce to continued Chinese presence in north Korea after current north Korean regime collapses.

I think fall of north Korean regime will result in a much tensed standoff between the US and South Korea on one side, and china herself on the other.

The south Koreans will be tempted to gamble that if they attack the Chinese directly across the 38th parallel, the US will support them and eventually allow them to unify Korea by driving the Chinese out. The US will likely try to reign in south Korea to avoid an open war with china. China will gradually find it increasingly difficult to keep the peace in occupied north Korea due to a combination of south Korean agitation and the gradually realization, by the north Koreans, that while china can make their life better than it was under the Kim's, china does not have the power to make their lives as good as those in the south.

It will just be a dangerous, unstable flash point.

 

[broadsword]

I don't think a unified Korea will want an American soldier present on its soil. They are there now because of the NK threat but not really warmly welcomed.

 

[Blackstone]

I think the chance of an amicable resolution to north Korean issue is low. The US will not give up a toe hold so near china's capital, china will not give up the buffer zone in north Korea, and south Korea will not acquiesce to continued Chinese presence in north Korea after current north Korean regime collapses.

The Philippines told the US to get lost, and we did, so there's no reason to believe if ROK told us to leave, we would say no. And if we did refuse, just image the kind of propaganda China and ROK would use against America, aided and abetted by the US "mainstream" media. Also, Fortress America in Asia resides in Japan, and the fight in East Asia is a sea conflict, so it's not at all clear if having US troops on ROK soil is paramount.

I think fall of north Korean regime will result in a much tensed standoff between the US and South Korea on one side, and china herself on the other.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is for China to approach ROK with an offer to ease DPRK into its tender embrace, in return for a list of concessions, starting with US troops off the Korean peninsula.

The south Koreans will be tempted to gamble that if they attack the Chinese directly across the 38th parallel, the US will support them and eventually allow them to unify Korea by driving the Chinese out. The US will likely try to reign in south Korea to avoid an open war with china. China will gradually find it increasingly difficult to keep the peace in occupied north Korea due to a combination of south Korean agitation and the gradually realization, by the north Koreans, that while china can make their life better than it was under the Kim's, china does not have the power to make their lives as good as those in the south.

It will just be a dangerous, unstable flash point.

Whatever else Korean leaders are, they're not brain dead. No elected Korean President can get the people behind him/her to attack China without paramount cause.

 

[kroko]

Fortress America in Asia resides in Japan, and the fight in East Asia is a sea conflict, so it's not at all clear if having US troops on ROK soil is paramount.

That is a myth. SK is an US treaty ally. The reason people are not talking about land warfare in asia is because of the NK "buffer zone". The moment it goes, korea will be the big flashpoint in east asia, with china on one side, and US and allies on the other side.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is for China to approach ROK with an offer to ease DPRK into its tender embrace, in return for a list of concessions, starting with US troops off the Korean peninsula.

Why would SK negociate NK with china? unless china were to militarly occupy NK. Would china risk the diplomatic, economic and military fallout of doing so? And how long would china be able to keep peace in NK, with the NK wanting reunification with SK? SK would just buy time before china starts to think that occupying NK is not worth it, better to build up its army in its own borders.

At that time, having modern tanks would be more important to china than having a blue water navy.

 

[chuck731]

That is a myth. SK is an US treaty ally. The reason people are not talking about land warfare in asia is because of the NK "buffer zone". The moment it goes, korea will be the big flashpoint in east asia, with china on one side, and US and allies on the other side.



Why would SK negociate NK with china? unless china were to militarly occupy NK. Would china risk the diplomatic, economic and military fallout of doing so? And how long would china be able to keep peace in NK, with the NK wanting reunification with SK? SK would just buy time before china starts to think that occupying NK is not worth it, better to build up its army in its own borders.

At that time, having modern tanks would be more important to china than having a blue water navy.

