Do you have any basis for this assertion?
This is where you should "very much doubt".
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Simply from common sense and observation of PLA tank doctrine.
Do we really think PLA tanks numbering in their thousands designed to be used in mass sweeping attacks will have the exact same design specifications as NATO tanks and doctrine?
For one clearly observable fact, PLA tanks do not use much side armour at all. pretty much anything anti-tank will penetrate PLA MBT side armour. It is literally about 10cm thick at an absolute maximum for the heavier ones like 99A. Compensated with very capable ERA for sure but this is revealing of their requirement specs and doctrine.
I admit I'm carrying this over to powertrain but my assumption there is based on the price and production rate of 96A and 99A (as the only two PLA used MBTs). You simply cannot have the same requirement specs for a fifth of the price and produced at a rate that is many, many times greater than any other existing production line. I'm sorry but a Type 10 at let's say 20 units per year and $8M each for Japanese themselves is simply going to have higher specs and requirements than a Type 96 at $1M each and 200 units produced a year. Even if we account for differences in value, purchasing power of the currency, efficiency and scale of workforce and production facilities.
With any assumed relative "deficiency" in engine lifespan, it isn't a matter of engineering or industrial capability. This stuff is easy and was easy 10 years ago for Chinese industry. The reason for any difference in lifespan is going to be due to design specifications that come from client's requirements, in this case PLA where they want xyz product for $1M each and at an acquisition rate of let's say 200 a year for example. To meet these, the suppliers give them abc conditions and they both agree on xyz product with such and such requirements out of the design and subsystems. This would also include things like how many times the barrel can fire a particular type of shot before needing replacement.
If I recall correctly, T-90IIM was evaluated by Pakistan in its stock configuration, but due to the performance issues they opted to install the 6TD-2 which they already had experience with when they purchased T-80. This new configuration was rechristened MBT-2000.
Actually I just saw that most of this stuff is in wiki as well, so it’s not that obscure…
I didn’t mention VT-4 at all, but maybe you are misunderstanding my last point which is that current Chinese tanks are operating fine. The implication was that the current generation of tanks are fully domestic and that the power trains are satisfactory.
Tank warfare has historically been about numbers rather than the highest performance of an individual tank
You should be able to field at least 3x Type-96 from China for the cost of 1x Type 10 from Japan
All things being equal, that larger Type-96 force would be far superior in terms of overall firepower and mobility
In the past, the same logic was applied by the Warsaw Pact for tank operations against NATO
And going forward, we're moving to a land doctrine with larger numbers of smaller/cheaper platforms which are networked
Again, this favours a Type-96 platform over a Type 10
Yes and no. In most cases yes. In case of killing other tanks in a peer battle quality matters. So if a country that is not reliant on tank but need to deal with enemy tanks would aim for quality, which is what west did.
Not exactly. During the Gulf War, the Iraqis had a ton of T-72’s and other older tanks while the US and its allies were fielding Abrams, M60’s, Challengers and other types of tanks. The M1A1’s superior cannon and optics allowed US tankers to shoot from a safe distance while the Iraqi tanks can only drive around helplessly as they got sniped. During the Yom Kippur and Six Day war, the Israelis’ tank force were vastly outnumbered by Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian tanks, but they were able to shred them into pieces.
It was the other way around during Yom Kippur. The IDF was getting thoroughly trashed and what allowed them to turn the war around was Syrian terrible logistics and lack of proper preparation.
A number of issues
1. Iraqi T-72s faced an environment where they had lost control of the air. If the air situation was merely contested, then the Iraqi tank formations could have manoeuvred and also achieved overwhelming local superiority in numbers. I say "could" because that assumes similar levels of local unit tactical competence and datalinks
2. The T-72s did score many more hits on Abrahms. But the Abrahms had explosive reactive armour whilst the T-72s didn't. That's not an issue with Chinese tanks like the Type-96
3. The Type-96 optics and cannon should be equal to Type-99 or Abrahms. Where it will probably be worse is in specification of its laser rangefinders, IR imagers and stabilised shooting whilst on the move, defenses, etc etc
4. Chinese tanks aren't going to end up in a desert war where long-range sniping is possible. If anything, you're looking at urban scenarios in Korea or Taiwan
5. In any case, China also fields a heavier and higher specification tank in the Type-99. It's the Type-99 that will be expected to conduct heavy combat duty. The larger numbers of Type-96 can follow, by concentrating to create weak spots or exploiting breakthroughs
6. Alternatively, the Type-96s could be used to conduct frontal attacks to create breakthroughs and attack in conditions of their choosing, where their lower specifications don't matter eg. a close quarters, utilising the terrain and during the day. Plus wouldn't need side armour and they would be faster than the heavier Type-99s. Both the Type-96 and Type-99 have a similar frontal armour of 1000mm RHA
Last edited:
Not sure M1 either then or now uses ERA. I think it just had very strong Chobham-type passive armour, in some cases reinforced with depleted uranium Heavy Armor Package.
Wasn't the problem with Iraqi tanks their ammo? Soviets sold some downgraded export version with steel penetrator to them, pretty unsurprising that those T-72 can't pen M1s armor. In terms of firepower the PLA tanks shouldn't have any issues. Gen 3 rounds should be available to all guns now.