Chinese 96-A

ougoah said:

They stated the distance of targets being 1.6km and thereabouts but on the footage, all targets seemed to be no more than a few hundred metres away, at most 1km. Either that or the targets were absolutely enormous. Unbelievable how many misses for such seemingly easy shots. If we look at K2 practice shots, they get hits on moving targets while moving at distances of up to 2km away. Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Yes you are.

1. They are using the much slower HEAT projectiles with lower muzzle velocity than the APFSDS. (905m/s vs 1700m/s)
2. Laser range finder and FCS are not allowed to be used. All aiming must be done by hand. This should be no problem as they know the ranges of the targets (1600-1800m)

I've only ever seen online rumours mention that software assistance was disabled for targeting. But i suppose this explains the dreadful shooting. Even the star shooters (Russia and China) missed targets.

Also the camera zoom isn't that apparent. There are shots that include the tank aiming and the target all in one frame. It provides scale and there is no way that is really over 1.5km. All targets looked like they were 500m away at most even with "zoom". I first thought they were 300m away. I am an experienced surveyor and civil engineer so maybe i'm missing something with this zoom business. Although if we are to believe that all FCS and targeting devices were switched off, then it makes sense that the real distances were far shorter than the claimed ones. Russians have a habit of fudging data to a ridiculous laughable degree. I cannot imagine any "manually aimed" shots getting ANY hits at 1.6km and further. Much more believable that Russian and Chinese tanks could achieve ~ 20/24 shots at targets within 1km away.

Russian equipment and culture is famous for over-claiming performance stats just for sales. EVERY customer has reported on substandard performance from russian kit. They do give themselves unfair advantage and treatment in these competitions and it's not beyond reason that the real distances are in fact much shorter than claimed. No one checks and no one is allowed to. Any fact is silenced.

ougoah said:

I've only ever seen online rumours mention that software assistance was disabled for targeting. But i suppose this explains the dreadful shooting. Even the star shooters (Russia and China) missed targets.

Also the camera zoom isn't that apparent. There are shots that include the tank aiming and the target all in one frame. It provides scale and there is no way that is really over 1.5km. All targets looked like they were 500m away at most even with "zoom". I first thought they were 300m away. I am an experienced surveyor and civil engineer so maybe i'm missing something with this zoom business. Although if we are to believe that all FCS and targeting devices were switched off, then it makes sense that the real distances were far shorter than the claimed ones. Russians have a habit of fudging data to a ridiculous laughable degree. I cannot imagine any "manually aimed" shots getting ANY hits at 1.6km and further. Much more believable that Russian and Chinese tanks could achieve ~ 20/24 shots at targets within 1km away.

Click to expand...

Use a stopwatch at any of the main gun shots and calculate for yourself the distance of the targets. Muzzle velocity is 905m/s. I just got 2 sec for the round to hit the target and with velocity drop I get somewhere near 1600m. 1:18:21

During the first biathlon, the Chinese stole the

ougoah said:

They stated the distance of targets being 1.6km and thereabouts but on the footage, all targets seemed to be no more than a few hundred metres away, at most 1km. Either that or the targets were absolutely enormous. Unbelievable how many misses for such seemingly easy shots. If we look at K2 practice shots, they get hits on moving targets while moving at distances of up to 2km away. Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

During the first biathlon, the Chinese stole the show with their fast speed moving shooting.

Since then the Russians changed the rules to make shooting static.

I have no doubt Chinese FCS could handle 2km+ moving targets while on the move themselves, but Russian FCS can't, so the games will never have such a event.

dingyibvs said:

You can send whichever tank you want, India was considering sending the Arjun, for example. The T-90 is a heavily modified T72, so still in the same class, and really not substantially better than a heavily upgraded T72 like the T72B3M. Arjun would've been more of an equivalent to Type 99 with both being in the mid to high 50 ton range.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you are comparing Arjun with Type 99 ... I have nothing else to say

Don't start a flame war now. Arjun is what it is. It's defenders and detractors will always be there to say the usual bs. Type 96 series is PLA tank force's backbone but does it have 360 degree hunter-killer ability? Its commander's optics looks very limiting to say the least. VT-4 and Type-99 shows that NORINCO has the tech. Same goes with RWS. Sure okay, RWS is probably totally useless and unnecessary 80% of the time in combat but proper commander scopes shouldn't add too much to the cost but will improve the tank's capabilities more than its cost.

PLA procurement is different from pretty much every other military's in that the PLA can and does factor in China's unparalleled manufacturing capabilities into its procurement process.

In the event of a major war, Chinese factories can go into emergency wartime production mode and churn out tens or even hundreds of thousands of advanced thermal sights in weeks.

With China's internal transport networks, those sights can be shipped to units anywhere in China within the day of them leaving the factory, and units can perform field upgrades within hours.

With that sort of capabilities and Chinese tech trends, it doesn't make sense to spend millions buying commander thermal sights now, when during a conflict, all frontline units can get the latest sights (which will be better than the best models available now) within days or at worst weeks.

What matters more as far as the PLA is concerned is to have the equipment and in decent numbers.

It's better to have 10 basic models that they can add bells and whistles quickly when needed, rather than have 8 full spec models during peacetime when it will be much more time consuming to produce and train crews up for during war time.

Same thing for night vision goggles, active protection suites and body armour, HMD etc.

plawolf said:

PLA procurement is different from pretty much every other military's in that the PLA can and does factor in China's unparalleled manufacturing capabilities into its procurement process.

In the event of a major war, Chinese factories can go into emergency wartime production mode and churn out tens or even hundreds of thousands of advanced thermal sights in weeks.

With China's internal transport networks, those sights can be shipped to units anywhere in China within the day of them leaving the factory, and units can perform field upgrades within hours.

With that sort of capabilities and Chinese tech trends, it doesn't make sense to spend millions buying commander thermal sights now, when during a conflict, all frontline units can get the latest sights (which will be better than the best models available now) within days or at worst weeks.

What matters more as far as the PLA is concerned is to have the equipment and in decent numbers.

It's better to have 10 basic models that they can add bells and whistles quickly when needed, rather than have 8 full spec models during peacetime when it will be much more time consuming to produce and train crews up for during war time.

Same thing for night vision goggles, active protection suites and body armour, HMD etc.

Click to expand...

1) China does have vast industrial capacity, resources, and infrastructure, but it would still take some time to ramp up the very specific military production facilities, assembly lines, supply chains, etc. Definitely would be a factor in a prolonged conflict, but most likely conflicts will be short. Then again, the number of existing higher tech and capability platforms may be sufficient in any foreseeable, short conflict.

2) Troops also need time to train and familiarize with the new systems in order to be able to utilize them effectively. But perhaps PLA is doing some form of rotational training so that all crews receive at least some exposure to the latest systems.

But overall, PLA strategy is still very cost effective - with such a large army, the cost of maintaining all forces at maximal combat readiness would be wasteful and excessive. Makes more sense to maintain a small yet sufficient number of elite rapid reaction forces using the latest and greatest equipment at high combat readiness, while having sufficient volume and quantity of other still fairly capable forces that can have their capabilities and readiness enhanced within a fairly reasonable time frame if need be.

I wonder what the PLAGFs doctrine for using it's MBTs is - perhaps the Type 99s would either serve as the spearhead of any armored thrust; or perhaps they'd be held as a tactical reserve to support the Type 96s in major engagements against heavy concentrations of enemy MBTs?

It will take many weeks if not months to do what you mentioned. I understand your point and completely agree though. It's the same reason why you almost never see reactive armor on NATO tanks unless they are necessary and already in a combat situation. Same goes with RWS. But if they are going to do that, the crews won't have the training or time to get used to the new sights. I still think it's just spending 20 or 30 thousand more on an already decent tank to significantly improve its abilities. This won't really come at the cost of that many tanks and will be well worth it. I guess they've just got a more accurate measure of things. Still be nice to have PLA new type 96 tanks at least at the level of VT-4s. Would be less combat effective overall maybe but the tanks would be nicer