New Type98/99 MBT thread

IronsightSniper said:

Military camouflage, in that sense, only has a limited use nowadays. Unless you can hide it's heat signature, it's bound to be detected by any military fielding modern equipment. However, if you're in a rather low tech war, camo like that is still worth the effort.

Click to expand...

Funny, I remember people saying something remarkably similar about the aircraft cannon, body armor and plenty of others.

The militaries around the world still evidently seem to think camos are a good investment since no-one has decided to paint their tanks or planes bright pink yet.

Modern thermal imagining equipment has useful lives just like anything else. It might not be limited to hundreds or low thousands of hours any more, but they do wear out after a certain number of hours of use. That is why no-one runs around with their thermal sights on all the time.

Even when you do have your thermal gear switched on, they only have a limited field of view, and if it is an active battlefield with large fires burning, you may well find your thermal gear rendered ineffective, in which case, you need to rely on the good old fashioned Mk 1 eyeball. There are plenty of other examples I could list, but I think I have made my point clear enough.

plawolf said:

Funny, I remember people saying something remarkably similar about the aircraft cannon, body armor and plenty of others.

The militaries around the world still evidently seem to think camos are a good investment since no-one has decided to paint their tanks or planes bright pink yet.

Modern thermal imagining equipment has useful lives just like anything else. It might not be limited to hundreds or low thousands of hours any more, but they do wear out after a certain number of hours of use. That is why no-one runs around with their thermal sights on all the time.

Even when you do have your thermal gear switched on, they only have a limited field of view, and if it is an active battlefield with large fires burning, you may well find your thermal gear rendered ineffective, in which case, you need to rely on the good old fashioned Mk 1 eyeball. There are plenty of other examples I could list, but I think I have made my point clear enough.

Click to expand...

You were saying?



While for the most part, in regards to thermal imaging, is true, that doesn't discount the entire range of reconnaissance a modern military utilizes. For the most part, if you're planning an armored assault, you don't just throw a tank brigade in one direction and tell them to search & destroy, you of course do some recon first, and nowadays, that's usually with drones like the Global Hawk, which would use it's thermal camera and a SAR (Side Aperture Radar) to locate and track tanks.

To counter this, of course, is a whole foray of modern tank camouflage techniques, such as thermal cloaks with a dual purpose to hide one's radar signature, and even a British system of some name that I can't remember that which transforms the tank into the thermal signature of something else. Again, not to say that painting your tank the color of it's surroundings and then adding forage to it won't be effective in some cases, but against a modern army, it's uses are limited.

IronsightSniper said:

You were saying?

While for the most part, in regards to thermal imaging, is true, that doesn't discount the entire range of reconnaissance a modern military utilizes. For the most part, if you're planning an armored assault, you don't just throw a tank brigade in one direction and tell them to search & destroy, you of course do some recon first, and nowadays, that's usually with drones like the Global Hawk, which would use it's thermal camera and a SAR (Side Aperture Radar) to locate and track tanks.

To counter this, of course, is a whole foray of modern tank camouflage techniques, such as thermal cloaks with a dual purpose to hide one's radar signature, and even a British system of some name that I can't remember that which transforms the tank into the thermal signature of something else. Again, not to say that painting your tank the color of it's surroundings and then adding forage to it won't be effective in some cases, but against a modern army, it's uses are limited.

Click to expand...

Arrh! My eyes!

Where did you find that picture?

Anyways, you make some good points, but I would just like to point out that all the advanced thermal cloaks and thermal signature scramblers are still camouflage. High tech camouflage, but still camouflage nonetheless.

Just as technology and means to defeat camouflage has advanced and evolved, so has the art of camouflage itself, and it is this more general term that I have been referring to, instead of merely camo paint.

Hell, with advances in modern technology and materials science, there are already IR and radar absorbent coatings that could have been applied along with the paint to greatly reduce a tank's IR and radar signature (they are just not employed because of cost, but if a real war breaks out between two evenly matched armies/nations, then the cost-benefit analysis may well shift decided in favor of applying such coatings to tanks and other armored vehicles); and there are metamaterials being developed that may one day be able to render something 'invisible' in the visual and IR spectrums.

My point is that camouflage is far from being dead or rendered ineffective by advancing science.

It's a perpetual arms race between detection and camouflage, just like most other fields.

Oh :v

I thought you were talking about the old methods of camouflage, agreed.

most tank today are painted with IR suppression paint.next step was radar suppression.
during the mid 90's french propose 'stealth" version of lelcrer. by far the most unique ,was adaptation of rectangular gun tube .

the current next step is active IR signature control BAE and an Isreali Company recently produced a set of tiles that are fitted too the skin of a vehicle and can produce a specific set of IR images turning a Tank into a Car or a Hummer into a patch of shrubs. the after next step I think would be too enable visual modification of the same.

These Are Not Tanks, But They Kill Tanks!

[video]http://military.cntv.cn/program/jsjs/20120117/125107.shtml[/video]

A.Man said:

These Are Not Tanks, But They Kill Tanks!

[video]http://military.cntv.cn/program/jsjs/20120117/125107.shtml[/video]

Click to expand...

They are obsoluted.. Can only fired when stop.. Aren't they sitting duck in modern armour warfare?

I didn't watch the full video, they did say they can only fire when stationary? That would be ridiculous.

Or are you just assuming that the video didn't show them firing on the move, that they're incapable of doing so? If the latter, then logic needs work lol...

--

trololol nvm sinodefence says the gun's apparently not stabilized (PTZ89) so can't fire on move, my bad.
But I wouldn't say it's obsolete on the modern battlefield. It's an anti tank gun, not a tank remember.

AT guns are rather obsolete in the modern battle field lol. Unless you're in a desperate situation where every man counts, then sure, give some a few AT guns, stabilized or not. But for any "professional" wars, they lack use, morso if they aren't stabilized.