Hey Ivy: Have you Heard About Big Chinese Tank

[wholagun]

Large-calibre 'super tank' being developed in China

CHRISTOPHER F FOSS JDW Land Forces Editor
London

China has been developing a new main battle tank (MBT) since the early 1990s that, if fielded, would be the most powerful vehicle of its type in the world, according to Jane's Defence Weekly sources.

It is believed that the new MBT will be armed with a 152mm gun fed by an automatic loader. This would be coupled to an advanced day/ thermal sighting system that will allow moving targets to be engaged with a high first-round-hit probability while the vehicle is stationary or mobile.

It is not yet known whether the new MBT will have a conventional manned turret or an external gun, which would allow all the crew to be in the hull for maximum protection. The ammunition would be loaded separately.

Advanced armour and an active protection system would also be fitted for increased survivability.

At least one source has indicated that Russia has supplied some of the technology for the Chinese project to earn foreign currency to fund its own tank programmes.

This applies mainly to the main armament and the power pack. The 125mm smoothbore gun, the standard Russian tank gun for many years, is installed in the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBTs.

For some years, however, Russia has been developing a new MBT understood to be armed with a 135mm smoothbore gun, which could be in an external mount.

The Chinese power pack is built around a 2,500hp diesel to give a high power-to-weight ratio and speed. For improved cross-country mobility a hydropneumatic suspension system is fitted.

The most modern MBT in People's Liberation Army (PLA) service is the Type 98. This was first shown during a public parade in Beijing in late 1999.

Employing a similar chassis to the Russian T-72 MBT, the Type 98 has a new all-welded steel armour turret armed with a 125mm/50-cal smoothbore gun.

This is fed by an automatic system below the turret that loads the projectile followed by the semi-combustible cartridge. All that remains after firing is the cartridge case stub.

Other advanced features of the Type 98 include a computerised day/thermal fire-control system; nuclear, biological and chemical warfare protection; fire-detection and -suppression system; and a roof-mounted laser dazzle device.

While other countries have experimented with laser dazzle devices, the PLA is believed to be the first country to operationally deploy such a system on an MBT. It can also be fitted with an infra-red jammer, which is similar to the Russia Shtora system.

It was recently confirmed that the Type 98 tank can fire a laser-guided projectile (JDW 6 November 2002).

The 125mm gun, automatic loader and laser-guided missile technology is understood to have been provided by Russia.

The missile is identical to the Russian KBP Instrument Design Bureau 9K119 Reflecks (AT-11), which has a maximum range of 5,000m.

China's North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) is not offering the Type 98 MBT for export. The latest MBT to be marketed overseas is the MBT 2000, which has a combat weight of 46 tonnes and is armed with a 125mm smoothbore gun fed by an automatic loader. The MBT 2000 is related to the Al Khalid tank developed in Pakistan with the assistance of NORINCO for the Pakistani Army.

Western MBTs such as the Ariete, Leclerc, Leopard 2 and M1A1/ M1A2 Abrams are all armed with 120mm smoothbore guns that are manually loaded (except for the Leclerc, which has a bustle-mounted automatic loader).

France, Germany, the UK and the US were all working on the 140mm Future Tank Main Armament programme but with the end of the Cold War, and the lack of a clearly defined threat, work on this has now ceased.

Im not sure if this is an old article or not, or if it has been posted before, if so sorry. Got the article off another forum. http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:esQUopwa9HIJ:www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D3485%26page%3D5+Patria+AMV+pictures&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Operation Ivy]

The Chinese power pack is built around a 2,500hp diesel to give a high power-to-weight ratio and speed. For improved cross-country mobility a hydropneumatic suspension system is fitted.

Holy ****

U wouldnt happen to have any pics?

This thing has a 152mm gun a 2,500hp disel engine and "powerful" armor, u thought the Abrams was heavy, this thing is gonna weigh like 80-90 tons.


C&C is comong true!
http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/C&C.jpg
rofl

[Apogee]

That thing is gonna need a helluva supply chain

[Operation Ivy]

Very true, i think its just a dumb idea :slap: (im not jealous ;) )

[AFG]

i'd like to see it also hehe

[stuntman]

It's nice meat for our bombs!

[Apogee]

anyone know what the weight of this thing is predicted to be?

