SinoDefence Forum

utelore

Hello fellow military analyst's. Due to the recent successes of the Anti-tank guided Missiles used in the Lebanon conflict and its ability to destroy both crew and tank of one of the most best protected tanks on the modern battlefield the Merkava Mk3 and Mk4 I think the ability of the PRC HJ-9/HJ-8 ATGW mounted on various platforms may be all that is needed to defeat much of the opposing forces main battle tanks that the PRC may be confronted with on the Asian battlefields such as Taiwan.

I reasonably believe that ROC M-60A3 even with some sort of upgraded armour package would not be able to protect itself from the HJ-9 with its tandem warhead. The HJ-9 appears to be a very good system on the same level of a American TOW or Russian Kornet compounded by the fact that the smaller Metis-M appears to be able to mission kill the Merkava 4 at the min.

Next we have to look at the Type-63 light tank armed with the PRC version AT-10 Stabber for its 100mm gun. Granted the AT-10 stabber is smaller than the Metis-M BUT would it be enough to defeat a M-60A3 on the frontal aspect of turret and Hull? I think you would have to say yes at least on M-60A3 without ERA or passive add on armour.

Now I fully understand the saying that once a new missile comes out that can kill a MBT another type of amour that can stop it appears. This is simply not the case for the local nations around the PRC such as the ROC. I think the PRC have field some good systems that are armed with a great number of ATGW systems. The PRC may have turned the corner on the main battle tank at least in the theater of the Taiwan area of operations.

Please feel free to comment on my little post....cheers ute

duskylim

Dear Ute:

I agree with you that the technical performance of China's ATGW has reached a competitive level with both Western and Russian systems. In addition, China has also upgraded older anti-tank missile systems in service like their version of the AT-3 Sagger - the HJ-73, with improved guidance systems and tandem warheads.

Investment in these ATGW systems is a low-cost method of increasing the PLA's combat power. Modern ATGW's have proven themselves to be a formidable threat to armour on the battlefield, especially when conditions favor the defence - like in the confined, rugged, hilly areas of Southern Lebanon - conditions that are matched in places like southern, central and south-western China.

In more open areas like fields, plains and desert - similar to the conditions ranging from the Korean border to Mongolia to the Silk Road, armour should still have the upper hand. Staging tank ambushes in these places is far more difficult.

Here large-scale, combined-arms operations will come into their own, especially when the proper reconnaissance and strike assets are available. Artillery, UAV's, attack helicopters, guided munitions and the tank's own long-range fire will make life very difficult for un-supported ATGW teams such as those deployed by Hezbollah.

And so the traditional gun-armour rivalry will be supplanted by a missile-gun-armour contest. The results of this see-saw technological tug-of-war will dictate the fortunes of tank troops the world over.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

sumdud

The Merkava is known as one of the most protected tanks in the world. (Though its armour is one of the thickest, the Merkava seem to have a large number of flaws, maybe it places too much armour in one spot and too little in another. (Whether because it is a tank or because it is a Merkava, I don't know.))
All this is shown in this recent conflict where so many Merkavas have been K-Oed. (Problem is, all Merkavas have been used, and we don't know which ones got what. But I think Merkava 4s didn't fare much better than the others.)

Since even RPG-7s and 29s have been able to destroy/KO/disarm modern tanks, yes, it is probable that most ATGMs including the HJs can easily kill them. If 600mm will do, then 800, 1000, 1200 must.
------
There is a catch. Most Western MBTs to this day still haven't install active defenses like the Russians and Chinese.

Since we know not of their performance, we can so far only talk about armour.....

I think we need to mention how these tanks were killed though.

