Chinese 96-A

People say the wheel broke off because the Type 59(5 pairs of wheels) can't stand pretending to be a Type 96(6 pairs) anymore.

Anyway here's a close up of the damaged part.

Seems like the joint broke apart because of metal fatigue.
Not sure if it's related to quality control or the high stress environment.
Age is not a factor here because these tanks are almost brand new.

Perhaps it went in the obstacles at too high of a speed on those speed bumps. The fact that it still runs after the wheel broke off shows how robust it is made.

AndrewS said:

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

Click to expand...

I agree that would be the best solution. I just don't think today's FCS is that good yet. And even if it is that good it would still need experience to exploit all of its potential. Heck even some hardcore games today give players a heck of challenge to shoot straight.

ancestral said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sounds a little bit like excuses to me, to be honest, but maybe they were firing sabot rounds last year. Do we know what type of rounds were used last year?

We know for certain that this year the Type 96's were not firing APFSDS. It looked like all teams used HEAT shells provided by the Russians.

Higgle said:

Sounds a little bit like excuses to me, to be honest, but maybe they were firing sabot rounds last year. Do we know what type of rounds were used last year?

We know for certain that this year the Type 96's were not firing APFSDS. It looked like all teams used HEAT shells provided by the Russians.

Click to expand...

Not really an excuse at all.

Anyone who has done any serious shooting will know how much of an impact changing ammo types can have to adversely affect your aim. This is especially true for long range shooting, where the rate of bullet drop per unit of distance covered is of paramount importance.

Furthermore, these are tanks with modern FCS, so those FCS would have been calibrated for the specific characteristics of the PLA's own standard issue ammo types.

That means when it came to shooting, the PLA teams had to effectively ignore their own FCS to a certain extent and rely on manual 'eyeball' adjustments.

While an interesting challenge, this is hardly representative of the likely actual combat performance of the PLA crews using their own ammo and being able to take full advantage of their own FCS, and hardly makes for a fair comparison under competition settings.

AlyxMS said:

People say the wheel broke off because the Type 59(5 pairs of wheels) can't stand pretending to be a Type 96(6 pairs) anymore.

Anyway here's a close up of the damaged part.

Seems like the joint broke apart because of metal fatigue.
Not sure if it's related to quality control or the high stress environment.
Age is not a factor here because these tanks are almost brand new.

Click to expand...

Tanks are expected to keep running in high stress environments. This is either really bad luck or just plain bad quality control, or even worse just plain bad quality period. If the 096B is to be the workhorse tank of the PLA, it had better be just bad luck....

Iron Man said:

Tanks are expected to keep running in high stress environments. This is either really bad luck or just plain bad quality control, or even worse just plain bad quality period. If the 096B is to be the workhorse tank of the PLA, it had better be just bad luck....

Click to expand...

This was an obstacle course especially designed to be testing to tanks.

The whole point of the hazards were to force tank crews to really think about how they approach them. Come at one course too slow and you will stall out; come at another too fast and you can flood the engine or break a wheel etc.

Winning such courses is about cutting your safety margins down to fractions, but when that happens, the slightest miscalaculations and/or mischance could cause you grief.

You also have to remember that the crews have been pushing their tanks hard on that course for extended periods, so that will add a lot of cumulative stress onto the tanks very quickly. They could have been pushing the tank beyond normal tolerances every single time through the course, and done a little bit of damage each time until the final straw that broke the camel's back.

If this had happened first day of the event, the balance of probability would have been on poor quality control and/or crew training, but to happen during the last, grand final race, over a hazard pretty much designed to break tank drive wheels, well that's far more likely the result of a combination of cumulative excessive stress from the entire competition, added with a bit of competative rush causing the crews to try their luck and push their tank just a little bit harder to eek out more speed.

TBH, I'm actually pleased the crews have the daring to do that, rather then being excessively reined in by a fear of having an 'incident' and preferring to play it safe all the time.

The fact that they tank was able to function almost as well with a broken wheel is also a sign of good robust design.

ancestral said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is a bit strange to hear. The FCS would have to be calibrated to any new rounds with new unknowns, and a competition is not exactly the right place and time to do any kind of calibration. The tank crew missed the targets during the initial stages not because of bad FCS or lack of crew training but rather for the reason that the variables haven't been calibrated into the FCS. If this is the case, the accuracy should improve as the calibration gets along during the competition.

It looked like it gained a lot of velocity midway. Was it going downhill from a slope before meeting that terrain?

Something was bound to give in, if the crew didn't decelerate beforehand. Being a sport race everyone's thinking gold and forgets decelerating at important points of the track, mistakes that won't happen in exercise maneuvers. Such frequent accidents in auto racing is no different.

To answer the age-old question of "can tanks provide indirect fire like a howitzer?". Yes, the answer is yes. Here's a ZTZ-96A belonging to the 13th Group Army conducting indirect firing at a target 9km away.