broadsword
Brigadier
See the height from the waterline to the edge of the craft. I believe it can take two 60t mbt or 140t.
Total numbers of Chinese landing ship fleet?
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
See the height from the waterline to the edge of the craft. I believe it can take two 60t mbt or 140t.
How can the LCU carry two 60t MBTs when it is no larger than a MSV-L or a EDA-S by dimensions?
What about the LCU's waterline suggests to you that it can carry two 60t MBTs or a 140t payload?
Because the LCU's width and length certainly are not suggestive of a 140t payload vessel, and more consistent with a 60-80t payload vessel.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Well buoyancy depend on the draught and on the length and width. But actually my comment meant for 2 battle tank. I am too lazy to measure the draught of this new LCU So you can proof me wrong if you can measure the draught? Granted there limit how deep is your draught. But increasing it to 1.5 m is possible
Here is spec on MSV
The overall length of the MSV(L) will be 35.6m, while its moulded beam and draught will be 8.6m and 1.2m respectively and payload capacity will be 82t.
Last edited:
broadsword
Brigadier
Do you have their dimensions for comparison?
If you meant two ZTQ-15s, then that is fine, it's just a mistake, because they are considered to be "light tanks" and not "MBTs"/main battle tanks.
People can only respond to what you write, and the idea of this LCU carrying two MBTs certainly doesn't pass the smell test so it's reasonable for people to challenge you on this claim.
First of all, you should be the one providing the numbers here because you are the one making the strange claim to believe that this new LCU can carry two 60t MBTs or 140t in payload.
But, for the sake of discussion, and to demonstrate a point, sure, I will provide the numbers.
MSV-L: length 35.6m, width 8.6m, max payload 82t. Draft of 1.2m
EDA-S: length 28.8m, width 6.7, max payload 80t. Draft of 1.2m
For the new LCU, we can estimate based on pictures that its beam is likely 8-9m wide (next to a 072 LST):
Based on that beam, and based on other images such as below, we can estimate a length to width ratio of about 3.8.
Let's be generous and assume the beam is 9m rather than 8m.
That takes us to 3.8 x 9m = 34.2m.
Or alternatively, about 34m long and 8-9m wide, which is right in the ballpark of MSV-L and EDA-S (and even that length is likely a slight overrestimate)
====
Compare that to other LCUs with payloads of 140t or more:
The Russian Dyugon LCU has a 140t max payload, and it has a length of 45m and a beam of 8.6m -- a length that is almost 50% longer than MSV-L or the Chinese LCU (and more than 50% longer than EDA-S)... and a draft of 1.9m
The USN's LCU1610 family has a 140t max payload and it also has a length of 41m and a beam of 9.1m (and that's using a much older, slower hullform as well)... and a draft of 1.8m
The idea that the new Chinese LCU has a significantly larger payload -- 140t !! -- in such a smaller footprint and length is very very difficult to entertain.
It's impossible for us to measure the draft of the new LCU, because even though there are water markings on the side of the hull, they are not necessarily indicative of the ship's actual intended normal operational draft depending on what sort of payload size it is meant to carry.
However, as a LCU and landing craft, it is designed to navigate shallow waters to get to the beach in the same way that its similarly sized small LCUs are designed to.
Which is to say -- for a ship of its length, it is still much shorter than the equivalent of other LCUs shown above that are actually able to carry 140t in payload.
This thing is just too small to be able to carry two main battle tanks -- and that's fine.
This isn't designed to carry two MBTs -- it is an equivalent to MSV-L and EDA-S, not a big LCU like Dyugon or LCU1610/LCU1700.
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Well it could be Type 96 Tank which is around 40 ton so total 80 ton. I considered it to be main battle tank as they are used by Chinese navy! Again I repeat this is forum and not Phd dissertation we used ball park number and no need to do research It is plausible to carry 2 Type 96 tank even if it pushing it to the limit. So no need to nitpick every post I guess it give satisfaction to some people to find fault in other people posting to show their knowledge, pathetic
Just because the US make 82 ton LCU does not mean China should make the same LCU we don't know the exact dimension of Chinese LCU specially the draught!
Last edited:
This is a forum where we try to be more specific and to avoid exaggeration and confusion. This isn't Reddit.
When people correct each other and challenge each other on SDF, it isn't because they are trying to outsmart each other for the sake of it, but rather it's because we want to actually make educated, reasonable guesses and estimates and claims.
By definition, it means that we must be receptive to criticism and corrections from others and to be able to entertain debates with one another.
It doesn't mean every single criticism or correction is a personal attack.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
So what is wrong we my GUESS it can carry 2 main battle tank type 96 because that is the one that is used by Chinese marine and not type 99. They are the one that does not know that Chinese marine never use type 99 tank! So who is ignorant here!
I don't make outlandish post of claim It is within the boundary of plausibility! So comparison to REddit is uncalled for
I don't make outlandish post of claim It is within the boundary of plausibility! So comparison to REddit is uncalled for
In that case, when by78 asked the question on the last page...
Total numbers of Chinese landing ship fleet?
When talking about ships and craft for landing, usually people count only the big stuff. And concentrate on PLAN. But PLA also has a sizable fleet of small landing ships, and even PLAAF for some reason has some ships. Is there a source which tries to list them in detail? I am particularly...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
... why didn't you choose to clarify your position and explain you meant carrying two ZTZ96s with a lower weight and that you believed it might be doable in a 80t payload capacity?
Because most people who read "MBT" and "PLA" will automatically think of ZTZ99/As instead of ZTZ96/A, especially in context of using "MBT" as a benchmark for a carrying capacity/payload.
This entire episode could have been avoided with a simple answer of "I meant two ZTZ96 MBTs, which would amount to just over 80t of payload, which is reasonable given the dimensions of this LCU compared with other contemporaries".
This is why I'm saying to not take every criticism and challenge as if it's a personal attack.
If you think you have a reasonable basis for your claim, then please take the time to write a few paragraphs to calmly explain and defend your position.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I do posting for fun and I hate people who nitpick every post. And they assume wrongly I mean type 99 They should know that Chinese marine use type 96 as their main battle tank! Forum is to learn and not to nitpick. If you think the post is not to your liking just ignore it. There are ton of outlandish post in this forum It is not my job or liking to correct every single one! I don't derive satisfaction doing it
Last edited: