I believe there was talk about something like that in the Next-Generation Tank thread. If not, I don't think so.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
There is an unhealthy obsession with hardship within the PLA. That said, I think Type 15 has air conditioning and far better ergonomics.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Thinking about it some more, it might not just be purely about penny pinching or being needlessly harsh on troops to prevent them going soft. In cars, air cons typically increase fuel consumption/reduce range by around 8-10%.
Since PLA tank and armoured forces place a lot of emphasis on manoeuvring rather than relying mainly on having the toughest armour and biggest guns to punch straight through the enemy’s main force, it could be that loosing 10% range for the comfort of the crew is deemed too much of a sacrifice.
Better that the crews train and get used to not having aircon in peacetime and get to enjoy that during wartime when the situation permits it, rather than get used to aircon and not be able to handle it without it.
Although I still think some common sense and health and safety limits need to be set. 55 degrees C is simply unsafe working environments, especially in an enclosed confined space. They could set the aircon to keep the internal temp at 30-35, which will still be pretty uncomfortable but at least not actually hazardous to crew safety.
Armoured warfare has previously demonstrated that in terms of tanks, quantity does trump quality.
So that calculation applies to the cheaper Type-96 versus Type 99.
And it looks like you can buy 2 or 3 Type-99 tanks for the cost of a single Abrams.
So I know where I would place my bet on the outcome of a hypothetical tank battle.
Conventional submarine crew working in the engine area work at 55 degree temperatures for a lot longer but to be fair, they have the option to go shirtless.
In cars, AC increases fuel consumption by that amount, true, but that's relative to the total engine output. Tanks, in contrast, produce a lot of engine output relative to the energy needs of AC.
===
IMO, training without AC is necessary because the AC is not necessarily a reliable factor. Sometimes, to extend operational range, you might want to disable the AC. At other times, the AC could break down, or be destroyed by enemy weapons. And ACs are heat pumps; they tend to generate heat increasing IR signatures.
In practice, operating with AC is necessary in wartime simply because the heat gets to you and impacts decision-making and rate of decision-making. In training, making sure that operators might not need the AC, on the other hand, could build robustness for when systems break down or AC can't be used due to its thermal signature / fuel costs.
===
IMO, training without AC is necessary because the AC is not necessarily a reliable factor. Sometimes, to extend operational range, you might want to disable the AC. At other times, the AC could break down, or be destroyed by enemy weapons. And ACs are heat pumps; they tend to generate heat increasing IR signatures.
In practice, operating with AC is necessary in wartime simply because the heat gets to you and impacts decision-making and rate of decision-making. In training, making sure that operators might not need the AC, on the other hand, could build robustness for when systems break down or AC can't be used due to its thermal signature / fuel costs.
From where? From the front no way. From the side and back, likely.
Side, say 1000m away.
I don´t see why not. Type 99A doesn´t have good side protection.