New Type98/99 MBT thread

[plawolf]

Not exactly. During the Gulf War, the Iraqis had a ton of T-72’s and other older tanks while the US and its allies were fielding Abrams, M60’s, Challengers and other types of tanks. The M1A1’s superior cannon and optics allowed US tankers to shoot from a safe distance while the Iraqi tanks can only drive around helplessly as they got sniped. During the Yom Kippur and Six Day war, the Israelis’ tank force were vastly outnumbered by Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian tanks, but they were able to shred them into pieces.

The American military concluded after the war that they would have won the ground war even had they and the Iraqis swapped tanks.

Also, it’s funny that you cannot see in your examples, the loosing side were always the Arabs and instead choose to blame the equipment.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

The American military concluded after the war that they would have won the ground war even had they and the Iraqis swapped tanks.

Also, it’s funny that you cannot see in your examples, the loosing side were always the Arabs and instead choose to blame the equipment.

I was responding to the comment of mass numbers bring key to victory. If anything, my comments, particularly the one on the Israeli-Arab wars, show that numbers arent everything. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

It was the other way around during Yom Kippur. The IDF was getting thoroughly trashed and what allowed them to turn the war around was Syrian terrible logistics and lack of proper preparation.

During the Yom Kippur war, the Israelis initially got routed since they were deceived by the purposely repeated mass exercises conducted by the Syrians and Egyptians. If anything, the Syrians DID prepare well. Their generals planned their offensive very detailedly, and contrary to popular belief, the Syrians had ok logistics. However the Syrians didn’t follow up that well due to crappy organization and training.

 

[Surpluswarrior]

Wasn't the problem with Iraqi tanks their ammo? Soviets sold some downgraded export version with steel penetrator to them, pretty unsurprising that those T-72 can't pen M1s armor. In terms of firepower the PLA tanks shouldn't have any issues. Gen 3 rounds should be available to all guns now.

The Iraqi tanks faced many problems.

1) The ammunition was indeed outdated, it had started to be phased out in Soviet service around 1970 or so IIRC, yet here it was being used on the front-line in 1991.

2) Iraqi tank gun barrels were worn-out after years of fighting Iran, etc... and thus suffered from accuracy problems at long ranges.

3) Iraqi tanks used an inferior sighting-system as compared to Soviet equivalents (export system). It was mechanical/analog whereas there was something more modern and computerized in Soviet T-72s.

4) The best Iraqi tanks were T-72M tanks, the best of which were roughly equivalent to export-downgraded T-72A. Which was a distinctly second-line tank for the Soviets at the time. And they lacked add-ons such as ERA, anti-missile systems, etc... And many Iraqi tanks were inferior to T-72A.

5) U.S. achieved strategic surprise against Iraqi tank forces, having benefited from air supremacy and satellite intel that Iraqis didn't have. Many of the tanks shot up by U.S. forces were empty, as the crew hadn't even boarded the tank yet.

Basically, Iraqi tank forces were mostly leftovers from Iraq-Iran war of 1980s. It was an export tank force built by East European countries, such as Czechloslovakia, using second-line technologies intended to face Western export armies. Not first-rate NATO forces. And they were depleted, and using poor sights and ammunition.

Iraqi performance shouldn't be taken to represent the "Soviet way," for a variety of reasons. Soviets had more modern tanks at the time, such as T-72B and T-80, with T-90 predecessor on the way. They had ERA, active defense systems already in-service. Gun-launched guided-missiles extended the combat ranges. New tanks, like the predecessors to T-14 were being studied, as well as some tank-destroyers. The plan to fight NATO involved massive use of artillery flares to help early-generation infrared equipment while hurting NATO optics, and of course tanks would have operated in conjunction with air support and massed artillery.

Iraq had some pieces of the Soviet army, but lacked many others. Soviet MBTs were mainly intended to fight in much-closer European conditions, in wet and muddy/snowy terrain, near hills and valleys. Soviet tanks had to be "good enough" to take on local NATO forces, so they were always being upgraded. But Iraq's use of tanks hardly represented the philosophy of the original builders. This is sometimes forgotten when discussing "Soviet armour philosophy" and Iraqi tanks together.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

Not sure M1 either then or now uses ERA. I think it just had very strong Chobham-type passive armour, in some cases reinforced with depleted uranium Heavy Armor Package.

