not really military-related, but funny nontheless.
J-10B vs Rafale
I am new to this forum and I am very interested in all things military. I think it is nice to see China's military moving away from reversed engineered Soviet equipment. Also, does the QBZ-95 rifle come in 6.8mm form as well as 5.56mm and 7.62mm?
China：Stride-2009 Longrange military exercise
Civil passenger airlines involved
Local support all along by militiamen
Meeting with local gov't
Compfort gift and full supplies locally
Stretch after long ride
Discuss how to eat it
I think it's a repost - but still awesome.
But looking at the graphic, I somehow get the feeling that the Luyang-Class Destroyer is severely undermotorized... Lets see when China will integrate the WS-10A core into a new, indigenious and more powerfull engine.
The QBZ-95 only comes in 5.56mm version - it's called the Type-97 in its export designation.
And: New pictures of the PLA training for the parade in Oct. 1st.
The soldiers are holding the QCW-05 suppressed submachinegun - the replacement for the venerable Type-85/79 used by the special operations forces.
The QCW-05 or Type-05 is chambered for the 5.8x21mm DCV-05 subsonic round, or the standard DAP-92 5.8x21mm armour-piercing pistol round (same concept as the belgian FN-P90 submachinegun's 5.7x28mm AP-round).
It's feeded from a 4 row 50 rounds box-magazine and has a reduced ROF of 'only' 400rds/min for better control on full-auto mode.
There's also an export-version of it - the Jiang She 9mm (JS) submachine gun, chambered for the common 9x19mm Luger/Parabellum round.
JS-claims that lots of parts are interchangeable with the famous H&K MP5 such as the magazine.
Animation of the ZTZ-96 base-line version Auto-Loading system. What do you guys think? It's the same as the T-72's 2A46M Auto-Loader?
42,8 tons for the Type-96G!!! The Chinese sure love their Type-59/T-54/55 derived Tank chassis. Modifiying it beyond recognition by enlarging it, fitting leopard 2A6-styled turrets, all sorts of ERA, Hunter-Killer FCS, Shtora-jammers, 1200HP diesel engines and even autoloaders... And I thought the potential upgradablility of the Type-59 derived chassis has long ended...
EDIT: Oh. I checked. It is the T-72C's autoloader.
in contrast the T-80/T-64 Autoloader. Faster reloading here. China has a long way to go. But better they go with a bustle mounted autoloader for the new Type-99A2.
bustle mounted auto-loader on the Leclerc
Last edited by Hongjian; 09-05-2009 at 07:17 AM. Reason: sh1tty imageshack is sh1tty
There will be no turret bustle autoloader in ZTZ-99A2. Bustle is to small, way to small.
So need for new turret, not to mention that current design is preatty stupid.
It is western style turret with side armor thin like in Russian/Ukrainian designs, something about 80mm RHA plate. For me it's obvious that Chinese designers put more attention on making copy than on thinking. Better choice in such armor lyout will be Russian/Ukrainian style welded turret where side is covered in some angles by front turret "chins" and there is no possibility to hit side armor up to 30-40 deegres from center line of turret.
But then again if they wan't new turret with bustle autoloader they need to upgrade side armor, but this means more weight, due to bigger surface of such turrets. I don't think they wan't heavier tanks, so they just stick with current design.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm just know something on modern tanks and my opinion is Chinese tanks still are not on the protection level of... hmmm, even T-72B, of course frontal armor have preatty good thickness, something about 700-800mm LOS (more than any version of Leopard 2 where it got 600-650mm LOS, but less than all M1 tanks from M1IP to M1A2SEP where front turret armor is 875-900mm LOS, same for Challenger 2), but, I'm preatty doubt that inserts are modern... ok maybe they achieved level of T-72B but I will be not so sure that they go to the upper levels.
I'm sorry but where do you see any similarity to Leopard 2A5/A6 turret? I see none similarity to any other western tank turret, it just western style welded design, nothing more.fitting leopard 2A6-styled turrets,
Hmmm. Interesting. Good to see that we have some Tank-experts here.
But i think the Type 99's arrow-shaped composite-armour blocs are a bit 'Leopard' style.
same with the Type-96G here, who is sharing the same armour configuration.
As for the side armour protection, noone know how thin or thick they are. But as one can see on the pictures, they are protected by a cage covered in ERA. And what we know about the FY-III Type ERA the Chinese are using, is that it is at least on the same level as Russian Kontakt-5 and the newer FY-IV surpasses it even more up to Relikt-class, providing very good protection against KE/DU-penetrators and Tandem-HEAT-Jets.
I think if they decided to Install a bustle-mounted autoloader, the Turret protection wont be a big problem - technology, chassis and weight would be the question.
But as the things are now, the Type-99A2 is expected to reach the 60-tons of western MBT's, so one can hope for innovative upgrades.
Note the more western-styled chassis, indicating a new, more compact engine. JDW says it features integrated propulsion. And no more T-72'ish external fuel-tanks.
Also the Bustle seems to be longer and the turret larger in size.
Well, we dont know before Oct. 1st Parade.
As for the interiors, I also dont know. I will post a few pictures of the Type 96 here for you to compare. Please enlighten me with your analysis.
I think the interiors still remain cramped due to their relationship with the T-55/T-72 but for Chinese it's not THAT of a problem...
Upgraded ye olde Type-59D interor.
The stuff around the cage sure looks like ERA because it is shaped in "blocks", but I have a feeling that it is just a thin steel plate, meant to toggle HE charges at distant to the actual armor (just like Slat armor or improvised wooden crates covered by a rubber mat like seen on the balkans, all the same principle), there is no sense in setting up Era that far from the Armor. Also, a lok at this picture shows that, underneath the upper, "bent" metal plate is hollow and no thick solid room as it looks on the other pictures.
See thin metal plates, bent on the upper side to make it look thick from far away.
And here a picture where you can't see it but just see that the metal plate has a square pattern. There seem to be a bit thicker metal plates mounted on the side on top of the thin plate, but one can clearly see the thin plate on the back and underneath them on several pics:
But I doubt it is era.
I got a picture of the different ERA types of the FY-series china is using. There's indeed a ERA that is as thin as you pointed out.
I believe a similar ERA is fitted in arrow-shaped configuration on the turret front of the chinese/pakistani Al-Khalid/Type-90II
But lastly, meh. However one improve the armour on the front and the turret. I dont understand why the Chinese doesent like armoured sideskirts with ERA like the Russians or Americans do it with their MBT's?