It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Type 98 Main Battle Tank

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
It is generally regarded so yes ^

however we can only go from paper, so in a combat situation where neither tank has seen real service we can not make an accurate decision.

Tank crew training will play a very large part in any engagement




posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
^^
Lucky Bum !!
Can you even read the print at 2000x1000?
hmmm..

So is the T-98 better than the T-90M ??
Because the Indians have that (Arjun is inferior to that)
Although any Indo-China conflict will be mostly partrooper/aircraft oriented..no tanks..


No idea.

We could assume the the Russian T-90's are better because they got better crew + experience.

the T-98 is more important for China in that it's an Chinese design drawing on Russian influences instead of a Chinese design on a Russian Chasiss.

I don't even think it's going to built in great numbers, it's apparantly only going to be supplied to the crack troops.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Indeed.. and in this case the Terrain is not like Iraq where the better radar wins type of thing.. its hilly/mountainous

"crack troops"..??


[edit on 28-3-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Indeed.. and in this case the Terrain is not like Iraq where the better radar wins type of thing.. its hilly/mountainous

"crack troops"..??


[edit on 28-3-2005 by Daedalus3]


Elite troops.

China has several elite troops and quick-response teams. It is cutting down it's military size and mechanizing it's infantry.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
No idea.

We could assume the the Russian T-90's are better because they got better crew + experience.

the T-98 is more important for China in that it's an Chinese design drawing on Russian influences instead of a Chinese design on a Russian Chasiss.

I don't even think it's going to built in great numbers, it's apparantly only going to be supplied to the crack troops.


I believe that was the original plan

Type 96 will be the tank used for the majority part as it costs much less $1 million as opposed to the type-98's $4 million

However the designs are very similar with only the most advanced items being removed for the type-96

There is currently about 600 Type-96's in service and around 300 type-98's at the moment



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Elite troops.

China has several elite troops and quick-response teams. It is cutting down it's military size and mechanizing it's infantry.


They wouldn't be anything like the “Elite” Republican guard now, would they?



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Elite troops.

China has several elite troops and quick-response teams. It is cutting down it's military size and mechanizing it's infantry.


They wouldn't be anything like the “Elite” Republican guard now, would they?



Actually, speaking of the Republican guards, you do realise that most of it defected to the U.S.

That is why it took like 1 hour for the U.S to destroy all of them.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
O.K. how well can the ‘Type 98 Main Battle Tank’ do against the worlds leading tanks? Abrams, etc.

What are its strong points, weak points, etc.

I can’t find much information on it, other then it is meant to be a copy/more advanced copy, of the ‘Leopard 2 A6’ but I only have basic knowledge of tanks. If a war with India started, would these tanks be able to hold their own against anything India can throw at them? (Excluding air.)


Much like most modern Chinese and Russia technology - unproven thus impossible to comment. All posts are pure speculation.

Its far from the transparent nature of US failures - we learn from our mistakes rather than hide them.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   
rapier
They defected? Try infiltrated.

'Hypothetical' situation. Your country is invaded. You are a special operations soldier. The enemy is advancing fast, and to wage war in the open would be suicide. To flee would bring dishonor and a death warrant. The only two options are 'surrender' and fight the battle from within the enemy ranks, and conduct guerilla operations. That's exactly what the Republican Guard was trained to do.

I never understood the sense of invading a country, embarassing their military, taking their weapons away, then retraining them, re-equipping them, and letting them go! It's insane!

But then again, what isn't these days?

I love that silhouette by the way. I question the reliance on front plates to increase survivability though, most modern Anti-Tank munitions pop up to defeat the effectiveness of a deflection plate. I would rather see tanks replaced with Talons frankly, much more maneuverable, less manpower-intensive, cheaper, stealthier, and can be used for everything from building entry to bomb disposal. It's a much more versatile platform than these monsters.

Does anyone think we'll ever see another full scale armor engagement? I would doubt it. Most countries rely too heavily on a combination of artillery, air support, and covert ops.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard


Much like most modern Chinese and Russia technology - unproven thus impossible to comment. All posts are pure speculation.

Its far from the transparent nature of US failures - we learn from our mistakes rather than hide them.


Although im not an ardent fan of you yanks, I must agree that what you say is true..



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Here is a set of screens showing the Chinese testing a high velocity anti-tank missile against the Type-96... (basically a type-98 without the advanced composite armour and other gadgets)

The missile penetrated the tank I believe... looking at the smoke from the hatches, but it didn't go "boom"... suggesting the chinese have found a way to stop the ammunition exploding like in russian tanks

external image

EDIT: fixed

[edit on 29-3-2005 by Lucretius]

*resized photo*

[edit on 30-3-2005 by dbates]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
You can't post uploads from china defence at other websites. It does not work.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
if someone has the time, can someone explain and maybe post a pic to which one is type 98 and which one is type 99.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
type 99 is basically a type 98 with added composite armour around the flanks and turret and other improvements

Type-98



Type 98-G or Type-99




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Protecting the ammunition form exploding is old tech and its not even that hard to do. In 91 the U.S. had already implemented a heavy armed door that closed after you received the ammunition, so it would not be affected by any round.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The Americans, Russians and Chinese store and load amunition differently

The russian method is faster, but more dangerous thanks to the autoloader... but they don't seem to care much about the crew suvivability in russia... Essentially their attitude is "tank hit... crew toast anyhow"

The chinese use a similar method to the russians but have invested large amounts into crew survivability, though they still lag behind the west



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Protecting the ammunition form exploding is old tech and its not even that hard to do. In 91 the U.S. had already implemented a heavy armed door that closed after you received the ammunition, so it would not be affected by any round.



I was a tanker from 80-84 and your right, also the blow-off panels on top of the M1 turret directs most of the explosive energy upward. I never worried about Russian tanks, most are lighter than American tanks...and the Type 98 looks to be about 45 tons?

It is a nice looking track, but I doubt it can hit a target on the move (auto-stabilization) and I doubt the armor protection will stop a SABOT round.

Maximu§


Maximu§



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The type-98 has full gun stabalisation and can fire on the move yes.

The tank is protected by composite armour and welded steel, though not as heavy as western tanks it still weighs around 52 tons.

Actually the gun is probably the finest part of the tank and can fire Depleted Uranium rounds, Sabot and also russian derived AT missiles.

Penetration levels equal the latest western tanks

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.




[edit on 29-3-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
thanks Lucretius for answering my ?, but we don't know if the gun on the chinese tank can actually do wat its suppose to do, remember people thought the t-72 mbt gun 125 mm was a match against western tanks but it shows that the abrams with the 120 mm german made gun is better and the 125 russian gun didnt do much against abrams even when it fired heat rounds or sabot during 91 gulf war. so we have to see it in real live combat hopefully we dont want to, but we do want to see how it does in combat aniways.

awesome tank though, great leap in tank technology, still aint match for m1a2 sep.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
probably not a match no...

I think the idea behind it is the dazzler will disable any opponent before a full engagement meaning the type-98 can be lighter and thus easier to deploy.

I don't think it's actualy designed to go head to head with western tanks though, but to serve as a deterrent for a invasion. It's not offensive by nature.

I read a report somewhere ranking it in the top 3 tanks in the world

Those would be the Challenger II, M1a2 and Type-98.

They even ranked it higher than the leapord, though i'm not sure why.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join