Chinese tanks vs Russian tanks

Hi

Given the "two standards" used by both armies, how are the chinese tanks compared to the russian tanks of equivalent "standard"?

namely,

type 96A vs T-72BA/B3 or T-80BV

&

type 99A vs T-90A or T-80U/UM/UE1/UD

And, do you think the T-72B obr 1988/89/90 tank (bog standard T-72B with K-1 ERA serving in great number in RU army) is superior to any chinese tanks : type 96 (early), 90, 85, 79 and other tanks inferior to the modern chinese 96A and 99A tanks?


Bit of info...

The 96A is the most numerous modern tank operated by PRC, and has a very powerful engine, a weapon system comparable to RU tanks, electronics seemingly superb, but has a very bad armour compared to a T-80B or T-72B, not even talking T-80U / T-90A. This tank is the latest evolution of... Basically the Type 59. Through type 69,79 then 85/90, but incorporates many design features of T-72. Still, the hull remains inspired by type 59 with driver on the left. For reminder, T-59 is just a pig iron T-54A, basically.

The 99A is the latest and most modern tank of PRC. Its origins greatly take the T-72 as a basis, and it is much bigger and heavier than the type 96A. Armour wise, this tank is better  than the 96A, and probably comparable to the T-72B with K-1. Weapon-wise, it's the same than the 96A, so comparable to (probably) 125mm 2A46-M gun series, maybe not up to par with 2A46-M5. Electronic wise it's the top of the pop for china, and probably not behind any current tank of other nations. Propulsion is powerful, but it's less agile than 96A because of the weight.

Any other chinese tank that isn't an early variant of these tanks (equivalent roughly to T-72M or T-64A for both...) is an all RHA armour obsolete machine.

RU T-72BA and B3 are modernisation with many improvements in firecontrols and also in firepower (new gun, new autoloader, new ammo), also in ERA placement or type. Some T-72BA retained the K-1 era, but the T-72B3 upgrade is more deep and expensive, and turn the T-72 into a very good tank. T-72B armour is well known for being strong.

T-80BV are the main tanks of RU armored brigades and also training centers (still true in 2014?). This tank has less sophisticated electronics than T-72BA/B3, but it's still very correct. MAin problem is lack of thermal sights. Armour wise it's not extremely great, but, not bad. K-1 ERA coverage is good, but base armour is weaker than T-72B. Mobility is great (1000 ot 1250hp gas turbines), armament is good but cannot use most recent APFSDS due to autoloader cassetes.

T-80U is the main russian "top tank", basically it has good firecontrols, gun, (not sure about newest apfsds use), very good armour (more than T-72B) and ERA coverage (K-5), great mobility. Most lacks Thermals, but some of them were retrofitted, T-80UM, UA, and such, mostly small batches... T-80UE1 is a T-80BV with T-80UD turret and new electronics, basically a great tank. T-80UD is a diesel engine T-80U produced in kharkov, most are retired (are we sure?).

T-90A are the latest russian tanks, more and more common (up to 800 now?). It is superior to all russian tanks in service, much better armour, and electronics. Mobility and firepower are great, ability to use latest APFSDS of course, and 1000hp diesel engine.

I keep it short....

None of that matters becuase the Armata is coming!

not nearly close to being in service however

cracker wrote:not nearly close to being in service however

They'll make their debut by May Victory Day parade 2015.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

cracker wrote:not nearly close to being in service however

They'll make their debut by May Victory Day parade 2015.

Yep, and I'll be watching it live (like this years event)...

Maybe china will also release soon the infamous 152 or 135mm armed type 99A2 or something... But, it's really unlikely

Armata, I just hope the turret will not be a robot module ... I mean, 2 man crew? No it's ridiculous... I know it's more or less already sure that the turret will be non occupied... but, still, I hope the testing show them a 3 man crew is better, with a man behind the sight in the turret, and not a pack of gizmos and HD screens in the hull...

cracker wrote:Maybe china will also release soon the infamous 152 or 135mm armed type 99A2 or something... But, it's really unlikely

Armata, I just hope the turret will not be a robot module ... I mean, 2 man crew? No it's ridiculous... I know it's more or less already sure that the turret will be non occupied... but, still, I hope the testing show them a 3 man crew is better, with a man behind the sight in the turret, and not a pack of gizmos and HD screens in the hull...

No, it's a 3 man crew. They said that the turret is unmanned, and the T-99 Armata will be highly automated to the point where that T-99 evolutionary progress will lead to a completely unmanned drone tank, so it won't go from 3 crew to 2 crew, it'll go from 3 crew down to and unmanned tank with 0 crew members and will most likely be controlled by a mobile command post based on the Armata platform. Unmanned tanks make a whole lot of sense, it can easily be built smaller, lighter, and more survivable if they go that route.

higurashihougi wrote:

cracker wrote:Maybe china will also release soon the infamous 152 or 135mm armed type 99A2 or something... But, it's really unlikely

As far as I know, there is an article about an unnamed new Chinese tank with a 140mm cannon. No further information.

140mm cannon is quite big for a tank. China want to create something rival the T-95 ?

140mm canon？no 99A2 is 125mm. T95 is not rival of 99

type055 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

cracker wrote:Maybe china will also release soon the infamous 152 or 135mm armed type 99A2 or something... But, it's really unlikely

As far as I know, there is an article about an unnamed new Chinese tank with a 140mm cannon. No further information.

