New Type98/99 MBT thread

[gelgoog]

China needs two kinds of tanks. Heavy tanks for the north and light tanks for the south. So you get the current distribution. The light tank design had fallen way behind, and that border is more unstable, so you got the Type 15. The northern border is pretty much safe, so this explains why no rush to upgrade the heavy tanks. The Type 96 had several upgrades though, even had some export success as VT-4 to Pakistan and Thailand.

I would design a new tank with 130mm gun featuring an autoloader. Gun and ammo could likely be adapted from naval rounds. Crew would be located in the hull with a robotic turret like in the Armata.

 

[TK3600]

China needs two kinds of tanks. Heavy tanks for the north and light tanks for the south. So you get the current distribution. The light tank design had fallen way behind, and that border is more unstable, so you got the Type 15. The northern border is pretty much safe, so this explains why no rush to upgrade the heavy tanks. The Type 96 had several upgrades though, even had some export success as VT-4 to Pakistan and Thailand.

I would design a new tank with 130mm gun featuring an autoloader. Gun and ammo could likely be adapted from naval rounds. Crew would be located in the hull with a robotic turret like in the Armata.

Naval guns and ammo are too different for tanks to adopt.

 

[DDG181]

The Type 96 had several upgrades though, even had some export success as VT-4 to Pakistan and Thailand.

No, VT4 is derived from Type 99, and VT-2 is from Type 96, which exported to Africa.

 

[Phead128]

China needs two kinds of tanks. Heavy tanks for the north and light tanks for the south. So you get the current distribution. The light tank design had fallen way behind, and that border is more unstable, so you got the Type 15. The northern border is pretty much safe, so this explains why no rush to upgrade the heavy tanks. The Type 96 had several upgrades though, even had some export success as VT-4 to Pakistan and Thailand.

I would design a new tank with 130mm gun featuring an autoloader. Gun and ammo could likely be adapted from naval rounds. Crew would be located in the hull with a robotic turret like in the Armata.

Are heavy tanks optimized for Korean peninsula, or do you need light tanks to navigate the hills/mountains?

 

[Hitomi]

I would design a new tank with 130mm gun featuring an autoloader. Gun and ammo could likely be adapted from naval rounds. Crew would be located in the hull with a robotic turret like in the Armata.

Yet no modern armed force shares their army and navy artillery calibers or are attempting to beyond the Russians with their 130mm on the IS-7 and the Royal Navy with their 155mm (now cancelled) IIRC, even the Zumwalt AGS has to use rounds specifically developed for it.

There must be something beyond simply ammunition logistics and standardizing the barrel manufacture.

 

[SAC]

OK. 130mm is not a new calibre for the PLA GF. They have fielded this calibre as an artillery piece for many years. This would not be too difficult for the PLA to develop into a tank gun, should they choose to do it. It would also not be inconsistent with European thinking on MBT armament, which is looking at 130mm guns. This has been discussed on "the Tube" where you can look at it in some detail, including possibilities for the PLA's future MBT. Oh, and Western countries have 5in" (127mm) guns on ships, yet have produced 130mm guns for tanks.

 

[Staedler]

Are heavy tanks optimized for Korean peninsula, or do you need light tanks to navigate the hills/mountains?

IIRC during the Korean War, it was mostly power-to-weight ratios that mattered. There was a lot of hill/mountain climbing so higher ratios meant better felt mobility and higher engine reliability (less stress). Of course there are the usual bridge crossing restrictions.

Shermans were 33.7t with 11.0 PSI and 13.3 hp/tonne.
Pershings were 41.9t with 12.5 PSI and 10.7 hp/tonne.
Pattons were ~44t with 14 PSI and 16 hp/tonne.

The Sherman and Patton were regarded as fine, but the Pershing were disliked for their sluggishness and frequent engine breakdowns. So I surmise the Korean landscape wasn't very demanding on ground pressure and pretty forgiving on power-to-weight ratios per modern times.

At the very least, the heavy tanks used by the East Asian powers have pretty good power-to-weight ratios and don't exceed the Patton's weight by much. K2 Panther, ZTZ99, and Type 10 are all high 40s to mid 50s in weight with ~27 hp/tonne. It's only Western heavy tanks (~22 hp/tonne) and ZTZ96A (~18 hp/tonne) that might have issues but those are unlikely to be involved anyways.

The terrain height isn't as restrictive as in the Himalayas so I don't see the need for light tanks ala ZTQ-15, but perhaps the increased mobility will be that decisive for the next war. It's not like technology and the way to conduct offensives has stood still since then after all.

In short, I think heavy tanks are fine for the peninsula.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Et Tu, WarThunder (again), then fall 140mm smoothbore!

 

[Inque]

OK. 130mm is not a new calibre for the PLA GF. They have fielded this calibre as an artillery piece for many years. This would not be too difficult for the PLA to develop into a tank gun, should they choose to do it. It would also not be inconsistent with European thinking on MBT armament, which is looking at 130mm guns. This has been discussed on "the Tube" where you can look at it in some detail, including possibilities for the PLA's future MBT. Oh, and Western countries have 5in" (127mm) guns on ships, yet have produced 130mm guns for tanks.

No tank in service uses anything above 125mm. That 5/10mm increase to 130mm actually takes a lot of engineering to solve, otherwise tanks like the KF51 would be widespread.

 

[gelgoog]

It is more about legacy and logistics. Like what will you do with all your older ammo stocks. Than it being particularly hard to do.
China already has 105mm bustle autoloader from Type 15. It is "just" a matter of scaling it up.