If china and an American coalition were to come to blows in North Korea, it seems highly unlikely the outcome would be much effected by whether Chinese tanks were fully modern or 10 years out of date. It would much more like depend on who could establish and maintain air supremacy over the peninsula, and whether either side would be willing to expand the scope of the war beyond the peninsula in order to overcome the other.

If the war expands beyond the peninsula, a modern blue water navy would be quite directly the determinations factor on whether china has any chance.

 

[Blackstone]

That is a myth. SK is an US treaty ally. The reason people are not talking about land warfare in asia is because of the NK "buffer zone". The moment it goes, korea will be the big flashpoint in east asia, with china on one side, and US and allies on the other side.

God forbids, but East Asia/Western Pacific conflicts would be long on naval and air assets and short on land forces, so one could argue "Air-Sea Battle" is an unspoken complement from the Pentagon to the PLA, and an admission the Iraq-style of US ground force actions against China would fail.

Why would SK negociate NK with china? unless china were to militarly occupy NK. Would china risk the diplomatic, economic and military fallout of doing so? And how long would china be able to keep peace in NK, with the NK wanting reunification with SK? SK would just buy time before china starts to think that occupying NK is not worth it, better to build up its army in its own borders.

China probably would only occupy northern Korea in cooperation with ROK in the event DPRK collapses on its own. China isn't likely to initiate NK collapse, but if it happens on its own, then China would definitely consider all options, including a deal with ROK on north-south unification that includes US troops off the peninsula.

At that time, having modern tanks would be more important to china than having a blue water navy.

Wrong for many reasons, two of which are: 1) China has worked out border agreements with 12 of the 14 land nations around her. The remaining two are India and Bhutan, and chances of conflicts with either are low. 2) China became the world's largest trading nation last year, with about 90% being seaborne, which calls for a blue water navy to protect lines of communication.

For the first time in over 150 years, China feels safe on land, that's why she could turn her attention to the sea where a blue water navy is more important than new tanks.

 

[rhino123]

Ranting about been left behind when there isn't even a race is delusional. What threat, what neighbours are steaming ahead with tank development that's going to roll over the current PLA tank fleet?

First off, I never rant about China being left behind, don't put words in my mouth.

Second, I have also never said that China had neighbours are steaming ahead with tank development, I said that China should not relax and continue to push forward even if she had the best tanks in the region (which she does not have).

The US Abrams M1A1 is slated to stay in service till 2021 and the M1A2 till 2050. So you would have the PLA refresh it's tank fleet? for what?

What have US M1A1 and A2 got to do with anything here? So by your logic, if US had stop producing any tanks and focus on other newer technology, should China do the same too? For all we know, the US strategy and tactics are different from China.

The Russians have stopped ordering T95s and are waiting for T99s to be ready for production

There you go, the Russians have stopped their T95 and waiting for T99, which is a more capable tank. China should not stop their development even if she had a great tank now.

The answer is no one. Besides technically superior tanks lost at the Battle of the Bulge and at Kursk, end of the day soldiers win wars.

And who is behind those tanks - be it Type 99, T-90, M1A1 or even the 052C and whatever weapons. Soldiers... thats who. So by your weird logic, no one should produce anymore tanks, since soldiers are the one that wins war, then lets march our soldiers into the battlefield without any armour support (or air support, or artillery support, or whatever that needed human operators.

More to the point does the T99 need more armour, bigger gun, faster speed or more range to be competitive with the non-existent competition?

For non existent competition. No they don't. For real competition (which sadly is occuring everyday, and only the blind couldn't see them). Yes they do.

And not only does these tanks need more (or better armour), stronger guns, faster speed, more ranges, they also need be lighter, more flexible and adaptable. As well as they need to be affordable. Like I have mentioned many times, domestic market is one market, export market is also equally important.

The Chinese Arms industry is opaque, development is not the same as production so do you have some top secret insight into their design process that tells you they've stopped development?

I never say they stop development. I say they shouldn't stop development even if they have the best tank around.

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.

My mentality is "I am happy with my BMW, I rather have a nicer house than a Rolls Royce"

So your idea of neighbours are only the Korean... with that... I do not know what to say but to ask you to check the map again.

