Chinese future tank devolpments...


adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
As mentioned in our older forum, I don't think any pictures from the interior of a Type-98 MBT has been released. Without seeing what's inside it's really difficult for us to judge the platform.

I have seen the insides of a French LeClerc MBT on the Military Channel (TV) and it's REALLY nice. Computerized battlefield/centralized management system with colorful flat-panel displays. You get real-time data on everyone's positions, their fuel/supply/ammunition levels and so on. Really nice auto loader system too.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Due to the events of 6/89, I highly doubt it'd be politically feasible for EU to export MBT's to PRC at this time. However it may be possible to purchase or license certain technologies and integrate them into PLA's MBT's.
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
china would never buy a complete battle tank from any country. it's way easier and cheaper to buy some relevant technologies. since the deal is with france, the computer systems of the leclerc can be obtained pretty easily. just look at lybia...
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
MIGleader said:
china would never buy a complete battle tank from any country. it's way easier and cheaper to buy some relevant technologies. since the deal is with france, the computer systems of the leclerc can be obtained pretty easily. just look at lybia...

There are some advantages to purchasing. You get completed systems, plus possible technology transfer and local licensed-production.

The only export success for the LeClerc is UAE, they paid about $4 billion USD for 388 LeClerc MBT's, 2 training systems, 46 recovery vehicles, plus training and munitions.

It's within China's economic capability to make such a purchase today. BUT it's not politically feasible for EU to sell tanks to China right now. But China may be able to purchase certain components, such as real time battlefield management systems. Compare the interior of a LeClerc with other MBTS:

LeClerc:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


M1A1:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


K1A1:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


T-84:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



I think most of you would agree that the LeClerc's commander station looks a lot more advanced, integrated, and without all the crap hanging off everywhere on the sides.
 

Vytautas

Junior Member
I think most of you would agree that the LeClerc's commander station looks a lot more advanced, integrated, and without all the crap hanging off everywhere on the sides.
That isnt a tank anymore.Its some family vacation esuvee.What next?They are going to add safety belts and air bags?
 

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Yes, I believe the PRC would do will to incorperate the Leclerk. I have been able to play around with all kinds of russian tanks including killing them. T-72 , T-80, T-62 , T-55/54 Type-59. Western design is crucial. I think the PRC is taking baby steps with tank design. BUT baby steps are better than what the russians are doing with no steps at all. You cannot be afraid to look at somthing that was a mistake and to correct that mistake. 200 Leclerks would be better than 1000 Type-96
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
the 96's needed to be scrapped or sold. they arn't very capable unless its against t-72. the russians have made amazing tank progress via chinese funds. the t-80ums(or something like it) is a very capable tank. the new black eagle is awsome, best in the world, but they cant find enough cash to make it. china should order a few.

dont buy a complete leclerc. you dont need a full system. the chinese are inovative enought to reorganize it to fit 99. yes, the leclerk has an impressive insiide. thats the part china should buy. Techy transfer? no problem.

those hulls are all a mansion compared to a t-72 hull i saw in china once. i wonder how it didn't need a ten man crew. so much shit everywher.
 

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Migleader, just remember that in tank development ,that past performance is indecitive of future results.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Hello All

Some very interesting comments on spec and performance, but I would like to add a note or too on a area so far not mentioned ....... production.

Reading your posts, I get the impression that for all your assesment of cutting edge operational capability, your view of production is still rooted in the methods of WW2.

Obviously, I do not pretend any special knowledge of PLA methods, but I can hazard a good guess about how the CCP would look to produce large numbers of cost effective units, quickly and deployed to where they were required.

Point 1

Do not expect to see finished tanks role out of Beijing Tank Factory No: 13 except of course in the Propaganda Movies.

The benefit of a simple design is that it can be made in simple facilities, nor does every bit have to be made in the same factory. There is no reason why thousands of small units can produce individual items in accordanc etc requirement, many small units engaged in making each part. Try bombing this production line!!!

Point 2

Things made in many different locations do not need to be stuck together in one place either. It would make sense to preassemble some parts, but nothing that looked to tank like. So...

Point 3

Do not expect to see train loads of brand new tanks being rushed across the country (an obvious task for deep strike intelligence etc). All you would see are loads of trains carrying indistinguisable machine parts (expect increased train traffick volume to cause confusion) (expect anything that looks like Tanks on trains to be made of wood!!)

Point 4

Anything simple to make is also simple to put together, maybe even by a A Tank Units Support Enginneers (your view Ute?) Certainly in a large number of small non-discript Sheds.

The thrust of this is that I would expect a Tank like the T96/98 variants to be producable in prefabricated sections, easily transportable and easily assembled very close to the battle front.

Question - when is a T96 better than an Abrams? Answer when there is a T96 and no Abrams.

I hope the points I am trying to make, makes sense.
 
Last edited:

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Sanpan, I am for quality over quanity. I think if you are going to build a tank it should be the best protected and most lethal tank money can buy. the crew should be well trained and believe in the equipment it is operating.....cheers ute
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
IMO besides the MBT's, the PLA needs to look into integrating recon and attack UAV's to their tank regements. The UAV can be launched from support vehicles and serve in high-altitude reconnaissance role, providing real time battlefield data and target aquisition data. Attack UAV's can fly low and pop up to attack enemy MBT's.

Attack UAV's like the Israeli Harpy, has range up to 500 km and can be launched from a truck:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top