Is China's ZTZ-96 Main Battle Tank Any Good?

Feel free to discuss anything and everything to do with tanking here!

Postby Xiaoshan_Sailor » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:16 am

Interesting article on China's ZTZ-96.

Is China's ZTZ-96 Main Battle Tank Any Good?
Russia and America don't think so.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... good-81081

R30 (1).jpg
User avatar
Xiaoshan_Sailor
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:04 pm
Location: Hangzhou, China

Postby 43rdRecceReg » Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:00 am

I guess the first question to ask would be whether it's a fake, or the genuine item :lolno: :D
I believe a Chinese firm managed to produce a counterfeit Porsche (with a Ford engine? ),
and so a fake tank is not beyond the bounds of possibility. :D
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 3868
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland

Postby General Jumbo01 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:13 am

No main battle tanks are any good any more! They are like the battle ship. Great in WW1 but out-moded by the carrier in WW2. The new battlefield fire and forget missile launchers are small, highly mobile and score every time with no line of sight required.

We don't have them in 1/16 yet so don't panic!
User avatar
General Jumbo01
Sergeant
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:06 pm
Location: I'm a Londoner that moved to Essex. Says it all really...:(

Postby jarndice » Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:36 am

I wouldn't go loading the "Fake" Military propaganda solely upon the Chinese,
American Nuclear Submarines rarely if ever carry the proper Fleet Numbers on its Conning Tower indeed they are irregularly repainted with a different number just as the Lockheed SR71 Blackbird whose Tailfins similarly carried an assortment of different numbers throughout its service.
And closer to home if you go to the Army Air Corp Museum at Middle Wallop you will see a De-Havilland Canada 2 Beaver Numbered XP821 and it is painted in United Nations Markings and the White and Blue of that organisation,
If you ask the staff why it is painted in that scheme you will get a cock and bull tale about "Aid to the people of Kampuchea/Cambodia and Laos" :lolno: :lolno:
The US Army was flying the U6 in Vietnam in a number of roles and was well known by the troops on the ground and by US Navy/Marine and Airforce aircrews,
The U6 was the US army's designation for the Beaver,
Coincidently the British Army's Beaver XP821 was flying aid for the UN in South East Asia when the UN could have had access to any number of single engined liason aircraft but it was considered safer to fly a type that the belligerents recognised as friendly so it was able to operate a lot closer to the action than has ever been admitted.
There is a lot more to this story but I like my freedom. :haha:

jarndice
Major
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:27 am
Location: the mountains of hertfordshire

Postby 43rdRecceReg » Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:59 am

:D
:think: What happens to the driver's head, when the Gun suddenly drops down into the maximum hull-down position? 8O :D
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 3868
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland

Postby General Jumbo01 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:49 am

He gets a bump! When the gun is fully lowered and then traverses he gets decapitated. However, like Russia in WW2, what's the loss of a man when there are so many replacements available?

Weren't the UKs first claimed nuclear bombs nothing of the sort? Little white lies! ;)
User avatar
General Jumbo01
Sergeant
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:06 pm
Location: I'm a Londoner that moved to Essex. Says it all really...:(

Postby Raminator » Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:50 am

General Jumbo01 wrote:No main battle tanks are any good any more! They are like the battle ship. Great in WW1 but out-moded by the carrier in WW2. The new battlefield fire and forget missile launchers are small, highly mobile and score every time with no line of sight required.

I don't know that I'd go that far. The tank may no longer have the pre-eminence it enjoyed during the Second World War, but it's still an important part of combined-arms warfare in terms of heavy support and exploitation. Tanks might suffer in asymmetrical and/or urban warfare, but that's nothing new; it's just a limitation of the concept. Anti-tank guns and handheld shaped-charge weapons didn't make tanks obsolete, so it's unlikely that ATGMs and standoff ground-attack aircraft will do the same. There's always been that constant arms race, there are always new countermeasures.

To be honest, I'm pretty happy that there haven't been any large-scale conflicts between powerful industrial nations to put the theory into practice. Being an armchair general is a lot more fun when no lives are at stake.

43rdRecceReg wrote:
:think: What happens to the driver's head, when the Gun suddenly drops down into the maximum hull-down position? 8O :D

I'd like to think that in a situation where the gun might be aiming at something rapidly, the driver would have the good sense to be well within cover!
User avatar
Raminator
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:57 am
Location: Newcastle, Australia

Postby jarndice » Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:10 pm

The UKs first Nuclear Bomb Test produced what is known as a "Squib" To be polite it underperformed :{
In the very descriptive terms of Wiley Coyote it went bnag instead of BANG,
Practice makes perfect and now we can kill millions of innocents just as well as anybody else who has the bomb.

jarndice
Major
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:27 am
Location: the mountains of hertfordshire

Postby Son of a gun-ner » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:38 pm

jarndice wrote:The UKs first Nuclear Bomb Test produced what is known as a "Squib" To be polite it underperformed :{
In the very descriptive terms of Wiley Coyote it went bnag instead of BANG,
Practice makes perfect and now we can kill millions of innocents just as well as anybody else who has the bomb.

