Jump to content


Photo

Chinese Type 99 MBT


  • Please log in to reply
594 replies to this topic

#561 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 May 2017 - 0221 AM

I imagine SPAAG's are going to make a come back as militaries wrestle with how to best defeat drones and micro drones. Probably going to see combo SPAAG / Missile / ECM platforms. 

 

Drones can fly between trees and buildings, even inside buildings. Dedicated vehciles would too rarely be in a position to intercept.

I rather expect RCWS (remote controlled weapon stations) with 5.56 to 20 mm calibre gun and a +90°/-15° x 360° field of fire with 24/7 useful sensor and laser rangefinder.

The 12.7 to 20 mm guns would also be relevant against helicopters.

 

Software-based radios CAN be programmed to serve as jammers. Vehicle-mounted radars could thus be linked to a simple (Yagi) directional antenna mounted on the RCWS and directed at drones. This antenna could jam (particularly if several vehicles are doing this at the same time) the radio downlink of the drone IF the drone's radio link is covered by the range of bandwidths of the vehicle radios.

 

Cheap missiles like RBS-23 (likely too simple to defeat  high end combat aircraft) can serve as battleield ShoRAD against expensive munitions (cruise missiles, ATACMS-like missiles, drones above 5,000 ft)), while expensive missiles (vertically launched air combat missile derivatives such as AIM-120, Meteor, MICA, IRIS-T SL etc) may serve as air defence against high end platforms.

 

At the lowest end small arms (possibly including shotguns) and nets (particularly for bivouac) may serve as defence againt sparrow bird-sized micro drones.

Autonomous small bird-like drones with EFP warhead and days of endurance could become a terrible threat to the troops (and the tires + other exposed important components of vehicles).



#562 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 14 May 2017 - 0120 AM

Training that included parachuting a few ZBD03s

 

zbd03o1.jpg

 

More in spoiler

Spoiler


#563 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 14 May 2017 - 0122 AM

Continued..

 

zbd03o10.jpg

more in spoiler

Spoiler

http://slide.mil.new..._50724.html#p=6



#564 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 14 June 2017 - 1012 AM

lhasa01.jpg

More in spoiler

Spoiler

lhasa02.jpg

 

lhasa03.jpg

 

The last two said to be from Lhasa,Tibet.

lhasa06.jpg

 

lhasa07.jpg



#565 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 14 June 2017 - 1137 AM

Nice looking vehicle.  I'm not too sure of what to make from the results of a Google search on the ZBD-03 which came up with "The ZBD-03 is derived from the BMD-3", is there any truth to that?  

 

The Russian airforce still uses the venerable IL-76 to ferry around BMD's among others, what kind of transport aircraft does the PLAAF use for the same purpose?



#566 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 14 June 2017 - 1148 AM

Nice looking vehicle.  I'm not too sure of what to make from the results of a Google search on the ZBD-03 which came up with "The ZBD-03 is derived from the BMD-3", is there any truth to that?  

 

The Russian airforce still uses the venerable IL-76 to ferry around BMD's among others, what kind of transport aircraft does the PLAAF use for the same purpose?

 

I can't say much for the ZBD-03.

 

They have 17 or so Il-76s but they recently developed their own version called the Y-20.



#567 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 14 June 2017 - 1326 PM

I can't say much for the ZBD-03.

 

They have 17 or so Il-76s but they recently developed their own version called the Y-20.

 

 

 

Thanks JasonJ, that Y-20 aircraft looks quite the business!



#568 nemo

nemo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2017 - 1839 PM

Nice looking vehicle.  I'm not too sure of what to make from the results of a Google search on the ZBD-03 which came up with "The ZBD-03 is derived from the BMD-3", is there any truth to that?  

 

 

No. While there may be some subsystems that are copied (e.g. air drop/landing system), the ZBD-03 is definitely not a copy. For one thing,  ZBD-03 is front engine with door in the back, while BMD series is rear engine with hatches at top.


Edited by nemo, 17 June 2017 - 0015 AM.


#569 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 19 June 2017 - 1144 AM

lt01.jpg

 

tank01.jpg


Edited by JasonJ, 19 June 2017 - 1145 AM.


#570 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,881 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 August 2017 - 2125 PM

Impressive video of the parade celebrating the 90th anniversary of the PLA...it's a long video, so you might want to start at about 30:30...

 



#571 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,881 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 August 2017 - 2213 PM

Here are two grabs from a pretty good Norinco promotional video showing both the VT-4 and the VT-5 live-firing on the range. The VT-4 hit the target panel but missed the tank image. The VT-5 did better, hitting pretty much on the turret ring of the tank image painted on the target panel...

VT-4%20Firing%20Demo_Miss_Armor%20Anti-A

VT-5%20Firing%20Demo_Hit_Armor%20Anti-Ar

#572 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0045 AM

The VT-5 is a strange project. It is to heavy to be air mobile and lacks the firepower to engage modern armor. I think a missile/cannon combo would make more sense, even more so if the cannon has some AA capability. The armor is also going to fall into the middle ground where it is more than enough to stop cannon but not enough to stop many dedicated AT weapons.


Edited by KV7, 21 August 2017 - 2111 PM.


#573 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0126 AM

The VT-5 is a strange project. It is too heavy too be air mobile and lacks the firepower to engage modern armor. I think a missile/cannon combo would make more sense, even more so if the cannon has some AA capability. The armor is also going to fall into the middle ground where it is more than enough to stop cannon but not enough to stop many dedicated AT weapons.


It's main purpose seems to be for the export market. So in that case it is probably meant for a certain niche within the AFV market. Maybe it's targeting customers that are mostly still using T-55s and are still too poor to afford anything like a T-90S.

