via Janes
The latest version of the MBT-3000, which is also known as the VT-4, has composite armour over the frontal arc. Officials have also revealed that the side skirts are made of rigid composite armour to which explosive reactive armour (ERA) can be added.Interesting.
When first revealed, the MBT-3000 was fitted with a simple roof-mounted 12.7 mm machine gun. The latest version is fitted with a new low profile roof-mounted remote weapon station (RWS), again armed with a 12.7 mm MG. This is operated by the tank commander and as well as having an anti-aircraft capability, could prove useful in urban operations.
Chinese sources have also said that the MBT-3000 can be fitted with an active defence system - designated the GL5 - but it has not been confirmed if this is a hard kill or a soft kill ADS.
Officials have also confirmed that the gun control equipment (GCE) is all electric, and images broadcast by Chinese state television show that the stabilised 125 mm smooth bore gun is fed by a horizontal automatic loader that loads the projectile first and then the charge.
The MBT-3000 made its international debut in June 2012 at the Eurosatory defence exhibition in Paris. As well as the MBT-3000, Norinco now offers the MBT-2000 - which has a combat weight of 48 tonnes - and the VT2, which has a combat weight of 42 tonnes.
At Eurosatory Norinco officials described the MBT-3000 as the company's most advanced MBT offered on the export market to date, pointing to the fact that it is fully digitised, air conditioned, and fitted with an over-pressure NBC system and an inertial navigation/global positioning system.
This puts Marine Armor in an uncomfortable position. Do we upgrade the M1A1 to Army standard or do we attempt to leap ahead?
Oh and once you answer that, then riddle me this. Where are we gonna get the fucking money?
Sidenote: I wonder how much info they stole to produce this hybrid M1/Leopard look alike?
Hmm...hmm...hmmm... what do you think lads, good old Type 85 chassis?
ReplyDeleteNot much at all Solomon, the MBT-3000 is an export version of the current PLA Type 99 MBT, it it unlikely to be much more advanced than the models currently in service and will most likely end up in Pakistan and other China aligned states.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to how the MBT-2000, or Al-Khalid was an export version of the PLA's Type 96 MBT and is in service with Pakistan, Morocco, Bangladesh, and Burma.
As such it based on a lineage of tanks descended from the T-72 and Type-69, as typical for Sino-soviet tanks it still has a turret ring autoloader, and very little armour outside of the frontal arc. Sharp angles and flat plates do not a Western MBT make.
However the different design philosophies even when comparing the certainly higher quality Type 99A2 to US tanks does bear some thought. The Sino-soviet model allows for smaller form factor and much lighter weight (42 tons as opposed to 60+ for an Abrams) this means that despite being far less survivable the chicom tanks are far more strategically mobile allowing more of them to be delivered to potential pacific combat zones that equivalent US vehicles.
Being armed with Soviet derived 125mm guns their firepower is perhaps slightly less than the 120mm L44 smoothbore, but the disparity seen with similarly armed tanks in Iraq will by no means apply. The Type-99A2 have DU sabot ammunition and GLATGM available, as well as modern IR targeting equipment, and potentially APS systems.
Though comparatively fragile they will pack a solid punch capable of threatening US tanks even at 1:1 force ratios.
This is not to mention that being equipped with diesels the Chinese tanks will place a far lower logistical footprint, very important when operating from long ocean supply lines.
The TL;DR of this is that the PLA has a vehicle optimized for offensive expeditionary warfare, the US still operates tanks designed to fight defensive maneuver warfare in Europe. Whilst the Abrams may be a better tank one on one, the strategic realities of the theater may mean that this kind of match up will rarely happen.
Whether or not we keep the Abrams around, it really seems like the US needs to develop a reliable low-cost (A-10 like) 40-60 ton medium tank for everywhere that an Abrams can't go. Which is most of the world. Including cities, a role the Abrams was never designed for.
ReplyDeleteHeavy western MBTs are actually better in urban conflict than the lighter Sino-soviet type. The lack of effective side Armour, means that RPG hunter teams can and do wreak havoc on them. This is why the Russians lost so many T-80s in Grozny during the Chechen wars.
DeleteA Western MBTs with up armour kits can and have been completely surrounded and pummeled by multiple RPG and light ATGM hits without being knocked out.
