New Chinese tank, 152mm gun!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I just herd that China is going to develop a new tank with a 152mm gun. Does anyone have any info on this new tank? A 152mm gun seems like a step backward though. Bigger gun=more weight.




posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Yep...this particular tank, which has yet to have been deployed, in any numbers, is also being labeled the "World's Most Powerful Tank"...........

Here's an article:
"China set to field the world's most powerful tank"
www.worldnetdaily.com...


Personally, I'm not buying into the "world's most powerful tank" theory. Its an unproven platform with no military experience to back it up. I have yet to see stats on this particular tank other than a referral to it being and having the same characteristics and equipment as the Type-98.
www.sinodefence.com...

IMHO, its not the size of the cannon/gun that matters; its the quality and performance of the shell/round that does.

I think this is a direct response to multiple facts and reasons:

1) China is in need of replacing its aging and existing MBT's.
2) China is looking at its neighbors, not just the US, and seeing that India, Russia, Japan, are all introducing or have been bringing on-line newer and better MBT's.
3) In the Asia region alone, they have a sort of "mini-arms race" going on.

I think many will find that the kill power of the 125mm smoothbore, which is currently the mainstay of all major MBTs, is quite effecient and lethal. A 152mm is, to me anyhow, bringing nothing new to modern battlefield and will likely cause very little ruckus among the major players of MBT's.

regards
seekerof



[Edited on 23-8-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 05:57 PM
link   
It seems that the US army tried this approach (bigger gun=more power) back during VietNam, and as many such projects did during that era, it fell apart.

The M551A1 Sheridan was a lightweight, airtransportable, amphibious, do everything armored vehical, that was to be the last word in high tech excellence... except that it didnt work.

It was armed with a 152mm smoothbore cannon that used caseless rounds (the idea that caseless=lighter, could carry more ammo), and did double duty as a wire guided missle launcher. Problems came up when it was found that the missle didnt work very well, and was scrapped in favor of the TOW missle. Also, it was learned that the caseless ammo was very hazardous to the crew, as it was very easy to ignite inside the hull: any armor penetrations would usually set the ammo off, killing the entire crew, even if it would have been 100% survivable in an older tank.

In addition, they found out the entire tank was way too light to withstand the recoil of the gun, and when fired extensively, it basically shook itself to pieces.






www.fas.org...



posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 10:16 AM
link   
They are actually still using that tank at the combat simulation range as enemy tanks.



posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The M551A1 Sheridan or its gun had major weakness.. it was a low-pressure gun/missile launcher..
It did make a GOOD bunker buster..
But against tanks.. USELESS.. as the missile had some major faults i belive..
and today Sheridans are used by US ARMY "OPFOR" modified to resemble BMP-1..


This Chinese TYPE 98 looks like a T-72 with bad copy of Leopards turret on it..
Doesnt sound/look promising.. but then again Chinese seldom design anything totally by themselfs..


But i do belive that unlike Sheridan, the Chinese "SUPER-TANK" is going to have 152mm High-velocity gun.. Just like the Russian "T-95" project.. witch has 152mm High-velocity gun.



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I think they make a difference between a main battle tank, like the T-72 and a moving cannon, as back-up heavy artillary.

The M109 155mm SP Howitzer (I think it is German built) has a firing range of 30+Km





posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Zion Mainframe? There is MBT:s and SPA.. so? Russians are really testing this "T-95" MBT with 152mm Main Gun.. I but i dont have anything on this "Chinise Super-Tank.."



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Yes, but my point is, will they use it as a main battle tank, or is it just an upgrade project for their older heavy artillary?
I'm not familar with the T-95, will that replace the T-72's?



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I would imagine that the Chinese project is a MBT, not SPA.. MBT = Main Battle Tank.. so it will be used as a Tank.


Here about T-95:

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.janes.com...

www.ciar.org...

Sadly i cant really find any good pics about it, but again it is in test phase still..



[Edited on 25-8-2003 by FULCRUM]



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM
.. so it will be used as a Tank.



Yes but there is a difference between a (main battle) tank and SPA, that's what my point was...

It's kind of dumd to use such heavy, slow machines as MBT's, but they probably know more about battle tnaks than I do


Also the range of a normal tank is much greater than tha of a SPA machine.



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Friend, i have no clue anymore what are you talking about.. or then, were are talking about the same thing..


Challenger, Abrams and Leopard are heavy.. more than 65000kg each..

Soviet/Russian tanks:
T-54/55 about 36000kg,
T-72 about 42000kg
and even projected "heavy" T-95 about 50000kg?


MBT:s -> "Tanks" Do i have to say more?


SPA -> Artillery, indirect fire, does not have enough protection/agility/speed to engage in direct fire missions againt enemy armed with AT-Rockets/Guns/Missiles..


[Edited on 25-8-2003 by FULCRUM]



posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 08:38 PM
link   
China has not exactly been known for their innovative tank designs.



posted on Aug, 27 2003 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilverDeath
China has not exactly been known for their innovative tank designs.


O Really?


All are T-54/55 or variants.. and they also use huge numbers of PT-76 look alikes / copies.. as their MBT:s.. and they really arent up to that job..
more suited for armored reconnaisance units, etc.. type 59 series best serves as a infantry tank.. (fire support..)


And Chinese BMP copies.. well..
Surely they look like BMP-1/2 but the functionality is lacking..



posted on Aug, 28 2003 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Friend, i have no clue anymore what are you talking about.. or then, were are talking about the same thing..


Challenger, Abrams and Leopard are heavy.. more than 65000kg each..

Soviet/Russian tanks:
T-54/55 about 36000kg,
T-72 about 42000kg
and even projected "heavy" T-95 about 50000kg?

[Edited on 25-8-2003 by FULCRUM]

Oh well never mind.

The problem with those huge tanks is it's combat range.
The T-72 has a range of 500 miles (900 with external tanks).
While the M109 155mm howitzer has a range of only 349km

I couldn't find anything about the range of the T-95 though.



posted on Aug, 28 2003 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Yeah.. max ROAD RANGE OF TANKS (MBT, IFV, SPA, SPAAA.. etc..) is 500km, (M1 Abrams 498km..) but they burn MUCH MORE FUEL OFF ROAD.. so infact it is even less.. about 200-300km..



posted on Aug, 30 2003 @ 10:56 AM
link   
M1A3 will have the ability to carry a modified 140mm gun. Again.....its not the size of the cannon, its the quality of the shell coming out.

The Black Eagle is on the "hold".......LACKING funds...again.
Type 95....on a very limited manufacture basis....numbers make it almost non-countable....LACKING further funds.

regards
seekerof



posted on Aug, 30 2003 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Quality and velocity,
And best AP (sabot) rounds are made of tungsten, not from Du as many think..

Seekerof, some info on this new 140mm cannon?
Would be nice..



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
152MM主炮,这消息白痴才信



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join