Chinese 96-A

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Historically manpower has been cheap and plentiful, whilst new equipment has been rare and expensive.

So that experience of having people waiting on equipment probably still holds.
 
K

kriss

Junior Member
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Newer FCS should make it considerably easier to shoot accurately compared to the 59.

The lack of familiarity argument also doesn't stack with how well they are handling other aspects of the tank and course, which will arguably be much harder to master after conversion compared to putting the crosshairs on target and letting the FCS do the rest.

It is a well establish fact that the PLA operates to the principle of preferring to have people waiting on equipment rather than vice versa.

That means the PLA does all it can to make sure it has fully trained up crews waiting for new kit to be built, which they could then take and work up to full combat effectiveness in the minimum amount of time possible rather than waiting for new kit to be delivered before starting conversion training.

Just because the unit got new tanks 6 months ago is by no means any indication that the crews only started conversion training 6 months ago.

It is almost certain that they would have started conversion training much earlier, and have been deemed operational on the type to even be considered for selection to attend the biathlon.
Click to expand...

They might take some theory course beforehead. And I've also seen news of air defense troops using paper box to simulate missile control panel. But there's no way they can simulate wielding a tank gun before they get their hands on said gun unless they have the digital simulator which I doubt.

Also It's not simple as put the crosshair on the target like on a computer or even a simulator. FCS today is not that good that you could "let FCS do the rest". For a gunner spend his whole career handling a gun manually could see difficulty when the gun is moving itself.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
On the contrary. an automated FCS would be better in almost every respect.

Image recognition algorithms can exceed human perforamnce in terms of target accuracy, speed, endurance etc.

Targeting algorithms can integrate different sensor readings much better as well.

So the best solution may well be an interface which looks like a video game, where the gunner just pushes a button to shoot
 
J

jobjed

Captain
ZTZ-96A1 number '109' lost a wheel but drove on with the eleven remaining regardless.

9FYktaQ.jpg

UMLU6WY.jpg

N9T2hT9.jpg
 
A

ancestral

New Member
vesicles said:
I don't know anything about tank guns. However, just from how badly the 96B failed in the shooting contest, it doesn't sound like something related to the design or fundamental quality of the gun.

If the 96B consistently shoots about 10-20, even 30% worse than other types of tanks, then it is possible that the 96B's main gun has an inferior design and quality. PLA might have, for some reason, allowed their main gun to underperform to some extent.

Yet, the particular 96B in question missed the targets so badly. I don't see how the PLA would allow something so inferior to be installed onto their backbone tanks. And I also don't see how the PLA would send tanks with such inferior design abroad to a major tank competition, where everyone is watching. Such face-losing would be unthinkable...

In other words, the main gun of 96B should have performed to the PLA's satisfaction in all their tests. And it would be impossible that PLA's goal for their backbone tank's main gun is "to only miss the target by X meters"...

So what happened at the competition? No clue. The most likely explanation to me would be an unexpected equipment failure / malfunction...
Click to expand...

There was an analysis from CCTV and the PLA expert on the show said that they were required to use ammunition provided by the host (Russia), whereas last year they were allowed to use their own PLA rounds. It explains why the tank crew missed all the targets, because they were not familiar with the tank rounds they were provided. Russia did this, presumably, because China hit all the marks last year with stunning accuracy, or so they said.

It could be excuses, of course.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
SteelBird said:
Well, a dedicated thread for the event has been created but people just don't go there. Tank biathlon is not just about Type-96B, there are many more things you will need to discuss about. ZBD-05 is another star for Chinese team.
Click to expand...

Any videos of the ZBD-05's performance you can post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top