One could say that all nuclear bombs detonated in the 40's and 50's went bnag instead of bang, including the ones dropped on Japan. They were immensely inefficient.
To think that the one dropped on Hiroshima only detonated around 2%, that's 7grams, (the size of a peppercorn) of its uranium, the rest, 98% of the fissile material just being blown apart in the air and not contributing to the destruction.
It certainly brings home just how scary these weapons are.
When I did my apprenticeship, I worked with guys that had worked on our British nuclear test program in the Easter Island area, they had machine workshops in the back of lorries, probably why they struggled to get it right ;)
User avatar
Son of a gun-ner
TOTM Admin
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 8:49 pm
Location: Surrey UK

Postby Son of a gun-ner » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:46 pm

As for the Chinese tanks. . . .
This isn't the first time this has happened to them in other tank exercises.

Watch "ZTZ-96B lose a wheel during Tank Biathlon 2016" on YouTube
phpBB [video]


Watch "Chinese Type-96B Tank Breaks Down in Tank Biathlon 2018" on YouTube
phpBB [video]


To be fair to them, they did win a race in an event.

Watch "Chinese Team Wins Competition in Tank Biathlon" on YouTube
phpBB [video]
User avatar
Son of a gun-ner
TOTM Admin
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 8:49 pm
Location: Surrey UK

Postby silversurfer1947 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:51 pm

Fat Man, which was dropped on Nagasaki, had a 6.4kg plutonium core. Of this, less than 0.7 gram was completely turned into energy. This was 21 Kiloton exosion.
User avatar
silversurfer1947
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:54 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby Son of a gun-ner » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:00 pm

silversurfer1947 wrote:Fat Man, which was dropped on Nagasaki, had a 6.4kg plutonium core. Of this, less than 0.7 gram was completely turned into energy. This was 21 Kiloton exosion.

Which just goes to show how inefficient those bombs were, and in my mind, thankfully.
User avatar
Son of a gun-ner
TOTM Admin
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 8:49 pm
Location: Surrey UK

Postby General Jumbo01 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:03 pm

General Jumbo01 wrote:
Weren't the UKs first claimed nuclear bombs nothing of the sort? Little white lies! ;)


My mistake - l should have said Hydrogen bomb claim.

From Wiki'
The next test was Grapple 2, of Orange Herald,[120] the first British weapon to incorporate an external neutron initiator.[121] It was dropped on 31 May,[120] and exploded with a force of 720 to 800 kilotonnes of TNT (3,000 to 3,300 TJ). The yield was the largest ever achieved by a single stage device,[122] which made it technically a megaton weapon.[123] The bomb was hailed as a hydrogen bomb, and the truth that it was actually a large fission bomb was kept secret by the British government until the end of the Cold War.
User avatar
General Jumbo01
Sergeant
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:06 pm
Location: I'm a Londoner that moved to Essex. Says it all really...:(

Postby General Jumbo01 » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:38 pm

More redundancies? Just as aircraft carriers made battleships out moded, so on the news yesterday was a piece on the Navy panicking about the threat to their two new carriers from killer subs as the far east problems ramp up. Don't you find it amazing that we (the UK) spend so much on assets that are just liabilities! This wasn't a decision sanctioned by parliament was it?
User avatar
General Jumbo01
Sergeant
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:06 pm
Location: I'm a Londoner that moved to Essex. Says it all really...:(

Postby tankme » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:01 pm

I guess that's why US carriers have and entire battle fleet with them and an extensive net of sensors networked together on those other ships. The smaller ships are running active sonar around the carrier and the carrier deploys hunter/killer aircraft for support. It can also out run most submarines. There is a good article about it here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 46ee572f7a

tankme
Recruit
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:51 pm
Location: Elgin, TX

Postby jarndice » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:41 pm

And a Trident Class Submarine coordinating with a satellite could get a fix and launch a salvo of cruise missiles armed with conventional warheads at the carrier task force and that would be the end of that.
Anything anywhere on the surface of this planet is a potential target.

jarndice
Major
 
Posts: 5371
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:27 am
Location: the mountains of hertfordshire

Postby tankme » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:04 pm

Not to be combative, but why would an Ohio class submarine operated by the US Navy armed with Trident missiles be firing on a US or British carrier group?

tankme
Recruit
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:51 pm
Location: Elgin, TX

Postby Son of a gun-ner » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:16 pm

tankme wrote:Not to be combative, but why would an Ohio class submarine operated by the US Navy armed with Trident missiles be firing on a US or British carrier group?

I guess you don't watch James Bond movies ;)
User avatar
Son of a gun-ner
TOTM Admin
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 8:49 pm
Location: Surrey UK

Postby Son of a gun-ner » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:24 pm

I've heard that Britain may be going for a hat-trick, there could be a third new carrier in the pipeline.

Carriers are needed for quick air superiority, their support ships are quite capable of defending from an impressive array of crap coming their way, at the moment, effectively defending the world from tin pot tyrants. It's only something like a third world war that they wouldn't be needed.
User avatar
Son of a gun-ner
TOTM Admin
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 8:49 pm
Location: Surrey UK

Postby Zapper » Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:05 pm

jarndice wrote:And a Trident Class Submarine coordinating with a satellite could get a fix and launch a salvo of cruise missiles armed with conventional warheads at the carrier task force and that would be the end of that.
Anything anywhere on the surface of this planet is a potential target.


A good point apart from Tridents are ballistic missiles, so neither them nor the submarines that carry them, are or can fire cruise missiles. Carrier groups can and do out fox satellite reconnaissance, ask the Russian and even the American Navy (who incidentally were one of the biggest supporters of continued SR-71 operations as they were very handy for finding ships that satellites lost track of), finally the AEGIS system found on most US warships now was specifically designed to defeat sea skimming swarm missile attacks.

Zapper
Recruit
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:14 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests