Jump to content


Photo

Chinese Type 99 MBT


  • Please log in to reply
686 replies to this topic

#641 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,370 posts

Posted 30 May 2019 - 0426 AM

jnyZt_Yjf8Y.jpg

3hswCOWhtP8.jpg

ltETeWaJKgc.jpg

zMKaopAWLrc.jpg

 

type 96(i think) turret


Edited by Wiedzmin, 30 May 2019 - 0427 AM.

  • 0

#642 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,195 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 2120 PM

Some new aa

chnaa1.png

 

chnaa2.jpg

 

chnaa3.jpg


  • 0

#643 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,038 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 2354 PM

It looks a bit like the type 09 turret with stowage boxes added outside the guns, and the guns moved inward.

See also @ 0.17
 

dqrQm4V.jpg


Edited by KV7, 02 June 2019 - 0004 AM.

  • 0

#644 Davin

Davin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 854 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 0839 AM

62165876_467350714036048_231249845188086
  • 0

#645 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,195 posts

Posted 03 August 2019 - 1026 AM

Type 15 light tank.

type151.jpg

Three more images in the spoiler

Spoiler

  • 0

#646 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,605 posts

Posted 03 August 2019 - 1130 AM

Type 15 light tank, I presume this is the same vehicle that has generated much interest on different forums being the new generation light tank in PLA service?  There have been a few pictures showing the vehicle loaded onto rail wagons for transport but until now, I had no read of an official designation for it.  

 

Great overhead picture too.  :)


  • 0

#647 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,195 posts

Posted 03 August 2019 - 1824 PM

Yep, this tank has had its own buzz with he on trailer pictures and such. I think its officially Type 15 anyway. Looks like a good upgrade in comparison to the Type 62 light tank.


  • 0

#648 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 03 August 2019 - 2254 PM

62165876_467350714036048_231249845188086

 

Great pic...thanks!


  • 0

#649 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,167 posts

Posted 04 August 2019 - 0414 AM

Part of a Chinese export based economy?


  • 0

#650 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,195 posts

Posted 04 August 2019 - 0434 AM

Part of a Chinese export based economy?

 

The light tank also has the name VT-5 apparently. I think VT means it is optional to be exported. But maybe its a company name. The dark sharp looking tank in Davin's picture is a Type 99 I think. Those are not availble for export. The medium export tank on the market is the VT-4. Thailand bought some VT-4s. IIRC, Pakistan evaluated the VT-4 but decided to not buy them.


  • 0

#651 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,038 posts

Posted 04 August 2019 - 0823 AM

VT-5 has a 12.7mm + 40mm RWS which is nice:

Though I still question the utility of a light tank which is not airmobile. The drop in protection and firepower due to going from 50 T to 36 T is too great, and a 36 T vehicle cannot do anything useful that a 50 T vehicle cannot (if you are needing to do long road marches with little fuel then something has gone very wrong - and even here it is not clear that the light tank has a higher 'bang per gallon' ratio).

VT5_light_weight_main_battle_tank_MBT_NO


Edited by KV7, 04 August 2019 - 0830 AM.

  • 0

#652 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,195 posts

Posted 04 August 2019 - 2206 PM

ISTR that a main intention of the Type 62 was to deploy to the spacious and mountainous regions in the west part of China. Heavier armor would consume more fuel and there's probably no expectation that any heavy enemy armor would be coming in from that region. Although I also seem to recall that Type 62s were used against Vietnam in 1978, many if which getting destroyed because of the light armor.
  • 0

#653 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,038 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 0026 AM

ISTR that a main intention of the Type 62 was to deploy to the spacious and mountainous regions in the west part of China. Heavier armor would consume more fuel and there's probably no expectation that any heavy enemy armor would be coming in from that region. Although I also seem to recall that Type 62s were used against Vietnam in 1978, many if which getting destroyed because of the light armor.

Even still, you cannot expect there to be no ATGM. Protection against second tier ATGM from the front (Russian 135 mm etc.) seems to be a minimum requirement for a modern gun armed vehicle, unless that is made prohibitive by the need for air mobility or amphibious capability.

If for some reason you need it under 40 T (weak bridges ?) then it is probbaly better to ditch the turret and do a BMPT style thing with an unmanned turret and at least get the hull armor up to scratch.
 


  • 0

#654 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,195 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 2349 PM

Makes sense. Reducing cost for what would be usually mundane patrols could be the only factor maybe.
  • 0

#655 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,605 posts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1120 AM

ISTR that a main intention of the Type 62 was to deploy to the spacious and mountainous regions in the west part of China. Heavier armor would consume more fuel and there's probably no expectation that any heavy enemy armor would be coming in from that region. Although I also seem to recall that Type 62s were used against Vietnam in 1978, many if which getting destroyed because of the light armor.

 

If I recall correctly, the Type 62 was also developed and deployed to certain areas in the south China regions due to the type of ground it would be operating on, some kind of clay soil I believe which caused issues with even a relatively light-weight MBT such as the Type 59.  Obviously this is only from what I have read so this may not quite be 100% accurate.  

 

From previous discussions on this forum, it has been quoted that the Type 62 is protected against HMG fire over the front of the vehicle.  The sides and rear of the hull & turret?  Not so sure but I'd expect it to be less of course.

 

Yes the Type 62 (and Type 59) was deployed in Vietnam.  Did the Type 63 amphibious tank make an appearance there also or was that role fulfilled by the Soviet PT-76?  I've read stories of these being used like some kind of giant gondola, carrying infantry and being pushed along rivers using long poles... :blink: I think I'd pay to see something like that really.


  • 0

#656 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,977 posts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1245 PM

Also for overseas deployment and export market I suspect. A lot of the world does not build bridges to support 50 ton vehicles, that is a major factor in mobility. If you double the number of bridges you can cross without engineering support, then you saved a major logistical burden.


  • 0

#657 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,038 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0151 AM

Also for overseas deployment and export market I suspect. A lot of the world does not build bridges to support 50 ton vehicles, that is a major factor in mobility. If you double the number of bridges you can cross without engineering support, then you saved a major logistical burden.

To quote myself above:

'If for some reason you need it under 40 T (weak bridges ?) then it is probbaly better to ditch the turret and do a BMPT style thing with an unmanned turret and at least get the hull armor up to scratch.'
 


Edited by KV7, 07 August 2019 - 0151 AM.

  • 0

#658 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,147 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0241 AM

To quote myself above:

'If for some reason you need it under 40 T (weak bridges ?) then it is probbaly better to ditch the turret and do a BMPT style thing with an unmanned turret and at least get the hull armor up to scratch.'
 

Some notes: BMPT turret is not unmanned, it's low profile. And no, one should NOT go for BMPT as example.
  • 0

#659 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0254 AM

KV7 means the concept of a flat turret (as in the BMPT). But he should not be manned, for reasons of armor weight.

(that the BMPT turret is not unmanned, that knows KV7, i think)


  • 0

#660 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,147 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0327 AM

I understand proposed concept and agree with it. I just don't like using that... thing as an example)
  • 0