#574 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0133 AM

 

The VT-5 is a strange project. It is too heavy too be air mobile and lacks the firepower to engage modern armor. I think a missile/cannon combo would make more sense, even more so if the cannon has some AA capability. The armor is also going to fall into the middle ground where it is more than enough to stop cannon but not enough to stop many dedicated AT weapons.


It's main purpose seems to be for the export market. So in that case it is probably meant for a certain niche within the AFV market. Maybe it's targeting customers that are mostly still using T-55s and are still too poor to afford anything like a T-90S.

 

I don't think it will be cheaper than a Type 85-IIA (as exported to Pakistan) or much cheaper than a Type 96 even and they at least have a gun that is a serious threat to any armor with modern ammunition.


Edited by KV7, 21 August 2017 - 0136 AM.


#575 nemo

nemo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0159 AM

The VT-5 is a strange project. It is too heavy too be air mobile and lacks the firepower to engage modern armor. I think a missile/cannon combo would make more sense, even more so if the cannon has some AA capability. The armor is also going to fall into the middle ground where it is more than enough to stop cannon but not enough to stop many dedicated AT weapons.

 

China developed the light tank VT-5 is based from for it's military requirement -- operating in the rice paddy of the Southern China and mountains of Tibet.  Whether it fits the requirement of the potential customers is another matter.



#576 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0215 AM

 

The VT-5 is a strange project. It is too heavy too be air mobile and lacks the firepower to engage modern armor. I think a missile/cannon combo would make more sense, even more so if the cannon has some AA capability. The armor is also going to fall into the middle ground where it is more than enough to stop cannon but not enough to stop many dedicated AT weapons.

 

China developed the light tank VT-5 is based from for it's military requirement -- operating in the rice paddy of the Southern China and mountains of Tibet.  Whether it fits the requirement of the potential customers is another matter.

 

If that is the case why not put the 125mm gun in it.



#577 nemo

nemo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0238 AM

 

 

The VT-5 is a strange project. It is too heavy too be air mobile and lacks the firepower to engage modern armor. I think a missile/cannon combo would make more sense, even more so if the cannon has some AA capability. The armor is also going to fall into the middle ground where it is more than enough to stop cannon but not enough to stop many dedicated AT weapons.

 

China developed the light tank VT-5 is based from for it's military requirement -- operating in the rice paddy of the Southern China and mountains of Tibet.  Whether it fits the requirement of the potential customers is another matter.

 

If that is the case why not put the 125mm gun in it.

 

Weight. There got to be trade-offs.



#578 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0306 AM


 


 


The VT-5 is a strange project. It is too heavy too be air mobile and lacks the firepower to engage modern armor. I think a missile/cannon combo would make more sense, even more so if the cannon has some AA capability. The armor is also going to fall into the middle ground where it is more than enough to stop cannon but not enough to stop many dedicated AT weapons.

 
China developed the light tank VT-5 is based from for it's military requirement -- operating in the rice paddy of the Southern China and mountains of Tibet.  Whether it fits the requirement of the potential customers is another matter.
 
If that is the case why not put the 125mm gun in it.
 
Weight. There got to be trade-offs.
2S25 doesn't suffer great weight wielding full power 125mm cannon. Difference if armor is minimal: both will be destroyed with first AT weapon they face.

#579 nemo

nemo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2017 - 0344 AM

 

 

 

 

The VT-5 is a strange project. It is too heavy too be air mobile and lacks the firepower to engage modern armor. I think a missile/cannon combo would make more sense, even more so if the cannon has some AA capability. The armor is also going to fall into the middle ground where it is more than enough to stop cannon but not enough to stop many dedicated AT weapons.

 
China developed the light tank VT-5 is based from for it's military requirement -- operating in the rice paddy of the Southern China and mountains of Tibet.  Whether it fits the requirement of the potential customers is another matter.
 
If that is the case why not put the 125mm gun in it.
 
Weight. There got to be trade-offs.
2S25 doesn't suffer great weight wielding full power 125mm cannon. Difference if armor is minimal: both will be destroyed with first AT weapon they face.

 

 

You are presuming Chinese and Russian are interchangeable.  They are not.  China and USSR fought a short border conflict in which China captured a T-62. Subsequent testing found their anti-armor capability is insufficient, so they spend a lot of R&D on anti-tank gun.  However, unlike the West, China focused on making stronger guns instead of better rounds.  Later, when they actually got their hand on a T-72, they are not that impressed with the performance of the gun.  Their 125mm gun is actually based on their  own NATO compatible 120mm gun.  As for why they didn't they select 120mm for their new tank, it's because with the information and technology they had, they judged 125mm has higher potential because the chamber is larger (i.e. more propellant).  So Chinese 125mm may be quite a bit heavier than 105mm,  and instead of developing a lighter version of 125mm, it's simpler just to use 105mm -- particularly when they are already in service (e.g. T-59D, etc).

As for protection, reactive armor, slat armor, and maybe APS add-on should be enough to hold off most infantry anti-tank weapons. And in it's chosen terrain, there are not many opponents that can match it in terms of firepower and protection.



#580 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 1628 PM

The type 96 is still only ~43 tons and is considered by the Chinese to have good performance in difficult terrain. There will be a weight increase from the 105mm to 125mm but it is more than worth it for the increased performance. If they wanted a true medium gun armed tank in the ~35 ton class a deep redesign of the 96 to cut weight would have been the desirable way to do it. You could severely reduce the thickness of the steel base armor and move to aluminium wheels and be most of the way there.


Edited by KV7, 21 August 2017 - 1629 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users