New Type98/99 MBT thread

[manqiangrexue]

Making a search, i came across this article from business insider. I dont know if it has been posted here or not. Its from january 2019. Does anyone knows if in the last two years the chinese army has corrected its tank doctrine and training flaws?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Generally if the article title sounds extremely stupid, I don't even bother to read it.

Does the chinese army train with the newest weapons? I remember years ago that they only train with older equipment. If not, that could explain why they dont know how to use T-99A2.

The article you cited says that they used the most modern tanks in training and in the first run, basically, experience defeated advanced technology. They even cited what they learned from the exercise and how to better use their new tanks in the future. This is exactly what training exercises are for except the title made it sensationalist.

They translated something that is entirely rational, reasonable, and expected during introduction of new weapons:

"'We rushed with the Type 099A too close to the frontline, which did not optimize the use of the tank's combat capability,' Xu Chengbiao, a battalion commander, explained. 'We only studied the capabilities of older tanks, but have not completely understood new ones,' Zhao Jianxin, a second battalion commander, reportedly told CCTV."

And turned it into something of the utmost incompetence like a bunch of idiots ordered stuff they didn't need, can't use and would be better off without:

"In a recent interview with Chinese state media, senior Chinese military officers admitted that troops had no idea what to do with the country's new Type 099A battle tanks."

 

[Mohsin77]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"'We rushed with the Type 099A too close to the frontline, which did not optimize the use of the tank's combat capability,' Xu Chengbiao, a battalion commander, explained. 'We only studied the capabilities of older tanks, but have not completely understood new ones,' Zhao Jianxin, a second battalion commander, reportedly told CCTV."

Sounds like a good training program to me. It means they are pushing systems to their limit, discovering flaws in tactics, admitting failure and are actively looking to learn.

The worst training is when none of this happens, and you come away thinking like you're a hero, going through repetitions of what you already know...

 

[gongolongo]

I’m not sure if this is a troll question so I’ll answer earnestly.

Units that receive new equipment will train with new equipment. Troops operate Type-99A/A2 don’t train on Type-59s just to save a buck, because the controls/capabilities are largely incompatible. The article in question talks about a unit that has changed to using Type-99A from an older tank variant. Old habits die hard so they did not use the capabilities of the new vehicle properly.

Also keep in mind that if a mouthpiece like the Global Times has reported a problem on English language media, rest be assured that said problem has already been resolved. State media isn’t in the habit of exposing shortcomings to international audience.

Hopefully that answered your question.

Well doesn't the "aggressor" 195th brigade actually use the Type-59 to simulate Abrams? The 195th are also considered one of the best trained heavy divisions.

 

[lgnxz]

We rushed with the Type 099A too close to the frontline, which did not optimize the use of the tank's combat capability,

Based on his wording I assume that the tank got outmaneuvered and took damage either from the side or the back, which makes me think that the simulation isn't a tank vs tank scenario but rather tank vs armored infantry or light tank for example. The solution for this, as I said multiple times already in this thread, is to quickly install the active protection system against these kinds of scenario. Side armor in general doesn't do anything, pretty much all modern ammunitions against tank would pierce it if it's hit from there. This is still the only possible option yet it's still hasn't been implemented.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Side armor in general doesn't do anything

That's one hell of a statement, to be honest.
Side armor prevents instant destruction by the single most dangerous entity on the battlefield if anything. I.e. artillery fire, which in modern days all too often means 6" fire. That alone justifies significant steel thickness.

Side armor ensures certain freedom of maneuver in MBT action, by allowing to actually maneuver with some certainty: shots to the side at oblique angles are just as dangerous, as shots in the front armor itself, because both long rods and ATGMs tend to work even at very sharp angles. Furthermore, side armor ensures, that at least light AT weapons - the ones which can be present on any hostile trooper you encounter - won't get you killed.

And, above anything - protection against all of those vastly increases willingness of your crews to take risks, and willingness of commanders to act bolder.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Well doesn't the "aggressor" 195th brigade actually use the Type-59 to simulate Abrams? The 195th are also considered one of the best trained heavy divisions.

That was the case in 2014-2017. Since then they’ve been using Type-96A. In both cases they’ve tweaked the stats of the aggressor tank so that it could dish out and take more damage in a mock battle.

 

[Skye_ZTZ_113]

That was the case in 2014-2017. Since then they’ve been using Type-96A. In both cases they’ve tweaked the stats of the aggressor tank so that it could dish out and take more damage in a mock battle.

I heard the current status was that the 'blue' tanks could frontally kill a Type-99 in one shot but Type 99s need 2 frontal shots to get a kill? Probably overkill given the narrowing tech disparity but probably for the better in training.

 

[Sunbud]

I heard the current status was that the 'blue' tanks could frontally kill a Type-99 in one shot but Type 99s need 2 frontal shots to get a kill? Probably overkill given the narrowing tech disparity but probably for the better in training.

Yeah thats only a training parameter, both tanks would likely kill eachother in one frontal hit (99A would actually likely survive a frontal hit). But the PLA like training in a harsh-worst case scenario hence overmatching friendly forces with these parameters.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Yeah thats only a training parameter, both tanks would likely kill eachother in one frontal hit (99A would actually likely survive a frontal hit). But the PLA like training in a harsh-worst case scenario hence overmatching friendly forces with these parameters.

Since the blue force has access to tactical nukes and use them repeatedly I think you are onto something.

 

[silentlurker]

Yeah thats only a training parameter, both tanks would likely kill eachother in one frontal hit (99A would actually likely survive a frontal hit). But the PLA like training in a harsh-worst case scenario hence overmatching friendly forces with these parameters.

It doesn't make much sense to set an overly conservative estimate either though, it could lead to the development of strategies and tactics that are too defensive.

Also, if a tank can survive one frontal hit, won't it be able to survive many more than two? If the armor shatters or deflects a shell, only a small area around the target loses structural strength as the ceramic panels shatter and composites shred.