 

[kroko]

If the war expands beyond the peninsula, a modern blue water navy would be quite directly the determinations factor on whether china has any chance.

East Asia/Western Pacific conflicts would be long on naval and air assets and short on land forces, so one could argue "Air-Sea Battle" is an unspoken complement from the Pentagon to the PLA, and an admission the Iraq-style of US ground force actions against China would fail.

Uh…no. Actually, it’s quite the contrary. Air and sea warfare would be short and land warfare would be long. Things happen faster on sea and especially on air. Anyone will tell you that. US supremacy is on air and especially on sea. China would only stand a chance on land warfare. Top-rated tanks would be very important for that. Air-sea battle doesn’t feature land warfare because PLA is out of korea right now. If they get there, expect land-air-sea battle.

then China would definitely consider all options, including a deal with ROK on north-south unification that includes US troops off the peninsula .

Again, why would SK negotiate with china? China must have cards to play that game. Without troops in NK, china doesn’t have cards to play.

For the first time in over 150 years, China feels safe on land.

For now.

China has a big neighborhood. Things evolve fast in that region, and there is nothing like NATO or the EU there. Any nation there must keep vigilant over its borders.

 

[hkbc]

So your idea of neighbours are only the Korean... with that... I do not know what to say but to ask you to check the map again.

I am not going to dignify the rest of your diatribe with a response

But checking the map; neighbours with land borders (unless you are still thinking about swimming tanks!)

North Korea - Indigenous Tanks based off Chinese tech
Russia - Indigenous Tanks - T95 soon to have T99s
Mongolia - No Indigenous Tanks
Kazakhstan - No Indigenous Tanks
Kyrgyzstan - No Indigenous Tanks
Tajikistan - No Indigenous Tanks
Afganistan - No Indigenous Tanks
Pakistan - Imports Chinese Tanks
India - Arjun (Indigenous) T90S (Joint with Russia)
Nepal - No Indigenous Tanks
Bhutan - No Indigenous Tanks
Burma - No Indigenous Tanks
Laos - No Indigenous Tanks
Vietnam - No Indigenous Tanks

Excluding Pakistan only South Korea, Russia and India have indigenous tank design/production capabilities, so the other countries don't really come into it until/unless they start bulk purchasing of advanced foreign imports.

Obviously Russia has some adequate/good tank designs and enough ground forces to contemplate a mass armoured thrust into the North China plain but that's been the case since the 60s when the quality gap between Soviet Tanks and Chinese Tanks was far greater. So if China survived that disparity for 50 years I think they're in reasonable shape!

India has designed the Arjun, well I think the readers of the forum can decide for themselves how successful/competitive it is with other designs! They also locally manufacture the T90S which is what the six tank regiments on the Chinese border are or will be equipped with. Given the Tibetan Plateau on the Chinese side of the sino-indian border is not conducive to armoured warfare advancing from the Indian side any tank battle is likely to be fought on the Indian side i.e. the Chinese would be invading!

Which leaves North Korea and by extension South Korea as the primary country with a tank industry, sufficient ground forces and within striking distance of China.

So what you can say is nothing! your view, for what they are, is recorded for posterity, the faux exasperation is noted, just move on!

 

[chuck731]

Uh…no. Actually, it’s quite the contrary. Air and sea warfare would be short and land warfare would be long. Things happen faster on sea and especially on air. Anyone will tell you that. US supremacy is on air and especially on sea. China would only stand a chance on land warfare. Top-rated tanks would be very important for that. Air-sea battle doesn’t feature land warfare because PLA is out of korea right now. If they get there, expect land-air-sea battle.



Again, why would SK negotiate with china? China must have cards to play that game. Without troops in NK, china doesn’t have cards to play.



For now.

China has a big neighborhood. Things evolve fast in that region, and there is nothing like NATO or the EU there. Any nation there must keep vigilant over its borders.

Please don't misattribute someone else's quotes to me.