Mbt-3000

TerraN_EmpirE said:

It seems unlikely as normally a export version is normally simplified, using older more commonly available systems and parts. It might however be possible that in the process of the redesign for the MBT3000 some features or alterations were made from Type 99A2 Causing the PLA to evaluate the possibility of integrating these into the next series of 99 upgrades. It's not Unheard of, For example When Westland Agusta redesigned the Apache for British Service they replaced the GE 700 engines with more powerful Rolls Royce models this added power and although the Us has yet to follow suit there have been arguments to.

Click to expand...

The export model of MBT3000 might be different from the version PLA might procure.

If they went through the trouble of doing a major redesign to get to MBT3000, it would not make too much sense to intentionally make the basic chassis inferior to an existing chassis. More likely they would make the best chassis they can, and then add or take away equipment to achieve the level of capability suitable for either domestic or export use.

So MBT3000 might well have a better thassis then type 99A2, but the export version would have inferior equipment fit and power pack than 99A2, but potential exists for the same chassis to receive a better equipment fit and power pack to succeed 99A2.

A couple of points should be made here.

- this "main battle tank 3000" is unrelated to either the T99 or the MBT2000: the chassis, turret, configurations are entirely different and its performance is different as well

- MBT2000 is unrelated to the T99 but rather the T90IIM

- the 3000 is unlikely planned to replace the T99A2 since it is a very much less advanced tank; it will most likely serve to replace the hundreds of T85 and T80/88 tanks in service

- this tank is most likely slated for the Middle Eastern markets as a poor man's Abrams, even though its final performance should be comparable to that of an export Abrams

Phead128 said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

by NORINCO is an third generation MBT estimated to be delivered to PLA by 2014 (this year!)

Why does China need so many different modern 3rd gen MBT types? Isn't China spreading her resources thin, or is this a mainly export variant to prop up allies like Pakistan? Isn't ZTZ99 and ZTZ96 enough, why so many different vehicles? I don't like

Click to expand...

Why so many different 4th and 5th gen. aircraft types as well? Don't put all of your eggs in one basket, I suppose.

There's actually very little credibility of the MBT-3000 serving the PLA. I think this is again an intelligence failure by Jane's.

China's ground forces are now in the process of streamlining their main battle tanks, with the ZTZ-96/A series being terminated from production, just as the ZTZ-99, and the production narrowing down on the two main tanks in the future - the ZTZ-99A and the new light tank we have seen in Tibet, still without known designation.
The existing ZTZ-96s and ZTZ-99s will still serve until the end of their useful service life, their spare parts still produced, but no new copies will be built.

It is inconceivable that the PLA is going to introduce the MBT-3000 in any form, according to this policy.

Insignius said:

There's actually very little credibility of the MBT-3000 serving the PLA. I think this is again an intelligence failure by Jane's.

China's ground forces are now in the process of streamlining their main battle tanks, with the ZTZ-96/A series being terminated from production, just as the ZTZ-99, and the production narrowing down on the two main tanks in the future - the ZTZ-99A and the new light tank we have seen in Tibet, still without known designation.
The existing ZTZ-96s and ZTZ-99s will still serve until the end of their useful service life, their spare parts still produced, but no new copies will be built.

It is inconceivable that the PLA is going to introduce the MBT-3000 in any form, according to this policy.

Click to expand...

So what's the final count of the ZTZ-96/A family? Last I checked the reliable figure was something like 13 armoured regiments, 2 armoured brigades, and some units scattered in mechanised brigades for a total of 55 battalions and ~1700 ZTZ-96/A; 4 regiments and 4 battalions of ZTZ-99 for about 400. These figures are off the top of my head so they may be off.

IIRC it was about 2500 ZTZ-96/A and 600 ZTZ-99.

ZTZ-99A is slow in introduction. Just a regiment so far.

Insignius said:

There's actually very little credibility of the MBT-3000 serving the PLA. I think this is again an intelligence failure by Jane's.

