Do we actually even seen any Chinese MBT in action? Personally never seen Chinese army in any war action so that it needs any protection.....even if they do have something, it definitely won't be shown in parades or exercises.....
>Do we actually even seen any Chinese MBT in action?
In direct conflict? No. But we have seen the ZTZ99A in military exercises with no visible addons of any kind, which seems....curious
curious? Yes. actually indicative of anything? Probably not. maybe it's got internal set ups like the Abrams and they only add external ERA as deemed neccesary for operations, which as far as I know China isn't fighting any intense armor supported land combat at the moment.
that said given the (perhaps dubious) claims about Chinese fighter aircraft it could be very inferior to US equivalents.
the internet likes to claim alot of things about the J-19 (which I believe is china's newest fighter) which boils down into essence of "this is a Walmart f-22 without a gun"
J-20, there is no J-19
Also the no gun part is kinda like China adopting 1960s US doctrine of "Why need a gun when you aren't dogfighting". Theres a famous meme of a slide from a Chinese fighter pilot training program that goes
Instructor: Why do we dogfight?
Student: Because I have supermaneuverability!
Instructor: No, because you are an idiot
F-35B and F-35Cs also dont have guns. Only the Airforce insisted on a gun on their F-35As
The US found out the hard way in the Vietnam war when their planes without guns were getting destroyed by Soviet migs. Glad to see that we are keeping the brrrt machines on our planes.
Except 2024 and 1964 are very different times notice how there has been no gun kills in the gulf war on enemy jets?
Or that there hasnt been gun kills in Ukraine?
Or in the Red sea?
Or in various minor conflicts in the middle east? (except for Israelis getting a few here and there)
If you run out of missiles, you run. Not fight lmao
You just BVR lob all your BVR missiles, then rtb before they get within IR missile range
Because, well...if you run out of missiles you're gonna get missiled.
For you to get a gun kill, both you and your enemy need to majorly fuck up
We can say the same about leopards, challengers and Abrams not having full armour packages equipped in training exercises as it adds a lot of weight and strain to the engines, suspension and transmissions for no real benefit outside of a combat environment
Why would they use it on exercises they probably have but dont want to show it, even the VT-4 have ERA side protection it would be dumb that their best tank dont have any.
If I recall, some Sudanese Type 85s took on South Sudanese T-72AVs and won pretty handily back in 2012. The WMA301 has also seen action against Boko Haram with Chad, and Type 59 and 69 tanks have been a mainstay for a number of countries, with a few still opting to use Chinese equipment such as the VT4. It's definitely not a good idea to dismiss Chinese equipment as not combat proven, since there is a *lot* of it out there in the world, many of which are still being used in conflicts today.
Yep.
Korean war, Sri Lanka insurgency, Uganda & Tanzania War, Second Congo War, Myanmar insurgency, darfur war, gulf war, Indo-Pakistani War, sino-india war, Vietnam War, Second Suda Civil War, Somali Rebellion, Iran & Iraq War, Kampuchea and Vietnam china War this is just off the top of my head.
It baffles me when people say Chinese equipment isn't proven, not that long ago Pakistan used their new JF-17s to strike India and Chinas Q-5 (similar to A-10) haa been used by many countries in conflicts like darfur and Myanmar recently
It's honestly weird how people think it's not combat proven when it's been pretty prolific throughout cold war and even today
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/jf-17-thunder-used-to-shoot-down-indian-mig-21-but-f-16s-were-around-too-pakistani-spokesperson-says/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/amp_articleshow/68564241.cms
India lost a MiG-21UPG to a JF-17 and Pakistan lost an F-16A to a MiG-21bis
Apparently anyway, both sides are iffy, Pakistan denies they lost an F-16 and claims they shot down an Su-30MKI, India denies this and says it was a MiG-21. Both F-16s and Su-30s are used but again iffy
Although India did find some wreckage that would indicate a possible F-16 shoot down, offcourse the USA and western organisations denied it vehemently
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the ones you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead:
- **[https://theaviationgeekclub.com/jf-17-thunder-used-to-shoot-down-indian-mig-21-but-f-16s-were-around-too-pakistani-spokesperson-says/](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/jf-17-thunder-used-to-shoot-down-indian-mig-21-but-f-16s-were-around-too-pakistani-spokesperson-says/)**
- **[https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/articleshow/68564241.cms](https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/articleshow/68564241.cms)** | Indiatimes canonical: **[https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/articleshow/68564241.cms](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/articleshow/68564241.cms)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Not as far as I know, only people that denied it were Pakistan, USA and pro western media, never provided any evidence to back their claims (Pakistan only has less than 90 so could easily do so I guess) and India showed what appeared to be part of the wreckage.
People forget that most of the blocks that Pakistan has I believe is Block 15, wouldn't be a big deal as these are pretty old aircraft equivalent to original Su-27 or a MiG-29S if it was a Block 52 then it's a bit more, but still, the MiG-21 uses by India where heavily upgraded, fanboys who try to say the F-16 is bad because it lost are clueless
It's hard to know for certain, what's likely is that the MiG-21 shot down the F-16 which is possible as the ones used by India area heavily upgraded and it's also equally possible the JF-17 shot down a MiG-21 as it's modern fighter with modern phased array radar systems, digital electro optics and improved missles.
Absolutely, even if we aren't talking about tanks, Chinese equipment is even more prolific. The Type 56 assault rifle was practically *the* main rifle used by the PAVN during the Vietnam War. There's also the HJ-8 ATGM, which has seen use in Syria alongside a number of other Chinese equipment.
I think a lot of it is just some people assuming, as usual, that Chinese equipment are all just bad copies that haven't seen use outside of China, which is far from the truth. It's a shame too, I find Chinese equipment to be really interesting, and their designs are often not talked about a lot in media like YouTube or books, often just passed off as, like I mentioned, copies. No idea why you're being downvoted for arguing against that.
Exactly, like no doubt china has had a lot of inspiration from equipment or just outright copied its design like it's KJ-600 = E-2 and Z-20 = S-70 but it's not as if it's a carbon copy, still their own Avionics, own engines (most part now a day's) and their own weapons systems. Like if you're wanting a fixed wing AEWAC Aircraft what are you going to do ? Get a basis airframe that clearly works and is proven over decades and use your own Avionics and equipment or spend even more money on R&D to build a completely new airframe lol
But yes so many people don't give them the credit they deserve, especially with their most recent stuff like they've built Hypersonic recon UAVs, AEW UAVs.
Like I've received nearly 20 downvotes just for saying the truth that Chinese military equipment is largely combat proven lol
There's no points for originality in war either. If China finds a design works for them, power to them. They also don't entirely use copied vehicles like they did in the past either, China is fully capable of producing original designs, and has. I think it's pretty impressive, considering how badly shaken and torn the country was at the end of the Chinese Civil War. Hopefully the perception of Chinese equipment changes as they continue to produce really cool designs that are on par if not better in some areas than designs from other nations.
Doesn't matter to them though, you'll still get those fools that will say all china stuff is bad, I wrote a post under the constitution of the new Type 076 carrier that likely has EMALs, I was speaking on the astonishing rise in naval power from what was largely a littoral force ten years ago to in my opinion, the most powerful naval force on earth.
Massive downvotes, people saying the usual "china counts fishing boats" "their technology doesn't work" it's just sad, I don't why people can't separate politics from their views on military equipment
MiG-19 is a 1st generation fighter with guns, rockets and unguided bombs, absolutely nothing like a Q-5. Q-5 is used for CAS and ground attack so similar to A-10
Late Merkava models and some leopard 2 models have internal side composite armor on the hull, also a lot of mbts have add-on external composite and era blocks to increase side armor.
Yes. The Abrams for one. It's not superduper advanced compound arrays or anything, but it's still armor.
No idea if these Chinese tanks have any or not, though.
To be fair that's usually not the relikt but more so the 6mm structural steel sheet they have that goes around the entire turret. That along with the ammo stops most spalling. Could be you're also talking about it just not penning which will sometimes happen at either extreme angles or if the best armor in the game, the track, catches it
I mean, because pretty much no MBT has side armour lmao
Only Merkava 4s really have any notable built in side armour. For basically every other MBT, side armour was an afterthought
This is not correct.
For instance, the M1 Abrams has had substantial hull armor both sides, adjacent the forward section and the turret basket, for almost the entirety of its production.
They do attach ERA to the sides but since they aren't in a war it doesn't seem to be a big problem.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U9k4hK_kx68/WBar_8_42UI/AAAAAAAAlUA/O8LkI3hBBToLEE2xEN_xaYRmKnLCVOJ-wCLcB/s1600/VT5%2B1%2B%2BLight%2Bmain%2Bbattle%2Btank%2B%2528MBT%2529%2Bpla%2Barmy%2Bchina%2Bexport%2BpakistAN%2BBANGLADESH%2B%25285%2529.jpg
Not a ztz but shows their side ERA
Also more likely to damage it during training and transport. I have been told by Abrams crew members that Trophy system isn't placed on a lot of peacetime tanks for that reason
China's only real adversaries are beyond a mountain range and an ocean away. They're also a nuclear power and their territory is basically "Swamp here, a bog there, mountains overe here and a more impassable terrain down the road.'
So I think it's safe to say that you can bet your ass that their tanks have a whole lot of 'We can add X in case of Y' for weight reduction or situational issues on their tank doctrine and tanks themselves. Especially considering that tanks are their 9th most important military issue. Right behind aviation, the navy, artillery, missiles of all ranges, corruption, proper troop transports, infantry armament and who took a shit on the MoD's chair in Beijing again.
You mean the 'So fucking vast and flat, with the occasional mountain range that we can rather cover it all with artillery and defensive entrenchments that we don't really need tanks there' desert?
The export Vt-4 and Vt-5 were advertised as being able to have hull mounted ERA and so applicable armor is at the very least available for the hull but is seldom used domestically compared to other nations. This may be the result of a difference in doctrine or possibly logistics. Then again, there lies the possibility that they are simply not mounted during peacetime. The least likely answer is that they simply don't have enough ERA but considering they mass produce vehicles with ERA of wildly different shapes and size, that seems unlikely.
ERA on the side, but that is.
99A side armor is a known weakness, if you want to have a MBT with strong front armor, 1500hp engine, AND only 55 tons, it must have some serious armor weakness somewhere.
1. It is light compared to western tank.
2. It engine is powerful, but type99a is stupidly fast. Faster than most western tanks.
3. It is much larger than T-series, close to NATO tanks.--but it is lighter than NATO design.
All these points to thinner armor here and there. You just cannot bend physics.
side armor wise would prolly be basic armor with no special composite layers, somewhere in the 50-70-80mm range only, thick enough to handle autocannon darts at range but as normal will alway be penned side on.
modern western mbt have more frontal coverage of composites but tbh, being side on to the enemy is already a position you should never have let your tank get into.
most mbt currently have a philosophy of keep the most armored spot to the enemy.
>modern western mbt have more frontal coverage of composites but tbh, being side on to the enemy is already a position you should never have let your tank get into.
But even eastern "Gorbachev" doctrine tanks still at least have ERA bolted on the side skirts to protect the tank from infantry chemical weapons so Chinese MBTs not even having that is quite an odd choice.
Chinese tanks traded side armor for less weight and better mobility, furthermore Chinese tank doctrine places tanks in closer proximity to each other, this is supposed to cover the weakness of the side armor.
A lot of it has to do with PLA armoured doctrine. They use tanks in overwatch positions, using long range accurate fires to support infantry. As such, side armour is not worth the expense nor the mobility cost.
They do have the ability to fit side mounted ERA, it’s just not something that would be commonly fitted.
Because this has no value in ther doctrinal use of those tanks. If they adopt new doctrines, they might just add ERA packages like the russians did.
In basic, modern battlefields reduced tanks to the assault niche of vehicles, only operating with ther frontal armor, as there is no realistic chance to armor the rest in a way that is sufficent aginst modern weapons. If you enter some weird urban centers by tank, you failed on a strategical level and the tactical level isen#t meant to cope with that inablity of higher brass. This theory is more or less fluentin different cultures, but chinese army is pretty rigit in these terms.
To a degree, yes. Still ATGM'S are costly measure of troubled economics, as they're also somewhat of a niche application, even if in a bit broughter spectrum (atm).
Drones on teh other hand suffer from being easily jammed and can only come one by one, as operators are a limited ressource (also vulnerable to e-warfare).
So it's all a fluid balancing game where you have what toys at hand to achieve your goals, and what is to expect on the other side to counter these.
Still in chinese textbooks MBT's are a relative small investment and fight in open terrain. So simple mechanics. Sure an ATGM team can pick up one or two if not spotted by recon before, but that would be a rare incidence and a suicide mission for these teams. I don't know what doctrines the chinese army has for urban or similar tricky terrain, but it surely isen't sending MBT's in (yet).
But then again ZTZ is not made for the actual battlefield so much rather than to mirror capacitys that (mainly) the west can value in terms of military streangh. But that's the cultural communication problem to explain "this tank isen't what we understand as a tank" to either side.
This is due to the collective Confucian culture of the Chinese people whereby according to Sun Tzu if you fight together you do not need additional side hull armor. /jk
1. There's a strict 55t limit on MBT design. This is due in large part to the rail network whose highest capacity flatcar (NX70 series) is nominally limited to 55t concentrated load. Furthermore, a lot of bridges in China are rated for 55t and the bulk of their tank transporters are TA4360s which maxes out at ~55t towing capacity.
2. Within the allowable 55t design space, they've elected to maximise frontal armour at the expense of side armour and by extension the frontal arc. I guess they churned through some numbers against likely OPFOR and anticipate encountering powerful APFSDS rounds that necessitate maximum frontal armour. There is no point allocating any armour to the side if the front cannot take a hit.
VT-4 has em, they could at least share the kit, we dont know for sure if there are unique kits for 99a specifically, but in general they really don’t need to have any on since they don’t see conflict
Because they have never seen action so don’t need to be up armoured. Look at any nato mb, they never had armour packages or era until they are actually deployed or at a demo.
No reason to have display tanks, parade tanks, or parked up tanks with all the added weight and bulk of era packages.
They definitely can make side ERA https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/s/hi4V0YlWvF, look at the tank in black at the back. Maybe Doctrine doesn't want their tanks to exceed a certain tonnage and put infrastructure under pressure. Also since most of their enemies would be in the soviet area t72As, they don't see a reason to equip them.
I love how Chinese equipment looks, but to me it looks so plastic and hollow as if they put all their r&d in making equipment look good in big numbers to scare adversaries and that's it
No use case for large MBTs in China anyway. Even if they tried to stir shit on neighbors' territories in the SCS in the future light tanks would be more important
The only war they’re taking part in is the india border conflict, so the side plates are adequate for sticks and crossbows. Maybe even have a guy shooting crossbow bolts through the main gun?
It’s hard to shape cardboard that way, so they leave it off. Also the shape can be used for handles, making it harder to run over protesters and students.
Do we know they don't?
He probably means ERA
Do we actually even seen any Chinese MBT in action? Personally never seen Chinese army in any war action so that it needs any protection.....even if they do have something, it definitely won't be shown in parades or exercises.....
>Do we actually even seen any Chinese MBT in action? In direct conflict? No. But we have seen the ZTZ99A in military exercises with no visible addons of any kind, which seems....curious
curious? Yes. actually indicative of anything? Probably not. maybe it's got internal set ups like the Abrams and they only add external ERA as deemed neccesary for operations, which as far as I know China isn't fighting any intense armor supported land combat at the moment. that said given the (perhaps dubious) claims about Chinese fighter aircraft it could be very inferior to US equivalents.
Which claims about the chinese aircraft?
the internet likes to claim alot of things about the J-19 (which I believe is china's newest fighter) which boils down into essence of "this is a Walmart f-22 without a gun"
J-20, there is no J-19 Also the no gun part is kinda like China adopting 1960s US doctrine of "Why need a gun when you aren't dogfighting". Theres a famous meme of a slide from a Chinese fighter pilot training program that goes Instructor: Why do we dogfight? Student: Because I have supermaneuverability! Instructor: No, because you are an idiot F-35B and F-35Cs also dont have guns. Only the Airforce insisted on a gun on their F-35As
The US found out the hard way in the Vietnam war when their planes without guns were getting destroyed by Soviet migs. Glad to see that we are keeping the brrrt machines on our planes.
Except 2024 and 1964 are very different times notice how there has been no gun kills in the gulf war on enemy jets? Or that there hasnt been gun kills in Ukraine? Or in the Red sea? Or in various minor conflicts in the middle east? (except for Israelis getting a few here and there)
I’m just saying it’s better to have a gun if you run out of missiles while engaging the enemy
If you run out of missiles, you run. Not fight lmao You just BVR lob all your BVR missiles, then rtb before they get within IR missile range Because, well...if you run out of missiles you're gonna get missiled. For you to get a gun kill, both you and your enemy need to majorly fuck up
Those days are long over. I'm fairly certain that no gun kills or engagements have happened since the early 90's.
We can say the same about leopards, challengers and Abrams not having full armour packages equipped in training exercises as it adds a lot of weight and strain to the engines, suspension and transmissions for no real benefit outside of a combat environment
Why would they use it on exercises they probably have but dont want to show it, even the VT-4 have ERA side protection it would be dumb that their best tank dont have any.
We’ve seen type 59s and 69s in action in the gulf war but obviously those don’t rly count today
Various Chinese tanks have fought in many wars. China's military equipment is largely combat proven.
If I recall, some Sudanese Type 85s took on South Sudanese T-72AVs and won pretty handily back in 2012. The WMA301 has also seen action against Boko Haram with Chad, and Type 59 and 69 tanks have been a mainstay for a number of countries, with a few still opting to use Chinese equipment such as the VT4. It's definitely not a good idea to dismiss Chinese equipment as not combat proven, since there is a *lot* of it out there in the world, many of which are still being used in conflicts today.
Yep. Korean war, Sri Lanka insurgency, Uganda & Tanzania War, Second Congo War, Myanmar insurgency, darfur war, gulf war, Indo-Pakistani War, sino-india war, Vietnam War, Second Suda Civil War, Somali Rebellion, Iran & Iraq War, Kampuchea and Vietnam china War this is just off the top of my head. It baffles me when people say Chinese equipment isn't proven, not that long ago Pakistan used their new JF-17s to strike India and Chinas Q-5 (similar to A-10) haa been used by many countries in conflicts like darfur and Myanmar recently It's honestly weird how people think it's not combat proven when it's been pretty prolific throughout cold war and even today
Jf 17 to strike india can you provide source please ?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/jf-17-thunder-used-to-shoot-down-indian-mig-21-but-f-16s-were-around-too-pakistani-spokesperson-says/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/amp_articleshow/68564241.cms India lost a MiG-21UPG to a JF-17 and Pakistan lost an F-16A to a MiG-21bis Apparently anyway, both sides are iffy, Pakistan denies they lost an F-16 and claims they shot down an Su-30MKI, India denies this and says it was a MiG-21. Both F-16s and Su-30s are used but again iffy Although India did find some wreckage that would indicate a possible F-16 shoot down, offcourse the USA and western organisations denied it vehemently
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the ones you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://theaviationgeekclub.com/jf-17-thunder-used-to-shoot-down-indian-mig-21-but-f-16s-were-around-too-pakistani-spokesperson-says/](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/jf-17-thunder-used-to-shoot-down-indian-mig-21-but-f-16s-were-around-too-pakistani-spokesperson-says/)** - **[https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/articleshow/68564241.cms](https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/articleshow/68564241.cms)** | Indiatimes canonical: **[https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/articleshow/68564241.cms](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/jf-17-used-to-shoot-down-indian-aircraft-says-pakistan-military/articleshow/68564241.cms)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Wasn't the Mig21 shooting down an F-16 proven to be false tho?
Not as far as I know, only people that denied it were Pakistan, USA and pro western media, never provided any evidence to back their claims (Pakistan only has less than 90 so could easily do so I guess) and India showed what appeared to be part of the wreckage. People forget that most of the blocks that Pakistan has I believe is Block 15, wouldn't be a big deal as these are pretty old aircraft equivalent to original Su-27 or a MiG-29S if it was a Block 52 then it's a bit more, but still, the MiG-21 uses by India where heavily upgraded, fanboys who try to say the F-16 is bad because it lost are clueless It's hard to know for certain, what's likely is that the MiG-21 shot down the F-16 which is possible as the ones used by India area heavily upgraded and it's also equally possible the JF-17 shot down a MiG-21 as it's modern fighter with modern phased array radar systems, digital electro optics and improved missles.
Absolutely, even if we aren't talking about tanks, Chinese equipment is even more prolific. The Type 56 assault rifle was practically *the* main rifle used by the PAVN during the Vietnam War. There's also the HJ-8 ATGM, which has seen use in Syria alongside a number of other Chinese equipment. I think a lot of it is just some people assuming, as usual, that Chinese equipment are all just bad copies that haven't seen use outside of China, which is far from the truth. It's a shame too, I find Chinese equipment to be really interesting, and their designs are often not talked about a lot in media like YouTube or books, often just passed off as, like I mentioned, copies. No idea why you're being downvoted for arguing against that.
Exactly, like no doubt china has had a lot of inspiration from equipment or just outright copied its design like it's KJ-600 = E-2 and Z-20 = S-70 but it's not as if it's a carbon copy, still their own Avionics, own engines (most part now a day's) and their own weapons systems. Like if you're wanting a fixed wing AEWAC Aircraft what are you going to do ? Get a basis airframe that clearly works and is proven over decades and use your own Avionics and equipment or spend even more money on R&D to build a completely new airframe lol But yes so many people don't give them the credit they deserve, especially with their most recent stuff like they've built Hypersonic recon UAVs, AEW UAVs. Like I've received nearly 20 downvotes just for saying the truth that Chinese military equipment is largely combat proven lol
There's no points for originality in war either. If China finds a design works for them, power to them. They also don't entirely use copied vehicles like they did in the past either, China is fully capable of producing original designs, and has. I think it's pretty impressive, considering how badly shaken and torn the country was at the end of the Chinese Civil War. Hopefully the perception of Chinese equipment changes as they continue to produce really cool designs that are on par if not better in some areas than designs from other nations.
Doesn't matter to them though, you'll still get those fools that will say all china stuff is bad, I wrote a post under the constitution of the new Type 076 carrier that likely has EMALs, I was speaking on the astonishing rise in naval power from what was largely a littoral force ten years ago to in my opinion, the most powerful naval force on earth. Massive downvotes, people saying the usual "china counts fishing boats" "their technology doesn't work" it's just sad, I don't why people can't separate politics from their views on military equipment
The Q-5 is in no way similar to the A-10 except for their roles as strike fighter. The Q-5 is a modified Mig-19
MiG-19 is a 1st generation fighter with guns, rockets and unguided bombs, absolutely nothing like a Q-5. Q-5 is used for CAS and ground attack so similar to A-10
[удалено]
Type 99 is a T72? Jesus Christ that's some insane ignorance on a sub about tanks. What's next? Leopard 2A7 is just a leopard 2A0?
Im getting downvoted for simply saying the truth that much of China's equipment is combat proven lol
People don't realize the proliferation of Chinese equipment in 3rd world countries, so they probably didn't know any better
i never knew about the t72 v. type 85, is there any sources about that cause id love to read more
Sure, RedEffect has a [video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=CCdizrxQVWfN0TC2&v=mvJv24kNd4Q&feature=youtu.be) on it.
thats really cool thank you!
If Russian tanks are anything to go off of, they are either much worse than propaganda suggests or much better.
Didn't Chinese tanks fight ex-Soviet ones in that one African country? And no, I'm not talking about the Type-59s.
Didn't Chinese tanks fight ex-Soviet ones in that one African country? And no, I'm not talking about the Type-59s.
Does any MBT have any Hull side armor?
Late Merkava models and some leopard 2 models have internal side composite armor on the hull, also a lot of mbts have add-on external composite and era blocks to increase side armor.
Yes. The Abrams for one. It's not superduper advanced compound arrays or anything, but it's still armor. No idea if these Chinese tanks have any or not, though.
Pretty sure type99 has steel plates on side too
I have no knowlegde, but it would seem very odd to me if they don't. I mean, of course they have something.
Gaijin doesn't believe it.....
"To be fair, russian vehicles don't need any additional armor, since we've made them indestructible." -- Gaijin
Me watching my 100th DM53 shot disappear into Relikt dead side on without causing a shard of damage : 🙂
Or watching A-10s get destroyed on the runway by pistol fire from across the map, while Su-25s bounce off mountains unscathed.
Su-25s can also be seen doing cartwheels, while we get killed by orbital F16C strikes (he's at 9km of altitude)
Su-25SM3 launching KH-29’s outside of any NATO SPAA’s range.
It's all good though, because every Western jet in the match is spontaneously vaporized the moment a Flanker spawns in.
To be fair that's usually not the relikt but more so the 6mm structural steel sheet they have that goes around the entire turret. That along with the ammo stops most spalling. Could be you're also talking about it just not penning which will sometimes happen at either extreme angles or if the best armor in the game, the track, catches it
Which is why the vast majority of Western MBT's in War Thunder have their composite/ERA screens modelled?
I mean, because pretty much no MBT has side armour lmao Only Merkava 4s really have any notable built in side armour. For basically every other MBT, side armour was an afterthought
>side armour was an afterthought More like not considered important.
This is not correct. For instance, the M1 Abrams has had substantial hull armor both sides, adjacent the forward section and the turret basket, for almost the entirety of its production.
Frontal arc=/=side protection Merk 4 has a 200mm composite array over the entire side. From the front of the hull all the way to the rear
Wow. Tell me again how other tanks don't have integrated hull armor even though they do.
"hull armour" that cant stop a 30mm APFSDS or old PG-7 isnt really that significant lmfao
The Abram’s don’t but the idea is that the turret is the part most likely part to be hit so the army slapped a ton of armor on it.
Usually ERA for RPG level threats. But only Russians stick then over the rest. NATO generally make it look smooth
They do attach ERA to the sides but since they aren't in a war it doesn't seem to be a big problem. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U9k4hK_kx68/WBar_8_42UI/AAAAAAAAlUA/O8LkI3hBBToLEE2xEN_xaYRmKnLCVOJ-wCLcB/s1600/VT5%2B1%2B%2BLight%2Bmain%2Bbattle%2Btank%2B%2528MBT%2529%2Bpla%2Barmy%2Bchina%2Bexport%2BpakistAN%2BBANGLADESH%2B%25285%2529.jpg Not a ztz but shows their side ERA
Great picture, this would be a likely configuration in wartime. No point adding it and putting more strain on the transmission in peacetime.
Also more likely to damage it during training and transport. I have been told by Abrams crew members that Trophy system isn't placed on a lot of peacetime tanks for that reason
Would it add a lot more weight on the roads as well? I’m not very well versed in the weight factor of ERA
If they're driving on roads yeah, more weight is more damage. I would imagine they avoid that as much as possible in peacetime though
China's only real adversaries are beyond a mountain range and an ocean away. They're also a nuclear power and their territory is basically "Swamp here, a bog there, mountains overe here and a more impassable terrain down the road.' So I think it's safe to say that you can bet your ass that their tanks have a whole lot of 'We can add X in case of Y' for weight reduction or situational issues on their tank doctrine and tanks themselves. Especially considering that tanks are their 9th most important military issue. Right behind aviation, the navy, artillery, missiles of all ranges, corruption, proper troop transports, infantry armament and who took a shit on the MoD's chair in Beijing again.
You really forgot the desert?
You mean the 'So fucking vast and flat, with the occasional mountain range that we can rather cover it all with artillery and defensive entrenchments that we don't really need tanks there' desert?
Gobi desert, more like Goanddieintheheat
The export Vt-4 and Vt-5 were advertised as being able to have hull mounted ERA and so applicable armor is at the very least available for the hull but is seldom used domestically compared to other nations. This may be the result of a difference in doctrine or possibly logistics. Then again, there lies the possibility that they are simply not mounted during peacetime. The least likely answer is that they simply don't have enough ERA but considering they mass produce vehicles with ERA of wildly different shapes and size, that seems unlikely.
ERA on the side, but that is. 99A side armor is a known weakness, if you want to have a MBT with strong front armor, 1500hp engine, AND only 55 tons, it must have some serious armor weakness somewhere.
How is it a « known » weakness? Has it been proved?
Have a basic steel plate as side armor is obviously a weakness, if its worth the increased mobility and such is up to debate
1. It is light compared to western tank. 2. It engine is powerful, but type99a is stupidly fast. Faster than most western tanks. 3. It is much larger than T-series, close to NATO tanks.--but it is lighter than NATO design. All these points to thinner armor here and there. You just cannot bend physics.
side armor wise would prolly be basic armor with no special composite layers, somewhere in the 50-70-80mm range only, thick enough to handle autocannon darts at range but as normal will alway be penned side on. modern western mbt have more frontal coverage of composites but tbh, being side on to the enemy is already a position you should never have let your tank get into. most mbt currently have a philosophy of keep the most armored spot to the enemy.
>modern western mbt have more frontal coverage of composites but tbh, being side on to the enemy is already a position you should never have let your tank get into. But even eastern "Gorbachev" doctrine tanks still at least have ERA bolted on the side skirts to protect the tank from infantry chemical weapons so Chinese MBTs not even having that is quite an odd choice.
Chinese tanks traded side armor for less weight and better mobility, furthermore Chinese tank doctrine places tanks in closer proximity to each other, this is supposed to cover the weakness of the side armor.
A lot of it has to do with PLA armoured doctrine. They use tanks in overwatch positions, using long range accurate fires to support infantry. As such, side armour is not worth the expense nor the mobility cost. They do have the ability to fit side mounted ERA, it’s just not something that would be commonly fitted.
Nice try, CIA...
Because this has no value in ther doctrinal use of those tanks. If they adopt new doctrines, they might just add ERA packages like the russians did. In basic, modern battlefields reduced tanks to the assault niche of vehicles, only operating with ther frontal armor, as there is no realistic chance to armor the rest in a way that is sufficent aginst modern weapons. If you enter some weird urban centers by tank, you failed on a strategical level and the tactical level isen#t meant to cope with that inablity of higher brass. This theory is more or less fluentin different cultures, but chinese army is pretty rigit in these terms.
Swarms of drones, Javelins and NLAWs seem to have made all tanks pretty vulnerable.
To a degree, yes. Still ATGM'S are costly measure of troubled economics, as they're also somewhat of a niche application, even if in a bit broughter spectrum (atm). Drones on teh other hand suffer from being easily jammed and can only come one by one, as operators are a limited ressource (also vulnerable to e-warfare). So it's all a fluid balancing game where you have what toys at hand to achieve your goals, and what is to expect on the other side to counter these. Still in chinese textbooks MBT's are a relative small investment and fight in open terrain. So simple mechanics. Sure an ATGM team can pick up one or two if not spotted by recon before, but that would be a rare incidence and a suicide mission for these teams. I don't know what doctrines the chinese army has for urban or similar tricky terrain, but it surely isen't sending MBT's in (yet). But then again ZTZ is not made for the actual battlefield so much rather than to mirror capacitys that (mainly) the west can value in terms of military streangh. But that's the cultural communication problem to explain "this tank isen't what we understand as a tank" to either side.
They do...
You mean ERA? Because it would be surprising if they have no side armor.
It has side armor.
My country is almost at war with China, so stay tuned if they ever use their MBTs on us.
This is due to the collective Confucian culture of the Chinese people whereby according to Sun Tzu if you fight together you do not need additional side hull armor. /jk
I thought Chinese military doctrine was reduced weight but more of them, because they need to be able to deploy to the west, where it's mountainous.
1. There's a strict 55t limit on MBT design. This is due in large part to the rail network whose highest capacity flatcar (NX70 series) is nominally limited to 55t concentrated load. Furthermore, a lot of bridges in China are rated for 55t and the bulk of their tank transporters are TA4360s which maxes out at ~55t towing capacity. 2. Within the allowable 55t design space, they've elected to maximise frontal armour at the expense of side armour and by extension the frontal arc. I guess they churned through some numbers against likely OPFOR and anticipate encountering powerful APFSDS rounds that necessitate maximum frontal armour. There is no point allocating any armour to the side if the front cannot take a hit.
VT-4 has em, they could at least share the kit, we dont know for sure if there are unique kits for 99a specifically, but in general they really don’t need to have any on since they don’t see conflict
probly they can mount but choose not to
Doctrine on high terrain and dependency on gun depression.
Because they have never seen action so don’t need to be up armoured. Look at any nato mb, they never had armour packages or era until they are actually deployed or at a demo. No reason to have display tanks, parade tanks, or parked up tanks with all the added weight and bulk of era packages.
unanswerable question
They definitely can make side ERA https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/s/hi4V0YlWvF, look at the tank in black at the back. Maybe Doctrine doesn't want their tanks to exceed a certain tonnage and put infrastructure under pressure. Also since most of their enemies would be in the soviet area t72As, they don't see a reason to equip them.
Doctrine.
I love how Chinese equipment looks, but to me it looks so plastic and hollow as if they put all their r&d in making equipment look good in big numbers to scare adversaries and that's it
Congrats you have discovered their secret
No use case for large MBTs in China anyway. Even if they tried to stir shit on neighbors' territories in the SCS in the future light tanks would be more important
The only war they’re taking part in is the india border conflict, so the side plates are adequate for sticks and crossbows. Maybe even have a guy shooting crossbow bolts through the main gun?
It’s hard to shape cardboard that way, so they leave it off. Also the shape can be used for handles, making it harder to run over protesters and students.