Chinese 96-A

ougoah said:

Those branches of the armed forces may not hold ground but they can devastate ground forces if not challenged. The priority when faced with a more advanced opponent (in these fields) is to make efforts in negating their advantages and even matching and exceeding them in the long term. Developing these technologies is far more important than fielding small numbers of super expensive new tanks that can easily get knocked out because you lose air superiority etc.

Click to expand...

Which is kinda my point. You need all the arms not one or two. And the better each arm it the better the overall whole. Raw numbers can still be mitigated by top gear and good training.

So pure numbers will be a more important quality than having an advanced tank that can lob a sabot accurately to 3km etc.

Click to expand...

A Tank that can kill another a 3Km vs a Tank that cannot will be at an advantage and one for the overall whole. IE If I can kill you on my own and you cannot kill me at the same then, I don't need to call in an Air strike to kill you at a distance well you do. And by calling in that air strike you rob that aircraft from Air superiority. And open it up for a fight against my protective air cover. Well I having that ability can knock out your tanks at my leisure. That played out in the Gulf war where Modern MBT easily killed Iraqi T55 tanks like that.
That said All Third Gens can fire out to that range.

ougoah said:

These approaches are different and often don't overlap, but it seems like western militaries are adapting to modern warfare, especially urban warfare by avoiding the path of developing new MBTs to meet new requirements

Click to expand...

This is mostly because there is no One wonder tech that can be built into a Armored vehicle that can practically render Armor Impervious to attack in urban well retaining a realistic weight and size.
Besides that the better options are how the tank is employed vs what it's built with. Sure some tech can help Hardkill APS against ATGM and RPG's adding additional armor but that's the last line of defense.
but In the End it's more about preventing the baddies from getting that close.

ougoah said:

Emerging technologies like drones and remotely controlled vehicles will eventually become mature enough to meet these new urban challenges without the need to redevelop current generation MBTs.

Click to expand...

I Doubt it. Those are either going to try and stand in for the tank, yet be just as susceptible to the same attacks or trying to assist and pushing back the potential attackers.

ougoah said:

I'm not saying MBTs are obsolete now or even in near future, but common sense on budgeting needs to be considered when MBTs are considered.

Click to expand...

MBT are upgraded and updated all the time most of it is just that people don't see the changes because it keeps the same name.
Replacing parts updated computers add on parts. armor upgrades. Compared to Fighters though Tanks are Cheap. 9.1 million for a top of the line M1A2 SEP2 Abrams compared to 5 times that for a F16 or over a hundred times that for an Aircraft carrier.

ougoah said:

All in all I think PLA's approach with numerous cheap upgraded Type 96s is quite appropriate given the potential wars and opponents it could be fighting.

Click to expand...

The PLA approach is not unique, It's more or less the same the Russians and Soviets used. Elite units with top of the line tanks and most of the main force with knocked down Tanks. In Russia today this would be T90(or T80 or T14) and T72 in The PRC this is ZTZ99 and ZTZ96. It's cheaper to be sure but has it's own issues.
The tiered approach has a issue that being logistics. If you have two grades of tank you have to support them no matter what happens and if the unit of action pulls in to a forward base for repairs on there ZTZ99's but finds only parts for ZTZ96 they are not going to be getting back in the fight. That said they will have an easier time than the Russians did when they had 5 MBT in service then had a war on there hands.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Those crews better triple check the road wheel retainers this year.

Click to expand...

The year the wheels fell off was due to a collision at the start.

I've noticed a possible problem for many tanks that uses a gun related to 2A46 (including the Russian versions) and that is the amount of smoke leaking back into the cabin after each shot. First noticed this on VT-4 videos from Thailand and realised they always kept at least on of the hatches open when shooting (quite possibly to vent out this smoke).

I checked out T-72 videos, same. Type 96 videos, again same result.


Check out the shot at 38:09 - 38:12

Maybe the fume extractor doesn't work as well as some western tanks because M1 shooting interior footage is clean. Would this not be a massive problem for a tank? Half the crew is blinded by the smoke and can't operate the instruments as effectively when in an actual fight where you have to keep the hatches shut. Not to mention the occupation hazard by breathing in all that discharged propellant.

ougoah said:

I've noticed a possible problem for many tanks that uses a gun related to 2A46 (including the Russian versions) and that is the amount of smoke leaking back into the cabin after each shot. First noticed this on VT-4 videos from Thailand and realised they always kept at least on of the hatches open when shooting (quite possibly to vent out this smoke).

Click to expand...

First That is a lot of Smoke.
Second there is some smoke that comes into the Abrams from firing it's gun but not as much.

So venting seems an reason. But it might not be as bad as it seems. If the Tank Crew has buttoned up they have likely turned on the CBRN Over-pressure system which as the name implies would up the pressure in the fighting compartment to keep such out.

ougoah said:

Maybe the fume extractor doesn't work as well as some western tanks because M1 shooting interior footage is clean

Click to expand...

Well there is no One Fume extractor system and it may also be related to the Propellants used in the 125mm vs the 120mm guns.

ougoah said:

when in an actual fight where you have to keep the hatches shut.

Click to expand...

ah... Not Quite. First Remember that this is not the PRC or Russia but Thailand. That is important because until the buys of the Oplot and VT4 the MBT used by the Royal Thai Army were American Patton series tanks. Now What does that have to do with anything you may ask.
American and Western Tank commanders tend to fight hatch open. They will only close the hatch if under direct attack from above or if the environment is toxic. Western Tank hatches are normally designed with a Half closed position. where the Hatch is raised to allow a Commander to see and hear out the tank yet is under protection.

And having been Users of the Patton Tank The Thai army would have been trained to follow suit.
The Reasons for this by the way is practical. It allows the Commander to maintain situational awareness. Which is not just for targeting enemy tanks but for all around operation. I mean button up the tank and everyone is looking through soda straws. The Driver has limited rage of vision he depends on instructions from the TC to drive the tank safely. The Gunner needs the commander to lay him on targets as although he has some means of looking around from his position his main job is to aim the gun.
It's the TC who guides the Driver away from a Cliff and gunner onto a T55 and is the guy who is the first to react when say a guy with hand grenades and a suicidal look in his eyes is charging the tank.

Anyone know what this structure is? It looks like it communicates with the stack above it, but maybe only when the turret is facing directly forward.

Iron Man said:

View attachment 48073

Anyone know what this structure is? It looks like it communicates with the stack above it, but maybe only when the turret is facing directly forward.

Click to expand...

Possibly to prevent the shot trap effect, although that wouldn't explain why there is nothing at the rear of the tank, between the turret and the chassis.

Iron Man said:

Anyone know what this structure is? It looks like it communicates with the stack above it, but maybe only when the turret is facing directly forward.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's an air intake for traversing through deep waters but not deep enough to require a snorkel kit.

SilentObserver said:

Maybe it's an air intake for traversing through deep waters but not deep enough to require a snorkel kit.

Click to expand...

Wading (in contrast to deep wading) may be a possibility. The connect point may be at the arrow where the dark rubber(?) portion slides over that plate on top of the pyramid structure. If that's the case it seems like it may cause premature wear and tear on the rubber component whenever the turret turns, unless of course it is mechanically (or manually) retracted into the turret during normal day to day operations.

96B shot groups in Tank Biathlon

It's a shame they got rid of moving shots. That's where Type 96 would really outshine the T-72BMs.