posted
Well? Any takers? The M1 I think was first used in the Gulf War 1991 the 98 was unvielied in Beijing 1999 deviating from the usual Russian sloped armor to a more Westernized Turret but thats all I know.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know much about the type 98, but the M-1s in service right now are next to indestructible.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the M1 has been used in combat, the Type-98 Main Battle Tank has never seen combat. Until they meet we will never know.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whichever has the edge in armor and munitions (which may well be up in the air, despite the T98 being newer, the armor and gun on the M1 in the A1 and A2 configurations are incredible), I strongly suspect the M1, particularly in some more recent configurations which are fairly widely deployed, has many times the battlefield awareness of the T98, which will in the long run be what determines the winner between otherwise comparable tank forces.
A commander in an updated M1 will have a real time updated overhead view of the battle, digital data exchange links up, down, and across the chain of command, and many other capabilities I have doubts are commonly present in even very recent T98s.
edit: a good thing to remember is that information is a force strength multiplier.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm unsure that Type-98 is as you'ld say it of the "T" standard Soviet series model (KV, T-"X") maybe the russian word for Type starts with a T in Russian? Though like with the KV-1 and the Joeseph Stalin series I'm certain russian tank types arew named or seried after they're creators.
As for the Abrams having greater information awarness please remember that China is NOT a third world or for that matter a second world nation and with its recent hard ware agreements with India do you really think they won't have electronic equipment that is at least equal or better then what the American's have?
As for the Abrams being industructable well, it was mission killed by an Iraqy APC so I geuss green Abram's crews can be out maneuvered by more experianced or just cleverer opposing crews and/or commanders.
What I'm wondering if the Type 98 can go head to head as in survive a frontal shot from the Abrams or not, and if it can peirce an Abrams at a stabdard range from the flanks/rear. And quite frankly I get too many contradicting information on the net to get a good answer to this so I'm hopeing there's some kind of engineer (or military specialist) on Hatrack that might know.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, China won't have the same capabilities in its tanks, and yes, China is still mostly a 3rd world nation.
These capabilities are not just something dependent on the ability to make electronic geegaws, they are extensively integrated systems created and tested at very high cost, utilizing institutionalized knowledge of the world's most powerful and oldest modern military, the US military.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The M1A1s destoyed (note I did not say disabled) in combat so far have been more flukes than something a strategy would allow. One of my military friends was recounting an incident during the recent Iraq war where an M1A1 got itself stuck in a river during an offensive, and had to be abandoned and scuttled. It took multiple shots (into the rear and engine sections) from another M1A1 to disable it. I believe in the end an aircraft was called in to assure that anything of use had been destroyed. I'll see what I can find in terms of news stories and pictures.
Then again, an improvised explosive device disabled an M1A1 not too long ago, so they certainly are not invincible.
EDIT: All I can find is a similar event from the first gulf war that Tom Clancy recounted in his stories of soldiers (non-fiction) book. I'll check with my friends in the military.
posted
China won't remain a third world power for long. There are too many nations out there selling advanced hardware, and China has too much money on hand they want to buy that with.
It's only a matter of time before they find their way to advanced tanks, fighters and missiles.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the Abrams having greater information awarness please remember that China is NOT a third world or for that matter a second world nation and with its recent hard ware agreements with India do you really think they won't have electronic equipment that is at least equal or better then what the American's have?
I still think we have a huge edge in tech, and will have an edge for years to come in things like that.
Most of China IS a third world country, and they won't become otherwise overnight....although it may seem like it to us when it finally does happen. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. I think a Tachikoma tactical combat unit would win, if only by driving everyone else insane. Besides, who can stand before their inanimate, robotic cuteness?
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
argh, China has a middle class of 300 millions people with a house a car and an okay job, China is a world leader in Hardware especially with so many of North America's top people emmigrating TO China.
And its not a third world country, they have a purchasing power parity of $7.262 trillion and is the second largest economy in the world after the US (purchasing power parity - $11.75 trillion).
And trust me, technological leads are often gone with complacency, and fiercer competition.
