How good are these? Most tanks are either old (late-70s to 80s with iterative improvements) or produced in low numbers. I think this is the only post year 2000 tank with significant production (and it's a ton, like 1,600).
The specs seem quite good, 360 view, integrated AP, laser detection and countermeasure lasers, friend/foe detection, outranges other MBTs, fairly fast, data link, radar, laser comms, jammers, and impressive depth on the snorkel for river crossings.
Even older Russian tanks can handle Leo 2s so I think Chinese tanks are currently the best on the planet
$0.50
Imlessive
To be fair, if China unleashed their lathes against either Russia or Ukraine the war would be only. Nothing from this most recent war comes close to the carnage I've seen unleashed by these things.
Three Chinese lathes could punch a hole in either's fronts.
If Chinese death metal ever becomes a thing there needs to be a song called "Red sun on the factory floor" and the single cover would be a blood splatter with a liveleak logo in the corner.
Black Sabbath exists today because the guitarist lost the tip of his finger in an industrial accident
The Chinese metal scene is more or less dead due to rising real estate prices killing off small venues.
>Even older Russian tanks can handle Leo 2s
yeah after they run over a mine sure
China didn't put much resources into their grounds force, so dont have high expectations
Honestly pretty alright all things considered. The whole Soviet mentality went through the window with it, which is very acceptable. They're probably not as reliable or performing as NATO countries, but they're up there with their take on a more updated system.
> Type 59 better t55
> Type 79 shittier t62
> Type 80/88 awful, just awful
> Type 96 its k
> Type 99 probably equel to t90s
> type 99A definitely better in all regards than a t90M and maybe equal to leo2a6
source my ass, so you can trust my assessments.
Peru tested a Type 99 derivative against the T90M, M1A1 and Leopard 2A6 and a Leopard 2A4 Evo. Found the Type 99 indeed better than the T90M and Leopard 2A4 Evo. Abrams was the best by far with Leopard 2 being deemed a bit better. Peruvians wanted an autoloader so if they chose the Abrams it would have been fitted with a Meggitt autoloader. Leopard 2 was disqualified due to no autoloader option and the Abrams was deemed to expensive at $5 million per unit compared to $3 million for the Chinese tank. Peru claimed the tech on the Chinese tech as very close to weatern tech. IIRC Thailand found a similar result. Both also prefered Ukrainian stuff over Russian or Chinese but the Ukrainian tanks were disqualified due to inability to be produced in mass quantities quickly.
> Peru tested a Type 99 derivative
Nope. VT-x is related to the type 96.
They tested the VT-4.
I know. VT-anything is type 96 lineage.
The VT4 is a mish mash of Type 96 and Type 99 parts.
Not really, the VT-5 is the export version of the Type 15. Most notable difference being the driver position is in the middle, instead of the left side as the domestic one.
Bangladesh so far is the only operator.
Redpill me on the VT-4. From what I've heard, they seems to be an okayish tank.
Will very likely replace the T72 as the mainstay of thirdie tanks going forward. It's most similar to a discount Leclerc but with a Soviet style carousel autoloader. Optics are apparently excellent but armor is only up to part with 80s-90s western MBTs. Chinese really seem to be more interested in following German/US tank doctrine going forward so upgrades will probably reflect that. Supposedly it can be fitted with a Chinese produced 120mm smoothbore that is compatible with NATO standard rounds. Thailand likes them a lot. Venezuela may buy some too which would make it the first buyer of a Chinese tank in the western hemisphere.
Chinese explorations into heavier vehicles seems like it may have more to do with the export market. It's certainly true for their heavy IFVs. They have an excellent opportunity to supplant Russia and benefit from tech transfers, user feedback, and the funding for R&D and economies of scale that come with export.
I could see them going to a heavier MBT, but also keeping them light because they are so focused on drones and loitering munitions and really on the cutting edge of integrating them more fully into operations. Drones give you the ability to spot targets further away, which in turn opens up the possibility of a much higher % of engagements being direct fire. Their combination of heavy focus on rocket assisted artillery for range and lighter tanks would support a doctrine focused on more numerous, lighter tanks. Plus, it's by no means tiny and still solid for breakthroughs. They also have to worry about amphibious landings and narrow island roads and low cap bridges in many likely combat areas, or high mountains, or bad thirdy infrastructure with some potential adversaries. This cuts against going super heavy.
