Chinese 96-A

plawolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. It can handle them since the 1970s at least. Ancient 1A33 provided 0.8 first shot kill probability against moving the tank-sized target from 2 kms, and I see no reasons why LRF-fitted TPD2-49 from the mid-1960s couldn't do the same for a static target.

2. t-72b3 uses one of the most advanced FCS among deployed(Sosna-U). Why they aren't employed is a common question. Even not counting sports aspect, even for reserve sight (former main sight, TPD-K1), accuracy results are terrible by old standards(according to former GSVG officers).

ougoah said:

I see little evidence that PLA is equiping their 99s and 96s to the level of western tanks. What I do see is them fielding over a thousand 96 variants and close to 1000 type 99s. This shows they want to keep the numbers high while making small sacrifices in high end equipment that they consider unnecessary. These include RWS and optics in the level of western tanks. PLA is certainly geared towards quantity.

Click to expand...

ougoah said:

I'm not saying they will never repair tanks. You guys are all jumping to conclusions and assuming much from what i've said. All i'm saying is PLA seems to prefer fielding huge numbers over arming elite tanks. 99s are still cheaper than western tanks and MUCH cheaper than K2s, T-14s and Type 10s. It's just an interesting observation that they will prefer to overwhelm the battlefield with huge numbers of tanks that can perform well enough to get the job done.

Click to expand...

To add to what others have already said about 2K modern tanks being too few for China, technological and budget constraints, there is also the issue of morale while working with those conditions. It may be acceptable to reservists and militias to work with obviously obsolete equipment since they are supposed to be the last line of defense but it certainly takes a toll on morale for any active duty troops, even second or third tier ones no matter how dedicated, to face "effective equipment inequality" that is too stark or for too long compared their other comrades-in-arms as a result of conscious strategic choice. This can be a hidden problem where everything seems fine in peacetime but once a poorly equipped unit is in combat or when the tide goes against them then these troops are less willing to take a stand. A measure of equality and opportunity matters just as with other things.

vesicles said:

You cited 1000 type 99's and 1000 type 96's as your evidence of the PLA going for the numbers. A thousand tanks may sound like a lot to you, but China is a huge country. A thousand tanks may be the bare minimum for them. They still need to replace all their old tanks. How many type 59's do they still have? It may be in the thousands. So in other words, they may have decreased their total number of tanks dramatically if you look at the trend.

Click to expand...

My best estimations

7600 MBTs
1000 Type 99/A
2700 Type 96
400 Type 88
1050 Type 59B/D
1300 Type 59
300 Type 63A 105 mm guns
500 Type 63A
300 Type 79
50 ? ZTQ-105 ?

With re organisation 5 on 18 Armies Group stand down but a part of units joining Armies Group still existing so i guestimate in fact the reduction of combattants units Brigades or equivalent to 15 - 20 % to consider for the new MBT Fleet.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...4-strategic-regions.t7913/page-11#post-468539

Gloire_bb said:

1. It can handle them since the 1970s at least. Ancient 1A33 provided 0.8 first shot kill probability against moving the tank-sized target from 2 kms, and I see no reasons why LRF-fitted TPD2-49 from the mid-1960s couldn't do the same for a static target.

2. t-72b3 uses one of the most advanced FCS among deployed(Sosna-U). Why they aren't employed is a common question. Even not counting sports aspect, even for reserve sight (former main sight, TPD-K1), accuracy results are terrible by old standards(according to former GSVG officers).

Click to expand...

Why weren't those employed in the competition I wonder. They could have set targets to 2km if they were worried about everyone hitting targets.


Targets were 2km away and even with stand still shooting or slow moving tanks at a stationary target, the accuracy wasn't amazing. I doubt NORINCO would have held back on FCS if they're presenting these products.

Chinese Army - Yan Xun Shi test tank at the field shot live ammunition close to the battlefield

Why do we have so little news about this tank production? I think the top notch tank type 99 is the most classified, it's a pity we don't receive more news about type 96a considering It is not the best that China has to offer.

ILikeChina said:

Why do we have so little news about this tank production? I think the top notch tank type 99 is the most classified, it's a pity we don't receive more news about type 96a considering It is not the best that China has to offer.

Click to expand...

You want know what ? but with China don't be too curious

Just curious, does this kind of "tank drift" games have any realistic battlefield applications?

Josh Luo said:

Just curious, does this kind of "tank drift" games have any realistic battlefield applications?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

By itself? Nothing. There isn't a single instance on the battlefield where drifting a tank would be appropriate, unless they want to rip their tracks off or flip their vehicle like the Kuwaitis at the Tank Biathlon.

Systemically, though? Loads of benefits. Most importantly, the drivers of the tank know their vehicle a lot better and can achieve much finer control. This will be important on the battlefield if they're negotiating tough terrain (like a narrow mountain road) or have to squeeze through partially-cleared tank obstacles. Less importantly, this is done for television, which would contribute to heightening awareness and admiration for PLA servicemen, boosting recruitment numbers, etc., etc.