This is a discussion on Ideal PLA main battle tank (?) within the Army forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; Weight is not an issue; ground pressure is. In other words, the wider the tracks and the longer they are, ...
Weight is not an issue; ground pressure is. In other words, the wider the tracks and the longer they are, the less ground pressure you exert.
Exactly correct King Comm. That 88 ton super tank would be killed by a ATGM within a few years of its inception. It's not worth "putting all your eggs in one basket" like that. Better to have several smaller tanks that can work as a team to destroy enemy armour and protect themselves from infantry.
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
An 88 ton tank is hardly a "super tank" as it's only 30% heavier than a M1A2. The profile is approximately the same albeit with a wider turret, and the added cost is mainly the extra auto loading barrels. The treads are also cheaper to maintain since damaged treads can be easily replaced. I think the redundancy in the armament and the modularity of the treads is well worth the 30% weight gain and the cost increase of the added barrel. R&D would probably be the most expensive part of the program. The weight gain has nothing to with the ideology of "bigger is better", but its the result of rational addition of added survivability and redundancy to the tank.
Supposedly in real warfare, anti-tank missile knocks out one of the guns on the tank. The tank can still be 100% functional as any other single barrel tank, as compared to 0% if it was single barreled. If the anti-tank missile had knocked out one of the treads, the tank can still move as it is capable of doing so with only 3 treads. A normal western tank would be completely crippled. After the engagement, the damaged tread can be replaced and the tank would be 100% for the next engagement.
Last edited by proelite; 06-04-2008 at 10:43 AM.
IMO, western tanks are already too heavy, large weight seriously impacts operational and strategic mobility, and think about the logistic problems that will be caused by a 88 tonne tank.
And look at it, 88 tonne weight, 6 crew, two guns, this is basically the stats for two tanks, and I am pretty sure two 44 tonne tanks with one gun each will be far more survivable. and the larger size complicates the armour destribution, making protection less than optimal.
if you want to destroy a heavier western tank why dont you just increase the calibre of the rounds and the ammount of warhead in them??? instead of beefing up the system just beef up the weapons....heck you can stick the cannon on a 8x8 truck and still kill the tank. most of china soils are soft and no matter how wide your tracks are its still gonna exert more pressure then the soil can take. dunno what game was called but they had a mini tournament in a computer gaming arcade lounge....(PS: i got slaughtered in the game)
Shit, I just noticed that there is a proelite and a PrOeLiTeZ, I always thought there is only one person here with the name along the line of Pro elite.
The second problem concerns loading. The US Army will not use an autoloader. A 140mm round will require one, it is too heavy for a human loader to lift out of a bustle and place in the gun. The experience the US Army has with autoloaders is based on direct experience with Russian equipment it has either captured or bought from for Warsaw Pact nations. We have at least one example of everything the Russians use, and the aggressor force at Fort Irwin trained other Army units with T-72's for many years. Here is what our Army found. Number one, the Russian auto loader takes six to seven seconds to load a round. During this time the gun must be level and the turret cannot rotate. This means that in combat there is a six to seven second period of time where the tank commander cannot aim at the next target, the tank is essentially defenseless during this time. By comparison the standard for the M-1 is to load a round every four seconds and well drilled crews can load and fire every two seconds. The main gun of the M-1 is being aimed at it's next target while the gun is loaded, so rapid rates of fire are easily accomplished while the tank is on the move.
In actual practice the Russian autoloader has a failure rate exceeding 20%. It limits the maximum and minimum elevation the gun may obtain, a fact exploited by the Chechens in Grozny when the mauled Russian T-80's. Former Red army vets simply taught the rebels to hide in basements or on the top floors of buildings. The Russian gun could not be elevated or depressed sufficiently to engage these rebels and the Russians were badly defeated.
Last, their autoloader put rounds inside the hull, twenty two of them. One hit to the hull and the propellant charges detonate, blowing the turret skyward and also blowing the engine out the back. By comparison, M-!'s in Iraq have taken advanced anti-tank rounds through their thin side armor behind the wheels with little effect. Hits to the ammo bustle detonate the ammo in the bustle, blowing the blow off hatch out but the crew is protected by a titanium blast door. The crews walk away. No M-1 crew has been lost to another tank. The badly blown up tanks you will see from time to time are all ones that had engines or tracks disabled and were taken out with Maverick missiles to prevent them from being compromised.
Just want to say, rice paddies isn't much of a prominent terrain feature in China as of now. It doesn't matter in any case as if there was any sort of invasion on Chinese soil, most of it will take place in industrialized areas of the country where there's plenty of paved road to drive on.
"Lets do a thermal sweep."