New Type98/99 MBT thread

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Its more that if NATO attacks China, China can attack NATO through Russia. Tanks help in that regard. Also, tanks can assist in the defense of Taiwan in the event of an American invasion.

So, in the event of a NATO attack - rather than concentrating on destroying NATO's offensive capability, China should send tanks thousands of miles across Siberia and attack Europe, while maintaining and defending supply lines capable of upkeeping heavy tank brigades across the aforementioned thousands of miles of Siberian tundra? And in Taiwan, China should just let the adversary land marines and fight them back with tanks, rather than destroying the landing force while it is still a thousand miles away? And in the case China loses control of the waters around Taiwan: how do you expect the tanks defending Taiwan to be resupplied?

I'm not saying China should not pursue tank R&D - just in terms of prioritization, there are more important projects that should be allocated a relatively greater portion of available funding and resources. There is also no rush for China to rush out a new tank design, hence the rumored decision to go for a revolutionary rather than evolutionary design that you mentioned. China has plenty of time to conduct R&D on individual subsystems while taking time to determine exactly what role the future tank should play in China's defense doctrine and what capabilities should be most prioritized. My gut feeling is that mobility and reliability will be top priorities along with automation and greater network integration with other platforms.

 

[SAC]

I would say they will try to stay near 60t, but that is not based on any statements from the PLA, just my personal assessment.

Right now, China has a new type of tank far in the development pipeline. It's just not done yet.

So tanks are fairly if not very important to the PLA, otherwise they would not choose a revolutionary design, only add incremental updates to the Type 99A, like Germany does with the Leopard 2 for example.

China would need to deploy tanks in a counterattack against south Korea, should they engage in hostility. India is another target. There is also a slim but existing chance that NATO could be aggressive, and China does share an indirect land border with them through Russia.

Staying ahead of NATO in tank design is a priority for the PLA.

Due to ease of transport and the wide range of terrain they can be used on, China's tanks will tend towards the 65t range rather than 70t+, but that doesn't mean it won't be a revolutionary design.

 

[Inque]

Air and naval are important, but I don't see any reason why China also shouldn't stay ahead of the curve in tank design, rather than settling for the same older 1990s designs as everyone else. Especially now that some countries are building newer designs. And I'm sure the PLA agrees with me, since they're funding the development of the new 2 manned heavy tank.

China doesn't need the best tank in the world and wouldn't even benefit very much if they had it, but I wouldn't worry about them falling too far behind other nations' tank designs. The PLA's tank improvements are slow but not stagnant.

 

[Biscuits]

China doesn't need the best tank in the world and wouldn't even benefit very much if they had it, but I wouldn't worry about them falling too far behind other nations' tank designs. The PLA's tank improvements are slow but not stagnant.

Tanks in general are not that great, but they work within their role.

The new tank is the exact opposite of a slow/incremental improvement. So it's clear that China is committed to pushing the boundaries of tank design, it's just that the design in question isn't ready quite yet.

 

[Inque]

Tanks in general are not that great, but they work within their role.

The new tank is the exact opposite of a slow/incremental improvement. So it's clear that China is committed to pushing the boundaries of tank design, it's just that the design in question isn't ready quite yet.

Is there anything written on this new tank?

 

[Biscuits]

Is there anything written on this new tank?

The only photo so far only shows parts of the chassi:

There's also from CGTN almost a year ago:

However, their photo shows almost nothing.

The only confirmed details are 2-3 crew and APS. But given this has been developed for awhile and China's existing experience with armored vehicles, the departure into a radically new design warrants significant anticipation imho.

 

[Hitomi]

The only photo so far only shows parts of the chassi:
View attachment 118385
There's also from CGTN almost a year ago:
View attachment 118386
However, their photo shows almost nothing.

The only confirmed details are 2-3 crew and APS. But given this has been developed for awhile and China's existing experience with armored vehicles, the departure into a radically new design warrants significant anticipation imho.

Wasn't there also rumours they are moving to a bustle loader based on the one in the ZTQ-15?

 

[SAC]

Wasn't there also rumours they are moving to a bustle loader based on the one in the ZTQ-15?

This is something I have commented on before. I think it is a real possibility.

 

[Inque]

Hopefully it'll have blowout panels, too.

 

[DDG181]

You seem to be forgetting the Korean peninsula. RoK K2 is probably the best MBT on the market right now and certainly seems to be selling well.

There are several heavy armor brigades with ZTZ-99 in the northern theater countering K2.
Just look at all these destroyed Ukrainian Leopard 2, is it necessary for all these fancy designs to exist? Air superiority is way more important than comparing ZTZ-99 and K2.
And if it becomes a total war, then tanks are consumables. Tanks like Leopard 2 or K2 are too fancy and expensive, they are not practical at all when it comes to mass production. I perfer 10 brigades of ZTZ-96/ZBD-08/ZTL-11 than one brigade of Leopard 2 or K2.

By the way, I don't see how revolutionary the K2 is compared to ZTZ-99.