Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 100

Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

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, ...

  1. #76
    Pointblank is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,763

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    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.

  2. #77
    proelite is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edison, New Jersey
    Posts
    32

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pointblank View Post
    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.

    I think they meant that some bridges would collapse if the weight on them exceeds 50 tons. This is questionable as pressure play a big factor in bridge collapses too.

  3. #78
    King_Comm's Avatar
    King_Comm is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    312

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by proelite View Post
    -_-

    The 88 ton version is only for land superiority against western heavy tanks in terrains that's suitable for heavy tanks. If Chinese rice fields and soft soil are unsuitable for Chinese heavy tanks, they are also unsuitable for western ones. As for transportation via air or sea, I assume by 2015 the PLA would be adequate in this area.
    I don't see why you feel compelled to counter heavy western tanks with an even heavier tank, this sort of one dimensional thinking is bad, the best weapon against a tank is anything but a tank, of course, tanks have to have reasonable armour and firepower to ensure that they won't be obliterated too easily by enemy tanks, but there is no point to pursue a 88 tonne supper tank.

  4. #79
    Finn McCool's Avatar
    Finn McCool is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California, or the internet
    Posts
    2,032

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    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.
    -Winston Churchill

  5. #80
    proelite is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edison, New Jersey
    Posts
    32

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    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 11:43 AM.

  6. #81
    King_Comm's Avatar
    King_Comm is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    312

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    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.

  7. #82
    Pointblank is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,763

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by King_Comm View Post
    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.
    I would disagree... the size and weight of Western tanks ensure a very high level of crew survivability and ability to take punishment... the recent experiences of tanks in both Iraq and in Afghanistan demonstrate this point very clearly. Most tank crews are able to walk away from a heavily damaged or destroyed tank slightly shaken, but unharmed.

  8. #83
    King_Comm's Avatar
    King_Comm is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    312

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pointblank View Post
    I would disagree... the size and weight of Western tanks ensure a very high level of crew survivability and ability to take punishment... the recent experiences of tanks in both Iraq and in Afghanistan demonstrate this point very clearly. Most tank crews are able to walk away from a heavily damaged or destroyed tank slightly shaken, but unharmed.
    That's only because those who disabled tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan don't usually have the opportunity to finnish off their work, in a real shooting war, the world outside a tank is an extremely dangerous place for tank crews, crews of a disabled tanks are as good as dead, as there will be people who will try to eliminate bailed out crews when ever possible.

  9. #84
    PrOeLiTeZ is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Australia/China/Hong Kong
    Posts
    349

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    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)

  10. #85
    proelite is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edison, New Jersey
    Posts
    32

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by PrOeLiTeZ View Post
    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.
    ...and also destroy the truck every time they fire a shot from the recoil. Chances of that shot connecting are slim without the stabilizing controls and electronics on a tank. 1 to 20 kill ratio seems to me like a bad idea. Thats why they make dedicated tank destroyers.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrOeLiTeZ View Post
    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)
    You need to take physics. By your logic the weight of the atmosphere would flatten and compress the soil. Pressure is force per area. You can have an ultra heavy object, but spread it's weight evenly across an area to exert low pressure on the soil. Conversely, you can wear pointy shoes on your feet and sink several inches every time you place your feet on the ground. How do you think snow shoes work?

  11. #86
    King_Comm's Avatar
    King_Comm is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    312

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    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.

  12. #87
    proelite is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edison, New Jersey
    Posts
    32

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by King_Comm View Post
    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.
    I must have been very lonely if I was replying and arguing against myself.

  13. #88
    man overbored is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    173

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by PrOeLiTeZ View Post
    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)
    There is a very good reason. The US Army has studied this in depth. Increasing the caliber of the gun to 140mm from 120mm has two major drawbacks. Number one, it will reduce the number of rounds the tank can carry. The M-1A2 carries a lot fewer rounds for it's 120mm gun than the original M-1 carried for it's 105mm main gun. The Army doesn't feel it can afford to reduce the number of ready service rounds any more than this for a tank to be tactically relavant.
    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.

  14. #89
    kovona is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    40

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    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.

  15. #90
    crobato's Avatar
    crobato is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,852

    Re: Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by kovona View Post
    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.
    Many of these paved roads may not be spec'ed to handle tanks and those that may be spec'ed you may not be absolutely sure they can actually handle that spec, knowing the history of building short cuts that often occur in China.
    "Lets do a thermal sweep."

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •