errors of the past.

In a meeting between the PLA and design team in 1984 concluded that the new tank would be based on the T-72. ZHU Yusheng was appointed as the chief designer of the project. In 1986 the thrid-generation MBT project was officially approved by the Central Military Commission and the State Council. In Spring 1989 the PLA signed the contract with China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO), the parent company of 201 Institute and 617 Factory, to develop the third generation MBT.

I would like to delve to deeper into this error and how the PRC can correct this. I believe after the 91gulf war the PRC soon understood that it made a grievous error by going the way of the T-64/72 base design with its own future development of a MBT. I believe now with the development and deployment of the Type-96/98 you are looking at the attempted “patchwork temporary fix†with the ideas of the more advanced composite amour on the frontal arcs of the newer designs. I fully expect with in the next five years to see a whole new design concept appear if not already in the trail phase. Keeping such developments secret would prevent the ROC from appealing to the U.S for its M1A2 or going to another western power or Israel for such tank upgrade......cheers ute

Hi Utelore

If the design process started 20 years ago and the production orders were placed 15 years ago, then it is not unreasonable to expect the next generation of tank to be in the pipeline now. This is especially true for a rapidly developing country.

Now, I dont know if the operation of modern tanks, differs fundamentaly from the operation of older ones, or whether an Abrams functions pretty much the same way as say a Tiger or a Matilda.( I dare say you do and can advise). If the difference is great, how well would the PLA of 15 years ago have been able to operate equipment that corresponded to Western Levels?

Irrespective, Chinese production capabilities have transformed themselves, largely out of recognition, in this period which means that 15 years ago "a modern" MBT would probably have been outside of their cost-effective production capability, whilst today this is no longer likely to be the case.

China now, probably faces the same problem as all Western Militaries, which is that the rate of increase of civilian technology, is so much faster than the speed of the military procurement process, that actually pinning down a set of working specifications is becoming increasingly difficult.

Initially the PLA was going to develop its new tank on the basis of Leopard 2. The PLA even developed the 120mm smoothbore gun for this project. However, the limitation of China's technology and industry capability at the time made the PLA decide to return to the Soviet/Russian route.

Was this the right decision? From the experience of the Gluf War, maybe not. But there is a school of thought within the PLA believes that you can make a weapon with advantages of both Eastern and Western tanks. For eastern tanks this means small front profile and better mobility, while for western tank it means good protection and advanced fire-control/sight. However, is it possible to develop a tank with the advantages of both sides, and without the disadvantages of either sides?

Interestingly, the PLA has never given up exploring other tank concepts. The PLA is particularly interested in the front-mounted powerpack design.

One unconfirmed report suggested that the Type 98/G will change to a new chassis originally developed for Type 90/MBT-2000 export tank series.

I think it would have be wiser when looking back that the PRC should have adopted the Leo2 design. The Leo2 is a great tank. I think there are to duel keys to tank warfare both are of equal importence
1. To be able to ID and kill a OFOR tank with 1 round to the frontal arc
2. To be able to surive a hit on your frontal arc from a OPFOR tank .

it seems very simple but that is the key to tank warfare based on my experience.....cheers ute.

Personally i do not think that soviet tank design itself is worse than the western one. Also i believe that experience of GW'91 should not be accounted, it was 20-years difference in technological level, and besides, Iraq was already incapable of fullscale military operations. Anyway i do not intend to continue the GW line. My point is that soviet tank design does not have crucial faults. You can have any armor, any FCS, any engine, any gun on both designs. T-64/72 has lower profile, is smaller, is more compact, but still it shares most "things that make tank to be a tank" with western designs. The only difference is in autoloader that
a) is dangerous
b) does not allow long sabot shells due to "separate" loading sequence
I believe we all are aware of russian and ukranian modernisation programs meant to solve these disadvantages.

I totaly and respectfully disagree with your statment that soviet tank design is not worse than western design. It has been proven on all fronts that the modern russian way of making tanks is horrid. The are under armoured and the over all quaility is below the standard of western tanks. I do believe the russians and the PRC are taking those flawed designs and are trying to fix them with the likes of the "Blackeagle T-80 upgrade and the Type 98 which is incorperating more advanced composite moduale armour protection. I think the biggest fix would simply to make their tanks more heavy.

But please let me take a step back and to give credit to the russians for their design of the BTR-T which is going to save the lives of many Mech Inf. I feel it is a great AFV that I would like to see the U.S even move in that direction for its AIFV design.....cheers ute.

The are under armoured and the over all quaility is below the standard of western tanks.

Click to expand...

I'd like to continue this line a bit. From my point of view quality is not a fault of the design. And what about armor? With powerfull enough engine you can have any frontal armor. As for rear and flanks... For example, how tough M1's turret flank armor is? I think i know for sure that leo's ammo container could be blown up by the 30mm fire...

As for BTR-T... Probably it would be much better than existing russian vehicles in combat (from infantryman's view especially), but unfortunately i do not have any info regarding vehicle's fielding. This one is for export most likely. Russian military doctrine still counts soldier as an expendable resource. You wouldn't believe the horrible things i've heared back in military faculty.

Aluka said:

I'd like to continue this line a bit. From my point of view quality is not a fault of the design. And what about armor? With powerfull enough engine you can have any frontal armor. As for rear and flanks... For example, how tough M1's turret flank armor is? I think i know for sure that leo's ammo container could be blown up by the 30mm fire...

Click to expand...

you can have a heavy armor with a very good engine, but your tank will be very heavy, that mean you need to have larger track for mud, sand, snow, and if you tank are too heavy, are you suren that they can cross bridges ??? For exemple, before the beginning of WWII, all german tank were below 20t because the bridges in this time cannot support vehicule heavier than 20t, heavier tanks start rolling on those bridges only after they built some better bridges, and you'll need to "upgrade" all your tank reparing equipment with better engine so they can tow your heavy tank

From my point of view. The T72s in GW are a far cry from the real T72 used by the russions. what make a tank good is fire power, protection and mobility.
T72 is not bad on mobility side.
The fire power... I don't kown what did Iraq tankies are using, I do recall that Utelore said it can not penaltrate M1's frontal armor. How ever, I do think a hit with a russion/chinese tungsten/DP round will make the life of a M1 tankie very unpleasent.
Like that T98G. additional armor give additional protection.

The variables are complete, and it will make a tank a decent tank.

What really set the difference is the ability to land that freaking round on the target. As utelore said in a post before, iraq T72's fire control system is lousy in any espect. If one can plant the M1's fire control into T72, it will make it a leathal weapon. On a one2one base, it is not the tank desgin that is problematic, it is the software and tech makes a real difference.

Now come to another point. Ex-soviet think of armor combat is big coloum strike deep into enemy territory, It is a number war. Soldier's life is just a number. Both russia and china have too many manpower. like int WWII, german's are far better equiped and trained, but they just don't have the manpower. When a war come to a stale mate, number of "consumerables" is more important than quality.

One company of M1 finds a regiment of 98G, will you standing fight? or pick a better time other day? In Australian doctrine, we will slip in the the deep jungle for sure..

In conclusion, I don't think it is really a griveous decision to go with the T72 chasiss desgin. How ever, my favorite tank is still the Merkava series. Ute, have you got a chance to see one live?

I have not, However my old battalion sgt maj was on the development team with isreal on the merkava. Isreal realy talked to many different states tank crewman on the dev of its MBT. I talked to him briefly about it and he loves it. a little slow but the protection is first rate. He saw vids of a merkava putting a 105mm APFSDS round into a sniper in a building at 1500 meters in lebanon. the sabot took the snipers head off.