Any tanks unsupported by heavy infantry escort in an urban engagement are in for rough handling however.
Russians lost tanks in Grozny because of the poor tactics, tanks had no infantry support. You can kit up any tank with up armor kits and surviving direct RPG hits might not be that much of a problem( any Era block will take 1 rpg hit, but newer tandem warhead heavy ATGM will threaten any tank even in frontal arc). Just have a look at what Israelis are hanging on to their tanks..
DeleteIdea that western tanks are that much better amored is flawed western tanks are about 1/3 heavier but need to protect 2x the internal volume (10 vs 20m3) so unless you have same magical vapor ware around there is no more armor thickess to go around.
Western designs do have great ammo storage protection in the turret itself but large part of ammo stored in the hull besides the driver has no protection.
I see many have no clue how armor is positioned and how thick it is in MBTs , there are lots of hollow boxes and spaced armor but very little armor thickness allround in those boxy turrets
New gen tanks like latest Merkava evolutions are reducing frontal armor in favor off more allround protection.
Western tanks do have heavier armour, especially on the side of the turret. You ask how they accomplish this?
DeleteBecause they are far heavier, often by 20 or so tons, yes some of this extra weight is used by armoring a larger internal volume, but the sides of Abrams and Challenger II turrets are far better protected than that of T-72/T-80/T-90 sans ERA.
Frontal armour is often about equivalent, though the glacis on western tanks tends to be a little thicker.
Russian tactics in Grozny were initially quite poor, bur they did quickly begin to escort their armour with infantry. The problem is the Chechens had very good urban tank hunting tactics, surrounding tanks and pummeling them with RPGs whilst mgs suppressed the infantry.
Western tanks would probably have fared overall no better in that situation, but are marginally better equipped for it, especially with the modern up armour kits which drastically increase side protection. (In exchange for about another 10 ton of weight added)
The Sino-Soviet design model sacrifices side protection for lighter weight and thus strategic mobility. Which is great if you want to say move vast amounts of armour from depots across Russia to flood through the Fulda Gap. Or move tanks via ships to islands across the pacific.
Western tanks were designed to be on the other end, fighting from behind ridge lines, generally on the defensive. The required tactical mobility, and survivability to keep them in the fight longer. even if positionally disadvantaged.
Which philosophy would have been successful is still up for debate, as the only full on combat test of the designs has involved poorly utilized, badly crewed monkey models of the soviet tanks.
Regardless of whether "Western Tanks" are better at city-fighting or not, the Abrams is poorly designed for it. As its engine will broil any troops trying to shelter behind it, and it lacks the ability to shoot HE ammo that would be effective against dug-in positions.
DeleteAnd size/mobility does matter. There were no Abrams in the mountain passes of Yugoslavia, for instance. Because the terrain/bridges couldn't support an 80-ton vehicle. There is a place for heavy MBTs, sure. But there is also a place for medium ones that can go anywhere and not require the Abrams' huge logistical tail.
20 tons cca 1/3 heavier but have 2x the volume to protect ,being angular means even more surface , Frontally western tanks don't have that much more surface, but from the side they have 50 % more surface to protect.
DeleteAbrams might make it in US service ,but give it so some inept ragheads at you would be seeing just as many burnt as any other tank.
Would be nice if people read a bit on the subject this is just a short read ,but there is a nice german book that handles tanks in intimate detail(Panzer Entwicklung ...). http://www.scribd.com/doc/6032093/Armor-Basics
Nice pict of the Leo II turret ,here you see how thin the armor is trough out much of the turret.http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/1016/leopard2spawanie.jpg
M1 turret http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/090324135915_abr.jpg
Lots of info based on that german tank books and this russian website.http://btvt.narod.ru/spec/iraq/abrams_2003_demage.htm
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-35.html
This debate over Western armor vs Russian armor-
DeleteTake it from one whose country operates both the T-72/90 combo as wel las the Leopard 2 derived Arjun MK1 and MK2 tanks.......regardless of western tanks weight, there is no denying that Leopard 2/Arjun series gives superior battlefield mobility than the T-90.
In India, the Arjun (Compared to T-90) has a better fire contol system, better gun stabilization, a suspension system that can handle rough terrain more easily and that sweet automatic transmission (only recently did the T-90 MS modernized version get the auto transmission). Indian civilian cars dont even have automatic transmission and we have that here in the Arjun.
