New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Soviet Union still had WWII era t-34/85 and Su-100s in inventory in the late 1980s. Soviet Union had the habit of never throwing ancient equipment away even if they are likely to function as nothing more than death traps for their own crews. An extreme example is Soviet Union continued to maintain pre-WWI era 12 inch coastal gun turrets from the czarist era all the way until 1990s. I think this is because there is always the possibility that when higher quality forces on both sides are spent, opportunity can still arise to allow tactical advantage to be gained at crucial moment by rushing in low quality forces and be willing absorbing much higher casualties than the enemy.
I think the Chinese military probably also embody this thinking in its traditional doctrine.
In the west, overt preparations for such approaches might be considered bad for morale because it would seem to suggest planing staff value soldiers' lives less than the soldiers themselves might.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Everyone does this, take famous USAF bone yard as an example.
Rather than merely scrap old planes, they are mothballed and ostensibly kept for spares, but in fact, they are as much a war reserve as a source of spare parts for planes still flying.
The biggest difference is that the Chinese and Russians keep their old stuff operational in low tier units, while the US just mothballs them and buys new kit for everyone.
How much clout and influence the arms manufactures have with governments actually plays a bit part in this decision making process.
It actually makes very good sense to keep the older stuff active with low tier units to keep the knowledge and experience of their operations current, and also to keep the factories making spares and overhaul facilities for these legacy weapons open. Being able to buy fewer examples of expensive new kit would also be a big plus.
Obviously, how likely you see yourself as needing to call up these war reserves is also a major factor in the decision making process.
For the US, I think its fair to say few in the military, never mind political leadership, would ever think it necessary for them to have to re-activate the war reserves out of operational necessity. However, if they ever find themselves having to call up that reserve, they may well find that those war reserves are nowhere near as useful as they think because of the total discontinuation in use.
I would dare say most current active US military pilots are going to have a hard enough time adapting to even early 90s versions of the planes they are currently flying, never mind older types with their analogue instruments, lack of FBW and primitive sensors and weapons. The ground crews will probably have a harder time working with vacuum tubes and non-modular designed circuitry. Not least because most of those parts would have long been out of production.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Point here Wolf, but at the same time negative one point. Point because you are correct the US does maintain reserved stock of war machines in case of extreme national emergency. However negative that same point for the following. First use as spare parts reduces the number of flight ready aircraft, second those flight ready aircraft are also farther reduced by use as target drones, donation for display, foreign military sale and eventually are rendered by time as no longer available for return to service. Case in point the QF4 Phantom2 was just replaced by the QF16 as target drones for the USAF. As the number of flight salvageable F4 has reached its end. Also early 90s versions of in service aircraft are today's legacy in service aircraft. They have been continually updated and refit. Only part of the Moth ball and ghost fleets of the US DOD are able to return to service. They are kept in a special state or moth balling where in in national emergency within the period of a few weeks they can be cycled into flight, and in fact as part of this condition are flight tested. In example there were reports of F117 flights earlier in 2015, as they are categorized as strategic reserves.
But aircraft are more fragile then ground vehicles.
Case in point the USAF was recently forced to retire one of the brand new AC130J Ghost rider gunship prototypes as during the flight a pilot placed the aircraft into a high G maneuver that exceeded the designed flight envelope. Although the aircraft was able to be landed under control its never going to fly again.
Where as a Tank like the Type 59 is another can of worms.
The US government also has reserved stock of Armor and vehicles the oldest no longer in service and in Bone yards or sold off. Some, no many are serviceable. Some end up in collections of well to do civilians who rebuild them as a labor of love. Others are sold to allied nations, others may be chopped for parts but some are kept war ready in a special category of Moth balling where in they could go to war. Case in point the California National Guardsman who decided to make the stupidest move in his career and took a retired M60A3 tank for a joy ride.
the M60 however continued to be used as a training tank at the Hohenfels Joint Multinational Readiness Center simulating Russian Threat tanks until 2005.
So the Degree and state of when a piece of Equipment can be considered truly obsolete varies by nation. For an Especially large Military keeping Older equipment active is a must just to have the equipment. IE the T59 was kept because the shear number of units of newer tanks couldn't meet the demand of the shear number of PLA Tank units. Same for the Soviet Union. Where the smaller US DOD can more quickly eliminate older platforms at a faster rate.
But aircraft are more fragile then ground vehicles.
Case in point the USAF was recently forced to retire one of the brand new AC130J Ghost rider gunship prototypes as during the flight a pilot placed the aircraft into a high G maneuver that exceeded the designed flight envelope. Although the aircraft was able to be landed under control its never going to fly again.
Where as a Tank like the Type 59 is another can of worms.
The US government also has reserved stock of Armor and vehicles the oldest no longer in service and in Bone yards or sold off. Some, no many are serviceable. Some end up in collections of well to do civilians who rebuild them as a labor of love. Others are sold to allied nations, others may be chopped for parts but some are kept war ready in a special category of Moth balling where in they could go to war. Case in point the California National Guardsman who decided to make the stupidest move in his career and took a retired M60A3 tank for a joy ride.
the M60 however continued to be used as a training tank at the Hohenfels Joint Multinational Readiness Center simulating Russian Threat tanks until 2005.
So the Degree and state of when a piece of Equipment can be considered truly obsolete varies by nation. For an Especially large Military keeping Older equipment active is a must just to have the equipment. IE the T59 was kept because the shear number of units of newer tanks couldn't meet the demand of the shear number of PLA Tank units. Same for the Soviet Union. Where the smaller US DOD can more quickly eliminate older platforms at a faster rate.
Last edited:
Black Shark
Junior Member
Such tanks are not kept in "service" for anything othre than being low technology vehicles to train rookies how performe maintenance, how to drive in parades, to sustain formations and they are not part of even the reserve they are entirely different batch alltogether.
lcloo
Captain
Those old tanks are still in service due to many reasons like funds available, availability of old but usable tanks for training tank crews, current production rates of Type 96 and type 99 to replace them, no land war is foreseeable in near future etc.
US, NATO and other countries that constantly deploying most modern tanks in actual battle fields need to avoid using "death trap" tanks in case high casualties demoralise soldiers. They are in wars every now and then, China is not.
And in the extremely unlikely break out of land war, Type 96 and Type 99 will be deployed while Type 59s will be used for training and second line local defence only. At the same time it is logically production rates of new tanks will be expanded many folds to replace battlefield loses thus there is no need to put old tanks in front line at all.
And the way Israel squeeze every drop of juice from their old armoured vehicle's service life should be a point to ponder.
US, NATO and other countries that constantly deploying most modern tanks in actual battle fields need to avoid using "death trap" tanks in case high casualties demoralise soldiers. They are in wars every now and then, China is not.
And in the extremely unlikely break out of land war, Type 96 and Type 99 will be deployed while Type 59s will be used for training and second line local defence only. At the same time it is logically production rates of new tanks will be expanded many folds to replace battlefield loses thus there is no need to put old tanks in front line at all.
And the way Israel squeeze every drop of juice from their old armoured vehicle's service life should be a point to ponder.
Dont be so sure about the low probability of war on china´s borders. China is on a very rough neighborhood. They have borders with nations that have some of the largest armed forces in the world: the korean peninsula (which could involve the US), russia, india, not to mention myanmar and vietnam.
In fact, in times of crises, they have already sent forces to some of these borders.
IMHO, land forces are and must be the most important branch for china´s armed forces.
Hyperwarp
Captain
There was a time when the PLA budget was well over the combined budget of the PLAAF and PLAN (twofold IIRC). But those times have changed. PRC wants a new PLA, one that is smaller, rapid-reacting, mobile well trained. IIRC there is lot of focus on training, special units, etc. You may not see thousands of Type-99A tanks or their successors, but PLA should transform into a smaller but more lethal force.
It would be fun to see a Type-99A tank with 140mm gun, I don't think that has the same priority.