I definitely remember the M60A3’s having ERA, not the M1’s.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

A number of issues

1. Iraqi T-72s faced an environment where they had lost control of the air. If the air situation was merely contested, then the Iraqi tank formations could have manoeuvred and also achieved overwhelming local superiority in numbers. I say "could" because that assumes similar levels of local unit tactical competence and datalinks

2. The T-72s did score many more hits on Abrahms. But the Abrahms had explosive reactive armour whilst the T-72s didn't. That's not an issue with Chinese tanks like the Type-96

3. The Type-96 optics and cannon should be equal to Type-99 or Abrahms. Where it will probably be worse is in specification of its laser rangefinders, IR imagers and stabilised shooting whilst on the move, defenses, etc etc

4. Chinese tanks aren't going to end up in a desert war where long-range sniping is possible. If anything, you're looking at urban scenarios in Korea or Taiwan

5. In any case, China also fields a heavier and higher specification tank in the Type-99. It's the Type-99 that will be expected to conduct heavy combat duty. The larger numbers of Type-96 can follow, by concentrating to create weak spots or exploiting breakthroughs

6. Alternatively, the Type-96s could be used to conduct frontal attacks to create breakthroughs and attack in conditions of their choosing, where their lower specifications don't matter eg. a close quarters, utilising the terrain and during the day. Plus wouldn't need side armour and they would be faster than the heavier Type-99s. Both the Type-96 and Type-99 have a similar frontal armour of 1000mm RHA

Agreed on all points. However, like I said before, the Israeli-Arab wars show that numbers aren’t the key to victory. Crew and leadership competencies definitely play significant roles in winning tank warfare. I’d argue that numbers is definitely one of the major reasons, not the sole reason, for a potential victory in that aspect of war.

 

[Maikeru]

 

[AndrewS]

The American military concluded after the war that they would have won the ground war even had they and the Iraqis swapped tanks.

Yes, I can believe that

If you have air and information superiority, the opposing ground forces are likely to be toast. That applies whether they are MBTs like the Abrams or Type-96s

That's a strong argument to focus of air and information superiority first, rather than ground combat vehicles

If China gets into a conflict with a peer opponent on land, it's unlikely that either side will be able to establish sole air and information superiority. It's more likely to be contested where both sides can establish this for limited periods of time of their choosing

So we can see it doesn't make sense to focus on the absolutely highest performance for MBTs.
And that applies to all scenarios regarding air and information superiority on a land battlefield (whether it is contested, China has dominance, or China doesn't have dominance)

---

The other point is that the vast majority of Armies in the world can't justify developing, producing and supporting 2 different MBT designs for a Hi-Lo mix. Their armies just aren't big enough to purchase enough tanks

Also, it’s funny that you cannot see in your examples, the loosing side were always the Arabs and instead choose to blame the equipment.

Yes, training is really important when you're talking about ground combat. It's a collection of engagements conducted at the platoon level which is commanded by lieutenants

 

[lcloo]

There will not be mainly tank to tank battles involving PLA ground forces. Chinese doctrine on warfare has changed. Instead of an armour brigade, they are now organised in combined brigade. If their tanks were to go into a battle, the same brigade will have immediate and co-ordinated support from combined elements from within, with tanks, IFV, anti-tank, attack helicopters, air defence, self-propel artillery, rocket artillery units etc moving and fight in unison.

 

[AndrewS]

There will not be mainly tank to tank battles involving PLA ground forces. Chinese doctrine on warfare has changed. Instead of an armour brigade, they are now organised in combined brigade. If their tanks were to go into a battle, the same brigade will have immediate and co-ordinated support from combined elements from within, with tanks, IFV, anti-tank, attack helicopters, air defence, self-propel artillery, rocket artillery units etc moving and fight in unison.

Combined arms brigades are the norm these days

So Chinese brigades would be expected to meet opposing brigades with the same doctrine