All this allows the Arjun in open terrain to be a much better flanking unit than the T-90. And yet, there is something to be said about the T-90.
Yeah if you can convince the armor-centric fucktards in the US Army that not everything revolves around tank-on-tank kursk-like clashes, then maybe we can get around serious, adult conversations, like a true MBT weighing 40-50 tons that wont suffer from being stranded like the Abrams did in Kosovo.
DeleteOr god forbid, an airborne-capable armored assault gun...
notruescotsman
DeleteAs long as the Russians and Chinese maintain upwards of 7-8000 tanks each in their armored fleets, Tank designers will always focus more on "tank-on-tank Kursk-like clashes", and Infantry Support or Urban Pacification will always play second fiddle to Tank vs. Tank. And as long as these countries display an aggressive game face to their neighbours, your allies....Tank designers will always focus on 60 ton types.
"Infantry Support or Urban Pacification will always play second fiddle to Tank vs. Tank"
DeleteThats precisely the problem, and other countries are realizing this by fielding tanks more centered around infantry support in general.
There will be no massive tank battles akin to WW2 clashes. Warfare evolution, in the form of ATGMs, gunships, CAS, and very accurate artillery and mortars, is a far cry from massed artillery and anti-tank guns.
I can already imagine the reaction of most Armored Corpsmen to the goal of Urban Pacification......they will view it through the same glasses used by Airforce to view Close Air Support. Just my thought. In India's case we have a deliberate policy to stay away from controling Major Pakistani Urban/Population centres. A marked difference from what US strategy which voices that future combat might be in urban megacentres.
DeleteCity is not place where tank should go. It's ultimate trap for heavy armor. City is infantry battlefield not armor.
ReplyDeleteWhile a city fight is a infantry fight, force multipliers such as mbts, ifv, and mgs should never be discounted, "he breaks positions"
DeleteInfantry often need a big gun to blow open the sides of buildings so that they can enter safely. The old German assault guns were tailor-made for this.
Deletethere is a shock factor as well, the use of Tanks in Phantom Fury is a huge example of this. In a combined arms role, Infantry and Armor make for a huge impact in the urban environment.
Deletenow Infantry can thrive in the urban environment on their own, Tanks/armor cannot.
While tanks and armor have had their asses kicked in urban terrain, such as Grozny or any major city in Syria, due to inadequate infantry support, they have also been the decisive battle enders for many urban skirmishes, such as any ambush or raid in Iraq.
DeleteJust as they can be vulnerable, tanks are also excellent tools to use in urban areas, provided they are used right. There is a value to their armor and firepower.
We have 2,000 Abrams tanks upgraded and ready for action just sitting in a desert in Nevada. Congress is already forcing Abrams tank upgrades down the Army's throat, even when they resisted and said they didn't want them. I don't see China's MBT-3000 as much of a problem in light of that.
ReplyDeleteThe army doesn't want them because the Abrams is so poorly designed that it consumes more than half of the Army's vehicular maintenance budget each year. While not being that great in any role other than the open land battles that it was originally designed for.
DeleteBut how many do you think you can use in pacific theatre. Remember WWII more or less only light tanks to part in the Pacific while in Europe you had tanks going toward superheavy class ,most of the stuff used in pacific in 1945 wouldn't stand much chance in Europe in 1942
ReplyDeleteUS forces use mainly Shermans in Pacific theater with great success we can add. And Sherman was more then enough to counter anything in Europe 42'
DeleteThe Sherman was a lightweight tank with decent frontal armour, and very competitive firepower when armed with a 76mm gun. Contrary to myth Shermans could and did knock out the Tigers and Panthers of the Wehrmacht one on one, despite perhaps being slightly inferior overall.
DeleteHowever the Allies almost never engaged on those terms, becasue they had greater strategic mobility. Many of the allied heavy tank projects were cancelled or retarded precisely becasue they would effect strategic movement.
Today the T-90 and Type-99 are the well armed strategically mobile Sherman, and the Abrams and Challenger are the lumbering heavily armored Tiger IIs. The historical lessons when fighting an offensive expeditionary war there are disturbing.
Unconfirmed reports also note that an hour after you fill the fuel tanks, it's hungry again.
ReplyDelete"I wonder how much info they stole to produce this hybrid M1/Leopard look alike?"