IDK, I think the weight issue will be settled by how well drones can spot given modern countermeasures and the cost benefit of more mature AP systems. Also their range, as dedicated vehicles or UGVs might make more sense.
What is China planning to use for a Taiwan/SEA colonization scenario? These tanks seem more useful for a bygone Sino Soviet conflict than a beach landing.
Historically China doesn't really colonize by force, but by "Sinicization". Basically they slowly replace local cultures with Han Chinese cultures. Usually by marrying their woman/men, building infrastructure that resembles more Han Chinese aesthetics etc...
This is happening in Xinjiang right now.
It happened all across the United States of America too.
What about the whole killing the natives though?
Why do you think your politicians even run with
>x% native american
Let me put it this way: it’s more than good enough for third world bush wars against legacy hardware, eastern or western.
>Peru
what makes them a credible authority for tank warfare?
USSR T80 - PRC Type 99 (More expensive, better)
USSR T-72 - Type 96/VT4 (Cheaper, export to whoever will buy from you)
Its not 1:1 but the comparison works
The real question is, when does China deploy 1,000 of these, along with the rest of their equipment (they have a frick ton of MLRS), 100 divisions worth, to Ukraine to decisively end the war? They're supposed to be Russia's ally and have better more modern shit and way more of it. Can't they pull a Russia in Syria move and save them?
It would be kino to see China go all in on Ukraine in a gamble to save their northern buffer zone. Could Ukraine stop them with enough western support?
You're utterly moronic. See history then frick all the way off because that post made /misc/ look sane and /b/ intelligent by comparison.
As long as Russia could keep the rail lines functioning, then I don’t see why China couldn’t go all in. I want to see masses of Chinese men, armor, and artillery going for Kiev with everything they have while Abrams and HIMARS do their best to stop them.
Hes right though, its would be objectively kino by all conceivable metrics. Why are you such a miserable asshurt homosexual?
They wouldn't but if they for some incomprehensible reason they did then it would be over for Ukraine.
You can't assume the same scale of leadership and tactical problems as Russia since they haven't had anywhere near the duration of strongman brain rot (the CCP after Mao was more an unstable "Five Good Emperors of Rome," type situation where one strong man stepped down after a few years and helped pick a competent successor based on qualifications and internal politics. Good might be qualified here, but they were generally competent enough. This is not the same thing as one strongman mob boss style rule decade after decade.
But even if it was the same, they'd have the benefit of Russian learning to date and an army that is massively larger, massively better funded, and with far more modern equipment.
If Russia itself had 600,000 fresh, actually fully trained men with modernized T-80s, IFVs, artillery, and MLRS, to throw in they could get huge break throughs. So think that but with better planning.
But China doesn't want that. They don't really want a strong nationalist Russia or Putin to be too successful. They want Putin weak enough that his chosen successor isn't a shoe in, they want to be able to throw in with and elevate one contender so that they hold sway over Russia more absolutely.
Only way they would fight is if there was a liberal revolt in Russia, then they would help "independence" movements for the Far East to prevent a potential EU border with China, a worst case scenario of liberalization.
>But China doesn't want that. They don't really want a strong nationalist Russia or Putin to be too successful.
Keep in mind as well that China already experienced the USSR collapsing and a much more U.S.-friendly regime in Russia compared to Putin, and China is comparatively stronger today, so while Putin completely going down in flames would probably be undesirable for them, I don't think it's as existential a threat as it's sometimes made out to be in the U.S. commentary.
>But even if it was the same, they'd have the benefit of Russian learning to date and an army that is massively larger, massively better funded, and with far more modern equipment.
I know television isn't actual R&D, but as much as I love Indian military shows with the holographic 'splosions going off inside the studio, the Chinese versions are much more technical and "scientific" with the aesthetic being like The Matrix including shows analyzing U.S. weapons (smart of them):
Also here's some more tanks:
Wish they had subs though.
>qt azn reporter driving all these military vehicles
My penis is erect.
qt reporters driving the vehicles and getting the wind knocked out of them is a trope on Chinese military TV. They know how to make it entertaining.
Also this... different health / safety standards:
?t=82
>They're supposed to be Russia's ally
They aren't. China is China's ally, and no one elses's. China also has jackshit for force projection, and Russian logistics can't handle Russian forces, let alone Chinese.
And lately Russia is bad for business. So beyond the ruble being worthless, and Russia having less than perfect credit, and ever decreasing foreign currency reserves, China still would be very cautious about selling or lend leasing them any good equipment. Why do you think Russian is using Persian drones and not Chinese?
>Russian is using Persian drones
extremely cheap loitering munition
>not Chinese
Russians have better different use case and expensive drones than anything Chinese have
>rifle is rifle
>tank is tank
>drone is not drone
X
The ZTZ-99A is probably their cream of the crop right now, with all you said, plus it has German engine and transmission, so it's mobility is on par with western tanks. Best of all, IT CAN FRICKING REVERSE!
My favorite Chink-tank is the Type 15, because they literally went out of their comfort zone (copying Soviet designs) and made something actually indigenous. It has the same eletronics as the 99A, but instead of a carrousell it uses a bustle autoloader, so no turret throwing with this one.
azn elon musk lookin ma faka
Xi Long Ma will make the first ever eletric MBT.
Is that Yi-Long Musk?
Also agree that the Type 15 is the most interesting Chinese tank. Probably their first totally indigenous concept with their own doctrine in mind. Their next MBT is supposed to be just an enlarged better armored variant. The ammo being in armored bustle automatically makes it better than Russian shit. The VN3 recon vehicle is also cool. Basically just shortened an 8x8 wheeled IFV and turned it into a 4x4 amphibious recon vehicle.
Xi Long Ma.
The next Chinese MBT, if they don't go full light tanks from now on, will be pretty much made with a western oriented design.
Now it will probably be really bulky, fat, bustle autoloader and Hardkill APS.
The ZTZ-99A itself it's already much bulkier than the normal ZTZ-99, due to more composites on the turret and upgraded FY-5 ERA.
Does the 99A2 have a bustle loader or is the added rear turret bulk just ERA? I know the Chinese figured out a major flaw in Soviet design was the shit reverse speed and the reason for the higher rear decks in newer Chinese tanks is due to gargantuan transmissions to facilitate more gear ratios front and back and fit a bigger German designed engine so it would make sense if they were already moving towards a bustle loader like the Leclerc or K2 have. It would be an expected design step since we now know the Type 15 has that. The rear is gigantic compared to older Chinese designs.
Nope, still the same carrousell as the T-72.
Although it's possible to install a bustle autoloader, but at this point it would be a waste of money and time.
>get a girl who looks at you like this chinaman looks at his autoloader
This tanker is felling "zhuāng jiǎ xǐ yuè" (装甲喜悦), which means "the serenity of knowing one will not be blown up if their ammo rack is penetrated".
No way that man hasn't fricked his tank.
Can't stop the man-machine love.
>Implessive
arent the russians using some of these now or north korean cho mahs?
It's an interesting tank, the armor is claimed to be on par with the west but I have doubts. I can't speak for the materials but judging from pic rel the arrays are not very thick (comparatively) and do not cover as much as western MBTs, the gun mantlet appears to be just steel and the turret sides as well but I could be incorrect. Given the weight is pretty light they seem to still be leaning into ERA protection similar to the Russians. Thick arrays like the Abrams/Challenger/Leopard are very bulky and heavy. Obviously ERA helps but I would place Chinese ERA about on par with kontakt-5 most likely. The autoloader is a carousel style one unfortunately.
Overall in terms of survivability I would say for dead on frontal strikes on the frontal turret it is likely superior to the Russia T-72/80 and possibly the T-90M as long as the mantlet isn't hit. Turret sides are very weak but that goes for the T-series as well however the way the composites are set up in the T-72/80/90 they probably provide better coverage from shots coming in from wider angles. Both have carousels which doesn't bode well for crew survivability and given the weight class I doubt the hull is much better protected than the turret, meaning it's again leaning on the ERA.
Looks cool, is better situational in terms of protection, I can't speak for electronics quality, KEP ammo may be lagging behind both Russia and the West.
>t's an interesting tank, the armor is claimed to be on par with the west but I have doubts
you can usually assume that for mature techologies the enemy can easily get to the same ballpark
modern composite armor wouldnt be too hard to understand, its mostly just NERA and steel
the chinese could get up to the same standard as the export version of the M1A2 very easily
DU isnt used by any country other than the US, but it would be possible for other countries to copy it even without reverse engineering, because theres only so many ways you can turn DU into proper armor
so you can assume that the mass-efficiency of enemy tanks is on par with your own, unless they choose some radically different material like ceramics, which would be unlikely
Mostly true, I'm mostly going off of array thickness. IIRC M1A2 is supposed to be 900ish mm thick for the frontal turret, the SEPV3 using the new M designated armor package increased it around 100mm or so. I can't give an exact estimate based of the photo without the composite modules, but I'd ballpark it maybe 350-450mm LOS. It's not bad when you add in ERA but segmented penetrators with those breakaway tips might complicate effective defense relying on the ERA.
Also we all assume it's still just spaced plates and steel and a lot of tanks are pretty old and still likely relying similar arrays to what they started with but who knows wtf is in modern composites tbh. Abrams has gone through 6 different iterations of arrays to my knowledge and the only thing declassified was the original M1 array and the turret front was still omitted lol.
From what I understand, Chinese electronics and data intergration absolutely BTFOs anything Russia has and is on a different level. This might not hold for the tanks, which is low priority, but I've heard the AA is far more sophisticated, same for the sensor suites on ships.
South Korea looked at buying the S300 years back and determined they were far beyond what Russia could build even though they were new to long range missiles so just bought the tech for the actual rockets and developed a Frankenstein half Korean half Russian KM-SAM and are working on a longer range L-SAM which will likely be like 90% Korean designed. It wouldn't surprise me of China is on the exact same trajectory.
Probably ahead if anything. They have a development on another level from anyone but the US, and also get a lot from industrial espionage (the entire F-35 program leaking to them made their FC-31 clone possible) as well as private sector tech transfers (Boeing and Airbus stupidly agreed to do tech transfers as a cost of producing jets in China and now, what do you know, China launched a rival competitor that is, according to their messaging to shareholders, a real threat).
But China also has very different priorities than the US, knowing that it lags behind in many areas. It hasn't fallen into the Russian problem of wanting to compete on the same exact things. So, knowing they can't beat the US in the sky, they've really put a ton into air defense systems of all types, including missile defense, that are by most accounts quite sophisticated. Even their first Fifth Gen isn't designed to challenge the F-22 despite being an "air superiority fighter," but is very much based around leveraging the fact that China expects to play on its own turf against carrier and long range threats, with land based assets and small missile boats ready to leverage sensor data.
Which is all to say, I don't see them putting much into tanks near term unfortunately, unless they can corner the Russian export market. Selling the export version of their F-35 clone is more promising, but the US will probably lean hard on potential customers, leaving just Iran at first with money and a need, maybe some LA states. I could see Pakistan as the F-16s age, or even Russia. I doubt they'd risk selling them to India.
Ships and subs are were the real money is, but they are harder to compare since they work so much in context.
>So, knowing they can't beat the US in the sky, they've really put a ton into air defense systems of all types, including missile defense, that are by most accounts quite sophisticated.
Wasn't the Soviet and Russia doing exactly that, just that now we know thanks to corruption and alcoholism, Russian air defense systems may be only half what they advertised?
Death traps until the turret and Cannon are reworked
you can get most of that on a moderately modified 2010s land cruiser with a DJI strapped to the roof, but I guess for a military contract that makes it breddy gud
same garbage as russia t80/t90
>the front wheel fell off
What is my crime? Disjoining a wheel? A suspended Chinese wheel?
underrated
To be fair, the type 96 it's a fricked wheel managed to win Tank Biathlon, truly implessive.
The 99 looks and feels like what the t-90 should have been like.
wasnt there a video where their guns were shaking around like crazy? so they probably don't have gun stabs
You’re moronic.
>post year 2000 tank
It's a fricking t-72 with a body kit.
you're a fricking moron with no redeeming value.
you're not wrong
Knowing chink quality it's probably trash with even more egregious claims than what vatBlack folk claimed for their own
That tank will end up killing more Chinese than the other Type 99 from the Sino-Japanese War could ever dream of.
war thunder told me they're the best of the best, and nothing comes close
I prefer the WZ1001, dart has more velocity due to the L54 pipe.
I wonder what happened with that prototype with the 140mm cannon.
doesn't exist
The cannon does exist, the tank was supposedly called ZTZ-99KM.
>ITT