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.

 

China & Russia, who has more advanced tanks?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I have been woundering this for a long time now. especially after I look those pictures of the chinese and russian tanks.

RUSSIAN TANKS




CHINESE TANKS





Russia/USSR seemed to pocess very high military technology, they have very good fighter planes and battle ships. But in terms of tanks, the russian made tanks did not do very well against the western tanks in wars took place like Iraq

so I was thinking that why don't Russia produce more advance version of tanks, instead of merely upgrading the old T72s with newer electronics.

PLA, on the other hand, had developed and euquipped (not all force, but more tanks are being add) with newer tanks.

so in the comming years, who will the possess the better tanks?

or in another word, will the comming T72 and its upgrade versions get really good performences compared to the comming ZTZ96 upgrades and ZTZ99?

who will have the upper hand?

PS. I personally like the chinese tanks better, they look more modern

[edit on 14-9-2006 by warset]




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I personally believe russian tanks are more advanced or they are at least capable of producing more modern tanks.

I am also more fond of the russian hardware because it is designed to be durable. besides I think the differences between chinese and russian equipment is negligable because of their long standing military alliance.




[edit on 14-9-2006 by XphilesPhan]


bih

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I think russia has better tanks,they have T90's you know



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bih
I think russia has better tanks,they have T90's you know


T90s are pretty much upgrades from T72

the black eagles are actually a different tank from T72, but it will probably never be used in russian army since the company that developed black eagle had bankrupt, and the russian government is not planning on using the black eagles in the future. so far, all they did is to upgrade the T72s.... they give it other names, similar to the Su27 fighter series. Su27/30/34/35/37....but still Su27 class

compare the composite armor used on the two tanks, the russian ones look out dated.


russian military seems almost stoped advancing in terms of equipment nowadays, the news i found about russian equipments are often very old, where as PLA military equipment has significantly upgraded in recent years. If you compare PLA wargame in the 90's with recent PLA wargames, youll see the big difference.

USSR had pretty the same level of military power (if not more) compare the US in the 70s-80s. but now, its equipments are apparently out dated compared to the modern US equipments.

anyways, i just kind of feel sorry for the ppl of USSR, and those who fought bravely (and many even died) for the glorious cause of communism, and only ended up like this.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by warset]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by warset
USSR had pretty the same level of military power (if not more) compare the US in the 70s-80s. but now, its equipments are apparently out dated compared to the modern US equipments.


You are very wrong about that, Russian military has started to gain its power agian and you cant just say that Russian company which is desining Black eagles has gone bankrupt!!! show me some proof of that !

mod edit: Edited down quote, please only quote what you need to quote

[edit on 15-9-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Exactly, Russian boy! Datz right. And even if da company is bankrupt for now, we never know. Russians know that the Black Eagle is the greatest thing. Sooner or later they'll probably eventually build it, unless they come up with an even better tank. Russia has never dissappointed me with its arsenal of great weapons, and I am happy and proud that I will serve in the great military of such a great country.


Chinese tanks can't be compared to Russian tanks. Russian tanks are more comparable to US, Brittish, and Israeli tanks.

And also, I heard that one of the Russian tanks, I think it was the T-80U and I read it was the best tank in the world. Don't shoot me, it was just something I read on some website.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
In terms of techical superiority, the Russians have far more experience in terms of building tanks, pioneering designs, and are the only country besides the USA, UK, and a handful of minor nations who have "combat experience" to evaluate their armor. Chinese technology, as stereotyped, but might not be far from the truth, is "stolen" or bought/given by other powers, including the influences of their "western" style turret.

Russia has not developed or seriously upgraded their armor in ages. It is odd, but then again consider their position:
No need for a fleet of armor to sweep into Europe, they do not have the ability or need to project armored forces around the world, why pay for them?

China having an armor force is even weirder, considering their lack of potential targets that would be attackable over said terrain.