140mm cannon is quite big for a tank. China want to create something rival the T-95 ?

140mm canon？no 99A2 is 125mm.   T95 is not rival of 99

I'll give the Chinese this much, they sure put a serious amount of emphasis on ERA on there tanks, even more so then Russia with respects to the B3.

It is important to point out in the real world you don't put a bigger gun on you tank to win internet dick measuring contests... a bigger gun means different ammo and a different ammo supply chain... the costs of developing and producing new ammo.

You only do that if you think the likely enemy will have armour too thick to penetrate from reasonable battle distances with your current calibre... otherwise it is really not worth the effort... 140mm ammo will be too big and heavy to hand load, it will reduce the number of ready to use rounds, and will have negative effects on the vehicle when fired in terms of structure unless the tank was designed from the outset to use that calibre of weapon.

The Tank Biathlon last year proved the T-96A is just a poor clone of a T-72. Their tracks constantly fall off, the substandard steel in the suspension buckles, a 1000hp Chinese engine can't keep up with a vastly outclassed 780hp. The worst part is... you can't even fit in the tank unless you're a skinny midget... guess what, Chinese aren't that small anymore either.

Chinas growth is because of the same reason any country grows... money... and most of the money it got to create all this growth was investment from western countries hungry for cheap labour and a political will to grow China as a rival to counter Russia.

The whole point was that china and russia are supposed to be in conflict right now which would damage them both and keep them both under the thumb.

The problem is that both countries are rising again... though the west is currently stifling Russias growth as it turns away from the west and evolves in other directions the capacity of the wesst to control Russias growth will continue to diminish to the point where Russia wont need the west. At that point other developing countries can have alternative paths of growth and development that does not include the west.

Russia does not need to become a superpower, it would be good if it just became rich enough to look after its own people and offer health, education, and jobs for everyone and was able to look after its young and its elderly and not have a high percentage of people in jail.

Of course it also needs to be secure from internal and external threats.

I see China as great source of electronics for Russia actually, they have quite significant experience with electronics unlike Russians that suffered quite alot during 90s due to lack of money, however China in terms of other fields cant really match Russian technology like engines, suspensions, missile propellants, nuclear reactors, radioelectronics and some basic industrial production technologies like steel, nuclear fuels etc. China fed itself with quite significant amount of technologies via foreign companies that work there and pure old school industrial spying but that is not enough you need strong domestic research and develop to soak all the partial info that you get from outside.

I have also mentioned in the past that growth is also effected by lots of factors...

Think of it as a bacteria... on a petris dish with the right temperature and lots of food, no competition, no enemies or predators and bacteria can grow at an astonishing rate... in fact it is mathematically logrithmic.... if it could continue at that rate within a few years there would be enough bacteria to equal the mass of the entire earth.

The reality however is that under optimum conditions this growth will occur, but the growth itself will change those conditions... when the bacteria runs out of food, or reaches the edge of the petris dish the growth can't continue.

Note I am comparing growth, not suggesting Chinese people are bacteria or some sort of disease.

They have expanded rapidly because there was enormous potential for expansion... there was lots of room to grow and increase.

The mistake people make is the assumption that the growth will continue forever, but once it reaches parity to other similar groups... ie the west or the east, then growth slows down... in other words they can catch up quickly, but wont blaze past and become superior.

If you take a child from birth from the middle ages and put them through modern schooling you would not be able to tell the difference between other children... that doesn't mean in 10 years time they will be working at the level of someone from the 23 century...

T90A is better than 99A ? no , just name one aspect.



Russia military edges most base on their soviet times heritage. disproportionate input compare to their economy.


In 10 years some advantage definitely will fade away due to their input rencent years.


my point is if Russia want to keep its advantage , they must increase investment on research.

type055 wrote:T90A  is better than 99A  ? no , just name one aspect.  



Russia military edges most base on their soviet times heritage.   disproportionate input compare to their economy.


In 10 years some advantage definitely  will fade away due to their input rencent years.


my point is if Russia want to keep its advantage , they must increase investment on research.

No investment?

Kurganet-25 Plattform, Armata plattform, Boomerang, S-400&500, Su-50, Mi-28NM, PVS Mi-24 testbed for further high speed Mi helicopters, several projects in navy, PAK-DA/TA, NII Stali despite the 90's chaos under Yeltzin is the top and only leading company for armor which holds most patents for technologies that are constantly bought or used or asked to develope technologies for countries/companies civil and military purposes. There are enough investment and research in Russia, the entire world can not compete with the current rate of new technologies coming from Russia that are actualy 21st century technology not like the west which still has mainly cold war era stuff and praises it as "Modern".

type055 wrote:T90A  is better than 99A  ? no , just name one aspect.  



Russia military edges most base on their soviet times heritage.   disproportionate input compare to their economy.


In 10 years some advantage definitely  will fade away due to their input rencent years.


my point is if Russia want to keep its advantage , they must increase investment on research.

The T99A is going to have a rude awakening if it ever finds itself on the current battlefield. It's mainly a 90's tank painfully upgraded to be barely in the contest with OEF era Western Equipment. Unfortunately we know that train has long left the station and most of the current MBT's are inadequate when employed according to the Combined arms doctrine.