[GazB]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it.

The 152mm gun I can accept as there are rumours that the Russians are working on a similar weapon for their Black Eagle and T-95 projects. A 2,500 HP diesel however is rather more unlikely. Mention of the 135mm gun for Russian vehicles reminds me of Cold War period War games estimates of the next Russian Tank gun... which were rubbish.

I would suggest the same for this article.

[Nizark]

fock! We r gonna need cruise missiles for that bitch

[wholagun]

No sorry Ivy the link I provided is the only source I have. I found it by accident and though you may be interested. From the looks it, the article said they are building so they may not even have an actual product yet, if of course this thing does exist. No pics. I was hoping somone else would got pics.

How the hell would they trasport this thing? It would crush all bridges and reak havoc on roads. well we'll see when they build it.

[Andyman]

That sounds like some scary **** man. Does anyone know if by increasing the size of the round does that make a gun more accurate over long distances and increase its ability to fire further. :|

[mustamato]

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/ussr/su_152_01.jpg

Reminds me of the russian world war two SU-152 that had a 152 mm gun. Just look at that gun! If a 152 mm HEAT shell hits a (let´s say a Abrams), and it doesn´t penetrate by some reason, I still think the crew would be quite chocked. Must be hell of a boom.

[Hullebullen]

To Andyman:

Well, I'm no expert on kinetics but I think the main thing you want is high muzzle velocity when it comes to accuracy. Makes the round travel with a flatter trajectory hence more accurate. That's the basic idea. Perhaps there are more to the equation but I wouldn't know...

[GazB]

The problems of lack of long range accuracy for Soviet vehicles was solved initally by laser guided tube launched missiles. The current solution is TI sights, digital fire control system computers, laser rangefinders, and better designed rounds. These improvements were expensive, but most of them have been integrated in all of the older soviet vehicles during overhaul. The West was much quicker as it had more money and fewer vehicles to upgrade. The East has now made these changes and still has the advantage of a viable tube launched ATGM. In 152-155mm calibre a MMW radar guidance system would be very simple to implement... resulting in a fire and forget anti tank/anti helo system. (The Russians already ahve the Krisantema ground launched ATGM using MMW radar guidance). The effectiveness of HEAT warheads is determined by their calibre (amongst other things).

[Chris196]

Autoloaders are notoriosly unreliable...

Nothing but a bomb magnet we could run circles around.

[Operation Ivy]

Autoloaders are notoriosly unreliable

Do u actually no this?(not trying to sound like an asshole :D ) I do know that they are much slower then a human loader

[garyfanclub]

Like Chris196 said...

JDAM Meat :)

[aktarian]

Autoloaders are notoriosly unreliable...


Urban myth. Manual loaders have certain advantages, but reliability isn't one of them.



Do u actually no this?(not trying to sound like an asshole ) I do know that they are much slower then a human loader


Not in long term. Crewmember get tired, ALs don't. ;)

[Javehn]

Urban myth. Manual loaders have certain advantages, but reliability isn't one of them.

Not necesseraly . Actually there are couple of things good in Autoloader , like less one crue member , and with time human , or as you call it "manual" rofl , loader getting tired to load rounds , and the loading time increases - that can product simple death in war . However , autoloader is mechanicly unrelliable (mostly in Russian tanks) takes quiet a big space of turret , and the rounds are not protected by Anti Fire packages . Also , while the human loader can handle a misfire on coaxial MG inside the tank , in 3 crue tanks the gunner must do it by himself , wasting time . Also , there are sertain human loaders , that can load faster then a mechanical loader , if they get the training .

About the missiles , like the GazB said . They ment to solve mostly the lack of good FCS systems .

[AFACadet]

JDAM Meat

^^^^^^^

I agree.


Big tank = perfect target for:

GAU-8s

http://www.gd-ots.com/New%20Web%20Images/Gau8.jpg

Mavs

http://www.gripen.at/images/02/15.jpg

CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapons

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2001/dot-e/images/01sfw.jpg

LOCAAS

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/strikeweapons/LOCAAS/images/pic-product-locaas.jpg


SDBs

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/sdb/images/demo.jpg


JDAMs

http://www.afa.org/magazine/June1999/0699bombopen.jpg

Hellfires/Brimstone

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/brimstoneb.jpg


TOW
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah-1-5.jpg

And the ever effective "kill everything in site"

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b-1b/images/b-1b_4.jpg

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b2bombs.jpg

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b52-bomb.jpg

[garyfanclub]

Hell yes!

[mustamato]

JDAM Meat

^^^^^^^

I agree.


Big tank = perfect target for:

Big tank = a old truck with some plywood to resemble a tank. Worked fine for the serbs. Was quite funny during the bombing campaign against the serb army in Kosovo and NATO´s claims that "95% of the serb armour has been destroyed", and when they pulled out of Kosovo to see their tank columns, more or less totally unharmed.

[AFACadet]

And it was also very effective in Afghanistan and Iraq when a Single B-52 or B-1b would take out an entire BATTALION of troops and tanks (one attack even took out a Brigade sized force) IN A SINGLE PASS.



Yup, I guess airpower is extremely ineffective :roll:

[garyfanclub]

JDAM Meat

^^^^^^^

I agree.


Big tank = perfect target for:

Big tank = a old truck with some plywood to resemble a tank. Worked fine for the serbs. Was quite funny during the bombing campaign against the serb army in Kosovo and NATO´s claims that "95% of the serb armour has been destroyed", and when they pulled out of Kosovo to see their tank columns, more or less totally unharmed.

Who do I have to write to get you to support ONE OF YOUR ****ING CLAIMS?!

[aktarian]

And it was also very effective in Afghanistan and Iraq when a Single B-52 or B-1b would take out an entire BATTALION of troops and tanks (one attack even took out a Brigade sized force) IN A SINGLE PASS.



Yup, I guess airpower is extremely ineffective :roll:

What are confirmed numbers of destroyed AFVs in Kosovo? IIRc it's around 30 AFVs and 30 arty pieces. Far below 100s claimed by ANTO.

[mustamato]

And it was also very effective in Afghanistan and Iraq when a Single B-52 or B-1b would take out an entire BATTALION of troops and tanks (one attack even took out a Brigade sized force) IN A SINGLE PASS.



Yup, I guess airpower is extremely ineffective :roll:

What are confirmed numbers of destroyed AFVs in Kosovo? IIRc it's around 30 AFVs and 30 arty pieces. Far below 100s claimed by ANTO.

Yep AFACadet you said it yourself. Afghanistan and Iraq. Desert countries with, to say the least, ancient equipment and more or less a total lack of AA. B-52´s in Vietnam were effective, but not in the same way. Theoretically (not IRL though) it would be interesting to see what B-52´s could have managed to do against a brigade in, say northern Europe.

I´m not saying that airpower is ineffective of course. Just that there is a difference in bombing a country that already had lost and to bomb a county that hasn´t. The bombing campaign over Serbia was interesting in that matter, the outcome wasn´t surprising, but the relative inefficiency against serb army vs. NATO´s claims was.

[garyfanclub]

Results would be the same in Northern Europe. Bombs don't descriminate between Deserts and Pine trees. Though supersonic pine tree splinters would ruin the day of any soldiers unfortunate to be nearby.

Did I mention your AA systems would be destroyed by the time the B-52s come around?

[Javehn]

And it was also very effective in Afghanistan and Iraq when a Single B-52 or B-1b would take out an entire BATTALION of troops and tanks (one attack even took out a Brigade sized force) IN A SINGLE PASS.



Yup, I guess airpower is extremely ineffective :roll:

What are confirmed numbers of destroyed AFVs in Kosovo? IIRc it's around 30 AFVs and 30 arty pieces. Far below 100s claimed by ANTO.

Yep AFACadet you said it yourself. Afghanistan and Iraq. Desert countries with, to say the least, ancient equipment and more or less a total lack of AA. B-52´s in Vietnam were effective, but not in the same way. Theoretically (not IRL though) it would be interesting to see what B-52´s could have managed to do against a brigade in, say northern Europe.

I´m not saying that airpower is ineffective of course. Just that there is a difference in bombing a country that already had lost and to bomb a county that hasn´t. The bombing campaign over Serbia was interesting in that matter, the outcome wasn´t surprising, but the relative inefficiency against serb army vs. NATO´s claims was.