And yes an Abrams was mission killed by an APC, it flanked it straffed it and destroyed its outer equipment causing the crew to abondone the vehical.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: And yes an Abrams was mission killed by an APC, it flanked it straffed it and destroyed its outer equipment causing the crew to abondone the vehical.
Which is what APCs are designed to do...
The key here is "caused the crew to abandon the vehicle". What we most likely had was a "mobility kill" - i.e. they destroyed the tracks. Every tank is vulnerable there... just think "Saving Private Ryan" and "sticky bombs".
I've heard stories (like the AW's above) about how difficult it is to successfully destroy these "mobility killed" tanks. No tank is invulnerable but the M1 is combat tested to be superior in protecting its crew.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sid, I know all of that, I am not an idiot.
Well, not usually.
It doesn't change the fact that most of the country ISN'T middle class, and that they ahve significant ground to make up in order to catch us in tech. They are growing at an alarming rate, and I am sire they have the capability of doing so eventually, but most of their growth is a new thing, winthin the last 10 years in particular, and the last 5 most impressivly.
I sitll think the Abrams is the better tank though...and I have had personal experices with them. I was a medic, not a tanker, and only saw them in training, but still they were impressive.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
as for where I found out about the APC its gonna take me a minute.
"sure, we were at a stop point. we had been up and awake for 48hours. so we tried to get a little rest. maybe a hour or two. it was around 05:00 we were near a built up area with some oil industry stuff. A BMP-2 had been hiding around the terminal buildings. The BMP-2 engaged a Abrams at around 100-200 meters with his 30MM. The Abrams main gun , BATTERIES/POWER-PACK , primary site , wind sensor were destroyed. the crew was fine but the tank was "mission killed"" http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread137848/pg5
ss for the link of where this particular person found it... Nope he didn't supply a link but its probly googleable. :/
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't there any Hatrackers from China? And as for most of the country not being middle class well... isn't it a similar proportion to other countries?
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I want to know is, why are you so fierce in arguing about how awesome the People's Republic of China is, Sid Meier? I ask because it's an unusual attitude for someone who isn't actually a citizen of a nation to proclaim its might so often.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* pretty much the only Communist nation in the world which is making a slow but surely progression from a Stalinist society to a more open one, Tianimen Square was a sad day but China can overcome it and progress forwards. Also China is in my mind going to reach super power status and I like the mythos of the Middle Kingdom, so Russia, Japan and China are my favorite nations in Civ as well. /shrug
Okay more info on the T-98
The Type 98 is the latest development of China’s main battle tanks (MBTs) and represents ain increase in firepower, mobility and protection. The tank was first revealed to the public in October 1999, and is reported to have entered service with the PLA in a small number for operational test and evaluation before the design is finalised. An improved variant Type 98G features new explosive reaction armour and Leopard 2 A6-style additional reinforcement to the turret frontal armour with externally mounted add-on armour modules.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
PROGRAMME
The Type 98 is the latest derivative of the Type 90 main battle tank (MBT) family. It is also the officially certified version of China's third generation MBT programme, which had undergone development for fifteen years since the mid-1980s. It is understood that the development of the Chinese third generation MBT suffered certain technical difficulties in the early 1990s. The scheduled date of commissioning was postponed several times, until the initial approval certificate of the Type 98 was issued in 1998.
The Type 98 was first revealed to the public in the national day parade on 1 Oct 1999. A small number of the initial production model is in service with the Army for initial evaluations and tests. It is expected that the final production model of the Type 98 will join the service before 2004, depending on progress of the final modification work.
The original design target of the Chinese third generation MBT was as a counter to the Soviet T-72, but the changing requirements shifted the development towards a much more sophisticated machine. The later design criteria of the Type 98 was aiming at challenging the U.S. M1A1 Abrams, while certain aspects of the actually performance of the Type 98 is approaching the standard of the M1A2.
It is surprising that China has developed two MBTs, the Type 88C/96 and the Type 98, with similar performance at the same time. Although the Type 96 was regarded as the second generation MBT, while the Type 98 as the third generation MBT, they are comparable in term of general performance and technology. One possible explanation is that the Type 98 will be equipped by the most elite units in a relatively small number, while the Type 96, with less sophisticated technology and therefore cheaper unit price, will replace the bulk of Type 59/69 in current service.
DESIGN FEATURES
The layout of the Type 98 is conventional, with certain influence by the Soviet tank designs. The driver's compartment is at the front, with fighting compartment/turret in the centre, and power pack in the rear. The complete powerpack assembly can be removed in around 30~40 minutes and in field conditions. Suspension is of the conventional torsion bar type and there are six rubber-tyred roadwheels on each side, the drive sprocket at the rear.
To accommodate more equipment and rounds, the Type 98's turret is slightly larger than that of the Type 90, which has resulted in a gap between turret and the hull in the front. This could be a major disadvantage in the battle as the whole turret might be blown off if the gap is hit.
In addition, the Type 98 also lacks designs often found on Western MBTs to minimise the damage in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. For example, the armour bulkheads to separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks and rounds, as well as the top panels designed to blow outwards in case of explosion. This could lead to low survivability in modern combat field according to the experience of the 1991 Gulf War.
ARMAMENT
The main armament is a fully-stablised 125 mm 50-calibre smoothbore gun with autoloader. Despite the early reports indicating the gun was a licensed copy of the Russian 2A46, it is actually an indigenous design derived from the Chinese 120 mm smoothbore gun technology.
Ammunitions include armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot rounds (APFSDS), high explosive anti-tank rounds (HEAT), and high explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) projectiles. China has also reportedly manufactured Russian A-11 laser guided anti-tank missile (ATGM) to be fired by the 125 mm gun. In addition, the Chinese have also experimentally developed depleted uranium (DU) rounds for their tanks and it may be available to the Type 98.
Fire accuracy is attained by the laser rangefinder, wind sensor, ballistic computer, and thermal barrel sleeve. Dual axis stabilisation ensures effective firing on the move. The commander is has six periscopes and a stabilised panoramic sight. Both the commander and gunner have roof-mounted stabilised sights fitted with day/thermal channels, a laser rangefinder and an auto tracker facility. The commander has a display showing the gunner's thermal sight, enabling the commander to fire the main gun.
The Type 98 is also fitted with a compuerised onboard information processing system, which can collect information from vehicle navigation (Inertia/GPS), observation systems and sensors, process it in the computer and display it on the commander's display, giving the ability of real-time command and beyond-vision-range target engaging.
Secondary weapons include a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun and a 12.7 mm air defence machine gun mounted on the commander's cupola. Each side of the turret has a 76 mm Type 84 five-barrel smoke grenade launchers.
PROTECTION
The turret and hull are of all-welded steel armour construction. A layer of composite armour has been added to the front arc. The armour package is of modular design, enabling damaged sections to be replaced or upgrades installed throughout service life. Explosive reactive armour (ERA) can be fitted if required.
The Type 98 features an JD-3 integrated laser rangefinder/warning/self-defence device. Unlike contemporary Russian active tank self-defense systems like Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena, which launch projectiles to disable or "shoot-down" incoming anti-tank missiles and projectiles, the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner.
The system includes what appears to be a laser warning receiver (LWR - the dome-shaped device on the turret roof behind the commander's position), that warns the crew that their tank is being illuminated by an enemy range-finding or weapon-guidance laser. The turret of the tank can then be traversed to face the direction of the enemy threat, and the laser self-defence weapon (LSDW - the box-shaped device on the turret roof behind the gunner's position), can be employed against the source of the enemy laser.
The procedure of the laser weapon would first use a low-powered beam to locate the optics of the enemy weapon. Once the enemy weapon was located, the power level of the laser would be immediately and dramatically increased. Such an attack would disable the guidance optics of the enemy weapon and/or damage the eyesight of the enemy gunner.
The available photos of the Type 98 have also confirmed that the laser weapon can be elevated to a higher angle than the tank's main gun, indicating that the engagement of attack helicopters is possible. In addition, the laser device could also be used for communications between friend tanks.
PROPULSION
The Type 98 is powered by a liquid cooled, turbocharged 1,200 hp diesel derived from Germany WD396 diesel technology. At its current battle weight of 52 tons, this gives a power-to-weight ratio of about 23 hp/tonne.
SPECIFICATIONS
Crew: 3 Weight: 50tons Engine: 1,200hp liquid cooled diesel Transmission: Mechanical, planetary Track: Metallic with RMSh, with rubber-tyred road wheels Suspension: Torsion bar Radio: Receive/transmit, telephone, laser communications Dimension: Length: 11.00m; Height: 2.00m; Width: 3.40m Ground Pressure: N/A Cruising Range: 450km, or 600km with external tanks Speed: Max road 65km/h; max off-road 47km/h; average cross-country 35km/h; max swim N/A Fording Depths: 5m with snorkel Main Gun: Indigenous 125mm smoothbore Rate of Fire: 8 rounds/min Elevation/Depression: N/A Auxiliary Weapon: One coaxial 7.62mm machine gun; one 12.7mm air-defence machine gun Fire Control: Laser rangefinder input, onboard computer, wind sensor, and control panel
That is just awsome, laser anti misile defence.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you wouldn't like it so much if you were a Tibetan
Or some guy getting groceries, either.
I don't like the mythos of the Middle Kingdom just as much as the idea of Manifest Destiny was repugnant. Those kinds of myths put the value of others as 'expendeble'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Auto-loader for the main gun. Always slows down rate of fire and elimination of a loader crewman takes away one set of eyes for the team.
Always a failing of the Soviet-style tanks.
Another factor, not dealing with the tank itself, is the "boots-on-the-ground" time a nation has had to spend with armored combat. Western nations have traditional had tons of experience. China has had, well, minimal. They can study tactics and the history of armored combat, but there's nothing that makes up for experience.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention that the reactive armor spoken of is generally only useful for disrupting HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds, rather than the sabot-type rounds we generally use against hardened MBT-type targets.
(Reactive armors actually explode when hit in an effort to disrupt the super-heated jet created by shaped charges used in HEAT rounds. It works wonders against RPGs, Javelins and TOWs, as well as APC fire, but against penetrator-type rounds used against tanks, well, it just makes a lot of noise).
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
better then nothing in my opinion and as fo having no experiance well... China had plenty of border wars during Mao's time but remember alot of the NPC's and officers in most armies are inexperianced only America seems to have any kind of experiance atm with exception to the division or 2 nations like my beloved Canada sends to Afghanistan for example.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, it appears the Type 98's aren't in widespread use, whereas the M1 is broadly used as America's MBT.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Experience boils down to so much, and not just the experience of the individual soldiers and their leadership.
The armored divisions that rolled out against Saddam's army in the First Gulf War hadn't seen actual combat in decades. British and French forces for even longer. They matched up against a force that had a sprinkling of the Soviet's best tanks and a huge supply of the Soviet's second echelon tanks. They were supported by tube artillery that was considered among the best on the open market.
And the allied forces, particularly the American and British armored forces, just rolled up the Iraqis like yesterday's newspapers. The Allied forces had the technological edge, but they also had an incredible advantage in strategy and tactics.
The Allied forces understood how armor was to be used, even in an unfamiliar terrain. From experience they had learned first hand its strengths and weaknesses.
On the tanks themselves, the British, Americans, French and Germans have spent so much time and effort on designing MBTs that survive and dictate the modern battlefield. The Soviets had the advantage of massive production, without a doubt, but once their designs were thrust onto the battlefield they performed poorly across the board.
For the Chinese to field a design based off of Soviet designs and armored combat theory just makes me think they would be tinfoil tigers with poorly motivated and trained crews.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the T-98 makes significant breaks from Soviet design, as for training well I surely doubt either of us truly knows what the PLA's training regimen is, as for Soviet armoured combat remember the Germans were considered the leaders in such but the Soviets began beating them again and again as initiative passed to the Russians, and not just because of supourior numbers.
In fact Sino-Russian relations had soured since Kruschev's time and climaxing with the withdrawel of Soviet engineers and officers from China, I'ld say the Chinese we're coming up with alot of their own doctrine and systems from mostly their own indigneious Industrial Military Complex and Western Markets.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
