2014 NORINCO Armour Day

jobjed

Captain
Slickly done video, need a bit more musical variety though.

There were numerous complaints about the BGM from the comments but the final consensus was that it was necessary to maintain morale among the populace. Thus, the video persisted with the glorious melody.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
The Chinese aren't WAAC (win at any cost) players because they know that it matters how you win.

Had China really wanted to show off an win the tank biathlon, sending some Type 99s would have done the job, but sending such an overpowered tank would likely have left a bad taste in the mouths of the other contestants.

Besides, more importantly, how do you test yourself and learn any lesions if you send in a tank that tip the scales so much in your favour?
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
There were numerous complaints about the BGM from the comments but the final consensus was that it was necessary to maintain morale among the populace. Thus, the video persisted with the glorious melody.

Glorious military marches are great, just have more than one tune for Pete's sake. A good example is German military marches; now there's a nation that knows marshal tunes!
 

lyrics86

Just Hatched
Registered Member
LMAO! The comments are too hilarious!

2:20: "My eyes!"
2:25: "The turret is way too democratic." "The paint job is so democratic!!!"
2:28: "How to ensure battle effectiveness with this much democracy?"
2:35: "This VT is too democratic!"
2:45: "Too much democracy, unstoppable!"
2:49: "It's not scientific to have this much democracy!" "The paint job is too democratic!"
2:56: "That (remote turret) is too democratic!"

as a bilibili guy....i have to say this is "chinese way" of sarcasm on democracy which western country spreads in east Europe or Arab world and turned their countries like what they looks like now.

by the way,233 means wwwwwwww or laugh or sth.
@K2 is because a famous k1 tank video(which someone wrongly thought it was k2) in which k1 is blocked by a short wall,which is so funny.

well i must clarify that these guys dont hate democracy,they hate western way democracy which would ruin our country.ChinA is making its own way to achieve that.and Chinese have their own way define democracy.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Good shot of the RWS

PhSxhX8.jpg
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Interesting test tank, but I doubt the PLA would be interested much.

One of the top feedback criticisms of the Type 99s are their cluttered roof. This left some blind spots for the commander sights that the PLA were not keen about. But you can see a clear effort to tidy that up as the 99s developed into the various subsequent blocks.

For this tank, The RWS, and especially the placement of the gunner sights would impose significant blind spots to the left and rare of the tank. I think that alone would rule it out for the PLA unless all its other stats are out of this world.

If I was to design a RWS, I would mount the commander sights above it on an independent gimble so you have a two layed system, with both able to operate independently if needed. This allows you to keep the same responsiveness as a normal scope, but with much better elevation and unobscured 360 view, as well as the benefits of the RWS.

The RWS and scope would operate like a miniture version of the hunter-killer system the commander has with the gunner. So if in the course of scanning around for targets, the commander spots a nearly infantry/light vehicle threat, you can set the RWS machine gun to lock with his sights and then be slaved to the scope with a single button push, allowing him to rapidly and accurately engage those targets.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I don't think this RWS mount is anymore obstructive to the CITV than the commander's HMGs on ZTZ99/A.

And most tanks with any number of RWS or HMG tends to obstruct the CITV's rearward view anyhow; M1A2 TUSK is probably the worst, more or less limiting vision to only the 120 degree arc of the turret.

But then again, the point of an RWS is relatively superfluous in non urban environments anyhow (just as the CITV is less useful in its hunter killer role in urban environments). The reason norinco have fitted one on their VT4 export is probably to make it look more modern.

I don't expect PLA to fork out extra money for a relatively mediocre capability better suited for environments they are not expected to send tanks into any time soon.

But if one truly wants a less obstructive set up, one can look at the T-90SM. the RWS is on the same platform as the CITV

T-90%2527s+Latest+Avatar-2.jpg
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
modern MBT's have any number of Electro optics systems the big two are the commanders sight which is used to select targets followed by the fixed gunners sight that is meant to line up on the target chosen by the commander.
now a RWS is meant to engage a different set of targets form the MBT's main sights as such it has it's own sights.
First if you have a tank target on your six or side you have more issues to worry about.
it means your flanked and the weakest armor points on your tank are your roof, sides and rear. so if your need to move your commanders sight past 200 degrees your really not using your tank very well. the commanders sight is meant to get the Main gun lined up. to allow selection of a heavy target that the gunner can then line up on. in this case a 125mm cannon for use on heavy targets. so having your commanders sight pointing over hill and dale is kinda foolish as you want to be able to line the gunner and commanders sight up quickly. and if you need to line up on a target on your 5 o'clock your probably going to need to move your tank around any way.
To do this We find two features the first feature came form the US navy. the turret. this feature houses the main gun of the tank and was translated directly form naval shipping. the First Turreted Warship was the USS Monitor. The next feature is comes form the WW2 era the german Panther tank which introduced the Pivot turn. the ability to turn the two tracks independently form each other via a second gear system.

the RWS is meant to attack infantry targets for whom the main gun was just not effective. RWS as such have to be smaller and have a clear view over the tank because they are meat to attack targets who can climb on to a tank. next they are not really superfluous in open space warfare. First a RWS means the tank commander can fire the gun form inside the hull. this means the crew can attack softer targets with out worry form above, shells, grenades and NBC threats are alleviated the crew can operate all the functions of the tank can be preformed without the need of leaving the tank. the only exception is loading the MG's
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
But how many targets that can be killed with an HMG RWS are found in open space, especially in the PLA's case, against foes with peer or near peer AFVs?

An HMG will only really be useful against soft targets and/or infantry, which can be dealt with by the coaxial gun anyhow (not to mention the chances of encountering such targets without IFV support are very low).

If a tank meets any half decently armoured IFV or APC, conventional wisdom would dictate the use of a standard HEAT or APFSDS round to be safe.


RWS has far more utility in urban environments, where you don't want your gunners exposed on top of the tank turret where insurgents on top of buildings can use height to their advantage.


that isn't to say RWS isn't useful for the reasons you mentioned, but for the PLA, the cost is probably not worth the gain.
 
Last edited:
Top