ReplyDeleteI had the exact same thought.
Didn't they had a Leo 2 some years ago?
Andre, that was a Leopard 2 non-functional model by some company out in the mainland.
DeleteI don't understand why Solomon is obsessed with marine corp tanks. The USMC won't have to battle Chinese tanks in Asia, as most of battlegrounds will be small islands where there would not be enough space to put 1000 troops on them. There is literally no place for the USMC M1A1s to battle Chinese tanks in Asia, unless the US plans on invading the Chinese mainland.
ReplyDeleteAnd what if US will move to support Japan or Taiwan against possible invasions... those are islands that you can put more then 1000 troops on them.
DeleteShas
DeleteIn case of Japan, landing on Japanese mainland or even Okinawa is out of question as the Chinese landing forces can never penetrate Japanese/American defense to reach there. The only possible landing site currently under Japanese control is the Diaoyu Islands.
As for Taiwan, the PLA landing forces must be stopped at the Taiwan Straits. Once the PLA makes a successful landing. then it's all over and there is no need to continue fighting.
The only possible place where the US ground force tanks could encounter the PLA tanks is in North Korea, but the terrain of North Korea make it unsuitable for the M1 tanks anyway. And the M1 tanks cannot keep up with the ROK army's armor blitzkrieg, whose K2 tanks and K21 IFV are much better suited for a mountainous terrain combat and are able to cross all North Korean rivers unassisted.
If I get an 1 Euro for every time someone in history say "enemy forces can never penetrate some defense" I would be so rich that my grand grand grand grand grand grand children would live like kings. Every defense line can be breached, every defense zone can be destroyed... EVERY. You just need the will and resources to do this.
DeleteProtecting against possible invasion means that you are already on the field. Not that you will reinforce allies already in fight but you are with them in that fight. And when Chinese will start to land you will pray that you take with you some armor with big guns to support your position.
If China decides to invade Taiwan aka Republic of China, you can bet they will have their 5th column in Taiwan in numbers and positions of power needed to guarantee success .
DeleteRight.
DeleteBecause we'll never see Marines in Korea again, and all that time I spent at the DMZ during Team Spirit was just a dream.
Please, before you pronounce that Chinese tanks in Korea is unpossible, sit down and crack a frickkin' book.
Marine armor? I think they'll just buy more things that fly. = )
ReplyDeleteThe powerpack of this tank is a German MTU diesel generating 1500 HP. I bet the Chinese went in to Germany with a pretext of looking for Heavy Tractor Engines and companies who could set up a heavy Tractor/Industrial/construction machinary engine plant. Last what I heard was that after some time the license agreement collapsed and the current powerpacks are not license produced copies. Classic.
ReplyDeleteThe ability of the Chinese to completly Transplant western factories to their homeland is legendary. Ask MG Rover and Volvo. And the dozens of other small, medium and big factories and research bureaus which they acquired when the Soviet Union collapsed.
DeleteI am sure the success of bulk of their current generation mature technologies are not the result of chinese efforts but because of all the international talent they have been acquiring which got a big boost when the Soviets collapsed and the second wave came in the 2000's when western Tech. markets were opened up for international investment and Chinese companies got a piece of that pie.
Just google how the chinese stole the engine technology for their Z-10 attack helicoptor. And if there are any informed Ex-Soviets here they can elaborate on how and from where the Chinese got to copy the 2A46.
Now the Chinese have a tank (Type-99) which can go up against the best of what the Russians have over terrain which has historically favored Russia.
ReplyDeleteBad news for us because now the Pakistanis have access to a new type of tank. They may regard the Ukrainian T-80 as their frontline tank but seeing Pakistans bankrupt economy and Ukraines need for hard cash, I dont think they will offer Pakistan any soft loan options and deep discounts like in the past so that those poor bastards could afford them. Now Pakistan will have to take their begging bowl to the Chinese who will offer them...........MBT 3000.
And the Indian Armored Corps will again be in the same situation it was back then. Staring at an enemy with the same equipment profile and tech. as you and just hoping that either better training and superior numbers prevail. Our one chance to break into the world of Modern Battle Tanks with the Arjun MK2 dashed. I keep asking myself this question....when we have the money and the talent, Why do we inflcit on ourselves this self limiting sence of Parity with the Pakistanis ?