Word . Have to agree with that . Also , the use of fake targets , underground buildings , good camo under under the right use of land is also part of it .
What he means , that it's much more difficult to locate ground targets from planes in highly dense forest area , in high developed areas like Kosovo , then in desert , when eve ry vehicle is like balles on dog .

[Haiw]

Results would be the same in Northern Europe. Bombs don't descriminate between Deserts and Pine trees. Though supersonic pine tree splinters would ruin the day of any soldiers unfortunate to be nearby.

Did I mention your AA systems would be destroyed by the time the B-52s come around?
:cantbeli:
You been reading too much NATO reports?

[garyfanclub]

Results would be the same in Northern Europe. Bombs don't descriminate between Deserts and Pine trees. Though supersonic pine tree splinters would ruin the day of any soldiers unfortunate to be nearby.

Did I mention your AA systems would be destroyed by the time the B-52s come around?
:cantbeli:
You been reading too much NATO reports?

Care to elaborate?

[Haiw]

There's a BIG difference between bombing a desert or a rather hilly area in Europe with lots of trees. Targets are WAY harder to spot and easier to camoflage, it's WAY easier to make dummies, etc. etc.
Everyone with a brain could figure out bombing is more effective in a desert.

[garyfanclub]

Oh, alright. Well I was talking about the effects of the bombing. I was mistaken.

[aktarian]

Results would be the same in Northern Europe. Bombs don't descriminate between Deserts and Pine trees. Though supersonic pine tree splinters would ruin the day of any soldiers unfortunate to be nearby.

Did I mention your AA systems would be destroyed by the time the B-52s come around?

Consider this. Designers of cluster ammo aim for 95% of rounds exploding. If they are lucky they get 80%. Now consider droping clusters over wooded area where bomblets get tangled into branches, sensors don't detect cool armor under cammouflage... Also lots of palces where you can hide AAA or mobbile SAMs and planes don't see it untill it's too alte.

[garyfanclub]

Results would be the same in Northern Europe. Bombs don't descriminate between Deserts and Pine trees. Though supersonic pine tree splinters would ruin the day of any soldiers unfortunate to be nearby.

Did I mention your AA systems would be destroyed by the time the B-52s come around?

Consider this. Designers of cluster ammo aim for 95% of rounds exploding. If they are lucky they get 80%. Now consider droping clusters over wooded area where bomblets get tangled into branches, sensors don't detect cool armor under cammouflage... Also lots of palces where you can hide AAA or mobbile SAMs and planes don't see it untill it's too alte.

We have something called a HARM Anti-Radiation Missle. So the second you turn on the radar, we smoke it. So unless you're planning on shooting down B-2 Spirits with a DSHK, I think you should reconsider.

[GazB]

"We have something called a HARM Anti-Radiation Missle. So the second you turn on the radar, we smoke it. So unless you're planning on shooting down B-2 Spirits with a DSHK, I think you should reconsider."

Yes, it was quite successful against Patriot when that Patriot battery locked on to an F-16. But after 3 months of a bombing campaign over Kosovo NATO was still flying at 20,000ft to avoid MANPADs and was still operating with the same number of jammer and wild weasel aircraft they flew on the first day with. At no time was the Serbian air defence network defeated... and all they had were SA-3s and SA-6s... weapons that NATO already knew intimately. If they had more modern SAMs like S-300 or S-300V or Buk or Tor then they would have had rather more problems than they did.

In the end they had to resort to bring down infrastructure in Serbia to force them to surrender... they could not hurt them on the ground in Kosovo.

Which is amusing because in theory airpower should work well in such cases. If you have surrogates that are competant on the ground like the Northern Alliance then the enemy has to concentrate to defend itself or withdraw. If it concentrates of course you have a target you can hit from the air... if they run then you hit the main roads and hope they concentrate later in a nice group. The KLA were pathetic compared to the Northern Alliance. They had basically been whipped several times by the Serb army and even with US Spec Ops support they didn't really do much to create targets for the NATO aircraft. The Northern Alliance of course were much better equipped and hardened by many years of fighting of course. They were rag tag, but still an army, whereas the KLA were little more than opportunist terrorists.

[aktarian]

We have something called a HARM Anti-Radiation Missle. So the second you turn on the radar, we smoke it. So unless you're planning on shooting down B-2 Spirits with a DSHK, I think you should reconsider.

It helps if you have HARM equiped plane in area. If you don't, well, you'll wish you had. ;)

And tell me which genious will leave radar on whole time? They detect incoming flights, activate radar, fire, turn it off and relocate. You woun't see it becaue it's in the woods or such. ALARM is much better in this way. I really don't know why it isn't more videly used.

[soma]

Impressive, but still speculative.

off topic; go fiji ;)

[garyfanclub]

We have something called a HARM Anti-Radiation Missle. So the second you turn on the radar, we smoke it. So unless you're planning on shooting down B-2 Spirits with a DSHK, I think you should reconsider.

It helps if you have HARM equiped plane in area. If you don't, well, you'll wish you had. ;)

And tell me which genious will leave radar on whole time? They detect incoming flights, activate radar, fire, turn it off and relocate. You woun't see it becaue it's in the woods or such. ALARM is much better in this way. I really don't know why it isn't more videly used.

So how are you planning on detecting incoming flights when your radar is off? Having guys stand on mountain tops and listen for planes? Even if you have your radars off, and turn them on to fire, you have to relocate which means the battery is off-line while you do so.

[Javehn]

We have something called a HARM Anti-Radiation Missle. So the second you turn on the radar, we smoke it. So unless you're planning on shooting down B-2 Spirits with a DSHK, I think you should reconsider.

It helps if you have HARM equiped plane in area. If you don't, well, you'll wish you had. ;)

And tell me which genious will leave radar on whole time? They detect incoming flights, activate radar, fire, turn it off and relocate. You woun't see it becaue it's in the woods or such. ALARM is much better in this way. I really don't know why it isn't more videly used.

So how are you planning on detecting incoming flights when your radar is off? Having guys stand on mountain tops and listen for planes? Even if you have your radars off, and turn them on to fire, you have to relocate which means the battery is off-line while you do so.

If you talking about Ground to Air batteries , indeed in order to accuire radar vission , it neads to switch on the radar . However , there are many system to avoid Radar detection , and are basic to Air Ambush on planes . There are several different methods to do that . 2 most basic are :

1) If the planes flying routine courses . Then the battery can ambush the planes , without the radar possibility .

2)"Draw ambush" - to activate ground radar , that will be behind the ambushing battery , so the ambush battery will be between the radar station , and incoming airplanes . The radar station is drawing the planes as a radar target , while this station itself transmitting the planes whereabouts to SA missile batteries , that they radar is shot down . So , while the planes fly over SA sites , the operators aqquire the planes , and trying to shoot them down .

There are much more possibilites , but those 2 are the simplest .

[mustamato]

Yep. Interesting thread really, you learn a lot. But anyway I find it hard to
think that a brigade in a Afghani/Iraqi desert and the hilly northern
Europe, say Finland, would be just the same thing to send their bombers
against.

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/images/finland_air2.jpg
Typical finnish urban area showing some countryside as well, and
as well the lakes. Forests and lakes = finnish countryside.

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/images/finland_air13.jpg
Typical finnish countryside, forests and lakes, and a small village
and a small open area where there is some farming.

It sure gives you a little better possibilites as a defender than in Iraq eh?
Not to mention that the finnish brigade the bombers would be sent against has
has a little better equipment as well, unfortunately lacking high-altitude SAM´s
, but otherwise in example the Crotale system, AAA and MANPADS:

http://www.ilmatorjunta.fi/lohtaja/crotale_400.jpg

http://www.ilmatorjunta.fi/lohtaja/igla_600.jpg

The urban areas have heavier AA:s, such as the Buk M1:

http://www.ilmatorjunta.fi/lohtaja/buk_lavetti_400.jpg

Sure the outcome if now US would be sending their warmachine against
Finland would be in no doubt, but I have somehow a feeling of that the
aircampaign would be more like the one over Serbia rather than the one
over Iraq/Afghanistan. My closest friend served as a AA-gunner in the
finnish army, they was learned how to do mock-ups, if you stood 50
meters away it looked like the real thing. It was also credible since there
was a heat-source inside it. These are perfect baits if you want to use the
tactics Javehn is explaining in his post.

And to bring it all back to on-topic: The chinese are not comparable with
the Iraqies. They should rather be compared with, well themselfes, they
have modern AA and should be able to protect their "big tanks" fairly
well.