New Type98/99 MBT thread

antiterror13

Brigadier
I was reading over at the Chinese boards and it was mentioned Germany ranking MBTs around the world and the 99A(A2) was 3rd. Anyone read this anywhere else?

Can you give the source? ... I would be very surprised if it is the case (3rd). I don't think PLA have any intention to have the best MBT, no point and too costly. 90 to 95% the capability of the best MBT in the world is more than enough for PLA
 

JayBird

Junior Member
This is just a list of best tanks from their producing country. It's just a coincidence that ztz-99 is on the third place.

This video from Focus is talking about ranking, but ztz-99 is nowhere to be seen.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's why as plawolf stated these ranking are largely meaningless. Anybody or any group can make a top 10 or top 100 list and post in online for chest thumping or nationalistic consumption depending on the people who create the top list. It will be vastly different depending on which country these people are from or how much they actually know. You can go to youtube and see how many top 10 lists of everything out there that you will roll your eyes at.
 

Franklin

Captain
With the Z-10 and Z-19 China can start training in ways and on things they never can before. And the results are devastating for the tank battalions.

Attack Copters Wipe Out Chinese Tanks in Simulated Battle

War game underlines armor's weakness

Recently, a Chinese tank company with the Nanjing Military Region went on the attack. The mission — punch through an enemy defense, press forward and eliminate any resistance along the way.

This was, of course, an exercise. And the exercise was going well. The armored beasts busted through their objective … when two enemy helicopters armed with anti-tank missiles arrived.

Within moments, the helicopters effectively “destroyed” the whole company, according to a July 25 article in the Chinese military newspaper Jiefangjun Bao Online. The paper noted the helicopter counter-attack “set off an uproar in the brigade.”

The U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office took note of the exercise in its monthly journal OE Watch. “It was … apparent that commanders were not staying abreast of recent changes in warfare,” the journal stated.

OE Watch translated the newspaper article:

When they exploited the victory and staged attacks on “remnant enemies,” two “enemy” helicopter gunships suddenly appeared and fired a number of anti-tank missiles. Facing the abrupt counter-attacks from the opponent, the Fourth Company was knocked off stride and forced into a messy condition. Multiple tanks were hit, releasing red smoke. The battle damage rate of the tanks reached 80 percent.

A typical Chinese tank company has 14 tanks. So, roughly 10 or 11 tanks wouldn’t have made it had the battle been real.

Now, this isn’t surprising. The Chinese army has little combat experience — its last war in 1979 was with Vietnam. Its training programs accordingly suffer, and the unexpected arrival of a new threat resulted in heavy “casualties.”

It’s also further ammunition for the argument that tanks are becoming obsolete. The proliferation of small, tank-busting guided missiles fired from aircraft or on the ground can quickly turn an armored column into burning metal. Not to mention the threat from artillery, which has devastated both Russian-made tanks on both sides of the war in Ukraine.

Then there’s Syria. Within the first two years of the civil war, the Syrian army lost an appalling 1,800 tanks. The counter-argument is that its tactics were terrible, with tanks sent into built-up urban areas where rebels easily blew them up with rockets and improvised mines.

Tanks work best when concentrated. One by one and without infantry support, they die. Replicate that across an entire country, and the losses add up.

Same goes for China. But Jiefangjun Bao Online, in its typically optimistic way, described some of the changes the tank company made to its training.

To solve the difficult issue of air defense for tank detachments, they selected backbone specialists to pool collective wisdom for tackling the crucial issues, invited experts from military academies to give guidance on the spot, explored a series of combat and training methods, such as “discharging foil to disrupt missiles,” “discharging smoke for concealment and dispersion.” They also added this to the training plan as routine training courses.

In a test based on engagements between opposing forces last month, the Fourth Tank Company once again encountered “enemy” helicopters. It not only preserved 70 percent of its combat power, but also expelled the “enemy” helicopters by means of concentrated fire.

So perhaps the death of the tank is an exaggeration, after all.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
With the Z-10 and Z-19 China can start training in ways and on things they never can before. And the results are devastating for the tank battalions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The facts a interesting, but the analysis and commentary by the article are just their usual junk.

They pretty much draw the same conclusions every single time, you'd think they were only capable of using copy and paste.

I don't really see how the outcome would have been different had a column of British, American (or any other nation with recent combat experience) tanks been in that situation.

Attack helicopters are hard counters to tanks. Killing tanks is the primary mission all modern attack helicopters were designed and made to do. The fact that they are good at it should come as a surprise and revelation to no one.

Also since none of the wars any western power have fought have ever seen their armour come up against any attack helicopters, I cannot see how any of their combat experience would even apply to this specific scenario in the first place. Just a bad copy and paste analysis.

The normal way modern armies counter attack helicopters is to have its own air support take control of the skies and sweep enemy air threats away in front of friendly forces.

It seems the PLA is also adding organic mobile air defence units to their armoured formations at least down to the company level now following the introduction of the Z10 and Z19.

I hope they have, or at least will also introduce better co-ordination between armoured forces and friendly rotor and fixed wing assets to give themselves additional options when dealing with enemy attack helicopters who might have sneaked past the CAP support.

I especially look forwards to big scale blue on red encounters where both sides are using attack helicopters.

PLA attack helicopters are all capable of carrying TY90 AA missiles, so they should make the perfect companion for friendly armour, able to scout ahead, engage enemy armour from above, and protect friendly armour from enemy attack helicopters all in one.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
With the Z-10 and Z-19 China can start training in ways and on things they never can before. And the results are devastating for the tank battalions.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yeah... I'd be surprised if this was really the literal "first time" that the army had exercised with helicopters acting in the anti tank role on behalf of the opfor.

What I'd take away from this is more that the particular unit was unprepared and lacked a procedure when faced against helicopters with ATGMs. I'm not sure how other units would face or what procedures they may have developed in their own training, and I think it more demonstrates that the modernization of the army (and the military as a whole) is still proceeding, and some units likely have better training than others.
 

AeroEngineer

Junior Member
Guys, Wikipedia has done it again.

Some one from Wikipedia claimed that Type 99 is a "variant" of T-72. He used source from "Air Power Australia" as the source.

Guys please go argue with him and change the dame page:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Thank you.
 
Top