Walter_Sobchak Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 China to Retire Its Armored Tank DestroyersThe Chinese military is replacing its tank destroyers with anti-tank missiles and attack helicopters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Well, Type 89 is not most mass-produced AT SPG ever, around 100 of those were made. It will be easy process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted November 29, 2015 Report Share Posted November 29, 2015 MBT-3000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 During training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Type 89 TD/SPGs were retired from anti-tank units of the PLA 39th Army. Some photos from farewell ceremony Source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted December 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Nice idea at the time for the resources they had on hand, but it ultimately does make alot of sense to retire them. (and any other system that still uses the indigenous 120mm honestly.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Nice idea at the time for the resources they had on hand, but it ultimately does make alot of sense to retire them. (and any other system that still uses the indigenous 120mm honestly.) As much as i like the idea of modern gun tank destroyers, that arent that efficent when you other alternatives For starters, they are massive targets with not alot of armor. If your as likely as a western MBT to be hit you might aswell have the armor to back it up And with everyone and their mother having 120 and 125mm guns there is no golden rule that says an aftermarket T-72 cant start putting rounds into you at 2km And everyone also includes you- now that China has 125mm guns that can support long rode penetrators, there is no real reason to maintain the type 89 fleet, which was a vehicle made at a time where most of Chinese tanks were armed with 105 and 100mm guns ATGMs vehicles are smaller, leave way less of a logistical footprint are more capable of knocking out tanks than a normal tank destroyer, atleast because they arent having to fight on equal terms as much Not to mention they are alot cheaper to produce And attack helos can do more than bust tanks, and are alot less vunerable on the modern battlefield than a type 89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Type-99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Type 96A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 ZBD-04 Does somebody know armor of that thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted December 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 ZBD-04 Does somebody know armor of that thing? The armor of the ZBD97/ZBD04 initially was based on the philosophy of the "less armored but more agile" approach the BMP-3M had, basically it only has all around protection from 12.7mm SLAP and 14.5mm frontal arc at best. However, some factions in the army aswell as potential export customers questioned this and insisted the Western approach of heavier, but more heavily armored IFVs that could be closer to combat zones was better, and this is where the ZBD08 came in, which is part of the family but built on a reinforced chassis and with much heavier base armor and addon armor, at the sacrifice of agility on land and top speed in amphibious mode, the 08 however, unlike it's predecessors is proofed against 30mm APFSDS on the front and 14.5mm SLAP resistant on all angles/14.5 API proofed as usual, (supposedly 14.5mm SLAP can penetrate the engine deck at some angles and ranges, not sure how true that is,) with much better mine, artillery burst, EFP and IED protection then the 04. LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Interesting casing for shells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted December 20, 2015 Report Share Posted December 20, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 The armor of the ZBD97/ZBD04 initially was based on the philosophy of the "less armored but more agile" approach the BMP-3M had, basically it only has all around protection from 12.7mm SLAP and 14.5mm frontal arc at best. However, some factions in the army aswell as potential export customers questioned this and insisted the Western approach of heavier, but more heavily armored IFVs that could be closer to combat zones was better, and this is where the ZBD08 came in, which is part of the family but built on a reinforced chassis and with much heavier base armor and addon armor, at the sacrifice of agility on land and top speed in amphibious mode, the 08 however, unlike it's predecessors is proofed against 30mm APFSDS on the front and 14.5mm SLAP resistant on all angles/14.5 API proofed as usual, (supposedly 14.5mm SLAP can penetrate the engine deck at some angles and ranges, not sure how true that is,) with much better mine, artillery burst, EFP and IED protection then the 04. In defense of original armor scheme of BMP, it was built to be used in, and typically excels in mechanized warfare in relatively open spaces There's really no point in piling on armor since conventional warfare in central Europe would be such a zero sum game. Why up-armor an IFV the size of a tank to resist canon fire when the AT weapons that everyone and their American adviser has been piling up to cut through T-55s on the other side of the fence Its built to carry an assload of armament and be able to stuff in a few or more Tieds in the process. Survavibly really isnt that big of a concern when even increasing it alittle would comprise all other elements. And hey, when that Arkan strikes home in a Leopard 2's ammorack, its just paid for itself several times. Chinese conflicts on the other hand are a bit more complex then trading fire over a 2km field in Central Germany. Especially in situations like Vietnam, it pays to not be a sitting duck to the many KVPT's your going to be encountering in that very uncomfortable 300 meter or less engagement range Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted December 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 In defense of original armor scheme of BMP, it was built to be used in, and typically excels in mechanized warfare in relatively open spaces There's really no point in piling on armor since conventional warfare in central Europe would be such a zero sum game. Why up-armor an IFV the size of a tank to resist canon fire when the AT weapons that everyone and their American adviser has been piling up to cut through T-55s on the other side of the fence Its built to carry an assload of armament and be able to stuff in a few or more Tieds in the process. Survavibly really isnt that big of a concern when even increasing it alittle would comprise all other elements. And hey, when that Arkan strikes home in a Leopard 2's ammorack, its just paid for itself several times. Chinese conflicts on the other hand are a bit more complex then trading fire over a 2km field in Central Germany. Especially in situations like Vietnam, it pays to not be a sitting duck to the many KVPT's your going to be encountering in that very uncomfortable 300 meter or less engagement range The ZBD family actually has the same carry capacity as the BMP-3M and more ammunition for it's main 30mm cannon, It's just harder on logistics as it can't carry as much fuel/go as far or be transported as easily as the BMP-3M due to the weight and size increase. Though, keep in mind only the ZBD08 is uparmored and more durable in exchange for being less agile, and the ZBD04 is still in service for when mobility, amphibious capabilities and general BMP like tactics are desired. Also, speaking of it, there's apparently an enhanced recon variant of it, which is odd considering 1. the ZBD08 already has a pretty sizeable sensor and comms package and 2. no one can really figure out what the fuck it actually does/adds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Tied 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Engine exhaust and some kind of pipe near it. What is it for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted January 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 That "should" be the smokescreen exit. (A few Chinese tanks can spit diesel on the engine to create an emergency smokescreen similar to the Abrams) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 That "should" be the smokescreen exit. (A few Chinese tanks can spit diesel on the engine to create an emergency smokescreen similar to the Abrams) T-72s could do that from very early models, but they were not using additional exhausts for this. ANNA news videos from Jobar shows frequent use of that system by Syrian T-72s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Question - is this correct info? In Jan of 2016, Chinese army have: 1 tank division and 17 tank brigades, amongst them - 36 battalions in Type 96As 31 - Type 96 16 - Type 99 4 - Type 99A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted January 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 It doesn't match the production numbers and actual tanks in service, probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 It doesn't match the production numbers and actual tanks in service, probably not. Mistakes with Type-99 or others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.