__________________

Give us a break. Don't try ranting at SDF.

crazyinsane105

The Israeli Merkava 4's have the Trophy System installed on them, but I think that system did little to stop the ATGM's. Fact is, a system like the Merkava or the Chinese active laser defense system can only go so far in actually stopping an ATGM (the Chinese active laser defense system will also have limited capability since it can be overwhelmed by a saturated missile/rocket attack). The only way to effectively stop an ATGM would be not by making the armor thicker (that would simply make the tank heavier and less mobile plus missiles such as the HJ-9 could probably be upgraded to penetrate even more armor) but to actually target the crews with the ATGM (in a plane field that would be easy, but in a place like South Lebanon, that will be quite hard).

utelore

I wonder If china has tested its HJ/9 on a Type96 or 98 to see if the armour would hold and to see how crew members would fair in such a strike? I know that in America the U.S army has tested the abrams with test dumies inside the effects of TOW, 155mm Naval deck guns, 125mm, 115mm, 105mm and various ofter weapon platforms which proved the crew would live to fight another day. Based on the observed thickness of the armour and the size of the turret I have my doubt now sense the latest issue of the Merkava getting killed by these systems. I would think also that the HJ/9 is a more powerful system than what was field in Lebanon.

crazyinsane105

I think there was a picture up in the land military thread showing the Type 98 or 99 getting hit by an HJ-8 kinetic energy round. I think tphuang had claimed the cew would have died in that hit.

tphuang

I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I rarely approach the land forum.

Red not Dead

The Kornet is leading well ahead but at the expense of a questionable weight burden. In fact the AT-14m is simply non man portable while the russians have complete firing posts under the 12 kg's. That would simply allow a huge leap forward in terms of mobility. For instance a 40 kg kornet would be a good objective for Bazalt and Shipunov. Yet they fail to deliver still proposing an obese 65kg Kornet.

Other than that, the Javelin seems light years ahead, FF, Top attack best ATGW ever. It's becoming more of a Video game.

Well done USA, i think the ATGW case is far from over, but china is behind and it's tests are systematically rigged ( a previous Soviet habit) yet as you put it the it could be more than enough.

And The HJ-8 is nowhere near the AT-14.

Nethappy

From what I heard of before, they already have tested the HJ-8, HJ-9 and 125mm gun on the Type 96 and 99. I believe they would already realized that the tank lack many safety feature on western tank, that the reason why they tired testing mixtures explosive reactive armour and composite armour on it (more of the latter) to give it better protection. Future Type 99 should have more composite armour over it.

crazyinsane105

The Chinese HJ-9, while it is comparable to some of the best anti-tank missiles out in the market right now, isn't a very portable device. It must be mounted either on a jeep or placed onto a fixed position in order to be used. I would not doubt at all that if an HJ-9 hits the Merkava IV (or even a Merkava V in the future) the tank would be annhilated. The HJ-8 with a tandem warhead can go through 1200 mm, an HJ-9 has a much larger radius and by no doubt a much larger punch. Yet is going for a frontal armor kill really this necessary these days when you have systems like the Javelin or French ERYX? It seems like if China does get a system similar to the Javelin, then will there be a reason for China to produce heavy, non-portable ATGW for infantry use?

Norfolk

I does seem unlikely that Chinese infantry have an anti-tank weapon with real utility, at least against MBT with composite armour. While HJ-9 may (or may not) be capable of dealing with some MBT with composite armour, it is not a practical infantry weapon. Although it may be effective, it is not efficient. It is semi-static like the TOWS of old, either mounted on a light vehicle or tripod and therefore alternatively vulnerable or immobile. Javelin of course, is foot-mobile (even if still a crew-served weapon), and much less vulnerable than a light vehicle as the gunner can stay close to ground and move using available cover and concealment fit for individual infantrymen, which tends to be rather easier than finding the same for vehicles.

Until Chinese infantry receives something comparable to Javelin, either it has very limited practical protection against enemy armour, or it has to accept the limitations on maneouvre that go with being tied to anti-tank weapons that are difficult to move and to conceal, thus considerably increasing the vulnerability of the infantry's organic anti-tank defences. We will see if the PLA makes some important improvements in this area or not over the next decade or so.