China's ground forces are now in the process of streamlining their main battle tanks, with the ZTZ-96/A series being terminated from production, just as the ZTZ-99, and the production narrowing down on the two main tanks in the future - the ZTZ-99A and the new light tank we have seen in Tibet, still without known designation.
The existing ZTZ-96s and ZTZ-99s will still serve until the end of their useful service life, their spare parts still produced, but no new copies will be built.

It is inconceivable that the PLA is going to introduce the MBT-3000 in any form, according to this policy.

Click to expand...

That mysterious new tank seen in Tibet has only a 100mm gun, possibly rifled. I doubt it's going to replace the ZTZ-96, which has a 125mm smoothbore gun.

I think MBT-3000, or rather its domestic version, might succeed ZTZ-96, provided the PLA wants to continue the hi-lo tradition.

The mysterious tank seen in tibet has hydropneumatic suspension. It is very likely a light weight tank specially developed for ease of road and rail transport, and optimized for low to medium range engagements in mountainous terrain such as tibet.

Type 96/99 have increased in weight and are now approaching the 60 ton class. They are now probably demanding to deploy strategically by road and rail, and are therefore operationally more restricted to traditional tank country of large open plains in north and eastern china, and no longer suited to deployments to mountainous terrains in south western china.

chuck731 said:

The mysterious tank seen in tibet has hydropneumatic suspension. It is very likely a light weight tank specially developed for ease of road and rail transport, and optimized for low to medium range engagements in mountainous terrain such as tibet.

Type 96/99 have increased in weight and are now approaching the 60 ton class. They are now probably demanding to deploy strategically by road and rail, and are therefore operationally more restricted to traditional tank country of large open plains in north and eastern china, and no longer suited to deployments to mountainous terrains in south western china.

Click to expand...

Chinese tanks Type99 is similar to Russian tank size and arrangement (3 crew + autoloader), but with higher weight 60 vs under 50 tonnes. If everything is the same, Chinese tank must have very good armor (10 tonnes of armor) or something very inefficient here.

Does Type 99 have limited length penetrator because of autoloader like Russian tank?

313230 said:

Chinese tanks Type99 is similar to Russian tank size and arrangement (3 crew + autoloader), but with higher weight 60 vs under 50 tonnes. If everything is the same, Chinese tank must have very good armor (10 tonnes of armor) or something very inefficient here.

Does Type 99 have limited length penetrator because of autoloader like Russian tank?

Click to expand...

Type 99's road wheels appear similar, if not identical, to those on the t-72. But gaps between each pair of road wheels appears to be substantially larger. So it seems to me that type 99 hull is significantly longer than that of t-72. This would significantly increase type99's weight for the same level of side protection as on the t-72.

I have not seen photos of type 99's power pack. But I understand it is based on German MTU design. German tank power packs seems to all be designed with the crankshafts running front and back, while Russian MBT power packs seem to generally to have the crank shaft run side to side. This suggests type 99 needs a longer hull compared to t-72 in order to accommodate the German designed power pack.

Soviet tanks like the t-72 are designed to be tight fitting, with their crew stations arranged more like the driver seat of a car. There is no room for the crew to stretch out or stand up. Western tanks before the French leclerc were deigned to be more voluminous, with crew station designed more like seats in the back of a minivan, giving the crew some room to stretch out and move around. As a result, western tanks have greater surface area that needs armor protection, and consequently weigh substantially more (say 8-10 tons) than soviet tanks for a given level of overall protection. Western tank designers justify the trade off by observing western tank crew fatigue less easily, and remain buttoned up for longer, and possess greater combat endurance. Also since tank crew are responsible for the maintenance of their tank in combat conditions, and tank maintenance is physically demanding work, western tanks, by allowing tank crew of larger stature, improves the operational endurance of their tanks.

If china choose to adapt western trade off in its tank, combat and operational endurance of the crew over compact size and small target area, then the increase in weight of type 99 over t-72 does not necessarily mean vastly increased protection. It could mean greatly improved crew comfort, and with it combat endurance.