In terms of crew performance, Russian tank crews have real experience. THey have a long tradition of excellent tank performance and tactics, along with good training. However, the overall morale of their troops were questioned during the fighting in Chechnya and although they were fighting in rough terrain against guerilla forces, their tanks suffered seriously enough to force all major powers to draw lessons from it.

China no doubt tries their best to have superb training for their armor forces, and their men are well motivated, but in terms of raw tactical knowledge, it must be constructed entirely from wargames or imported.

Personally, I would place overall crew effectiveness over technical superiority with such close standards in armor, both of which are quite high and fully able to kill each other. Superior crew training translates into superior units, as shown by M-60's in the Gulf War killing so called superior T-72s, mostly due to Iraqi inability to operate their vehicles.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raider
Chinese technology, as stereotyped, but might not be far from the truth, is "stolen" or bought/given by other powers, including the influences of their "western" style turret.


another "they copied from us" attitude....

there is a very restrict weapon ban between china and EU, also the US wouldn't give china their tech....

german/france/britan/us/japan...etc can all have their advance tank build in a similar way because they are "western" countries, and since china is not a "western country", any thing they make that looks similar to those of the advanced "western" weapons must be a stolenly technology...

typical & stereotype north amerian ppl logical thinking
some one was actually trying to argue with me about that....what did I say?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

but what's a "eastern" styled tank supposed to be look like? can you tell me? other than the crapy russian tanks that proved to be almost no match against the US m1s?

[edit on 15-9-2006 by warset]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
warset while trynig to prove your armor point you're comparing pics of Russian T-72s and chinese Type95s!!
One would presume that the Type 95 would have numerous advantages over the T-72 considering that both are different gens!!

And NO the T-90 is not 'just another T-72' upgrade.

It has armor that is much superior to the T-72(actually making it one of the most well-protected tanks in the world. )
Turret,Gun,missile and command Control systems are totally revamped.
Please reaup more on the T-90S before discarding it as another T-72 upgrade.
One could apply the same logic to the F-15 or the F-16!



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

And NO the T-90 is not 'just another T-72' upgrade.


Its actual name was the T-72BU. I think thats why warset is calling it another upgraded T-72 since it is actually a upgraded T-72



Here are recent photos of the T-99 tank in a wargame. They were the blue forces



Larger Image



Larger Image

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

[edit on 15-9-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
warset while trynig to prove your armor point you're comparing pics of Russian T-72s and chinese Type95s!!
One would presume that the Type 95 would have numerous advantages over the T-72 considering that both are different gens!!

And NO the T-90 is not 'just another T-72' upgrade.

It has armor that is much superior to the T-72(actually making it one of the most well-protected tanks in the world. )
Turret,Gun,missile and command Control systems are totally revamped.
Please reaup more on the T-90S before discarding it as another T-72 upgrade.
One could apply the same logic to the F-15 or the F-16!



If im correct, the second picture in this thread is a russian T90, but even that looks kinda out dated.

PS. T90 is an upgrade of T80, which is pretty much of an upgrade redesigned version of T72/T64

T90


F15&F16 are different, Su27&Su35 would be more like the relationship

[edit on 16-9-2006 by warset]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by warset
Russia/USSR seemed to pocess very high military technology, they have very good fighter planes and battle ships. But in terms of tanks, the russian made tanks did not do very well against the western tanks in wars took place like Iraq


Thats mainly due to the fact the Iraqis models weren't as technologically sophisticated. No thermal night vision and unfortunately still equiped with a automatic loader for the main gun that was faulty under the best circumstances. Not to mention the tactics that the Iraqi Army employed were just horrible.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Neither country is open about its tanks real capability, like every other nation. We can only guess exactly what ERA and electronics either tank has...

Nor can we seriously determine the strategy for each nation that will be employed in the field, unless we have any actual tankers from the respective countries who are willing to shell out sensitive info.

Guesswork at best.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by warset


F15&F16 are different, Su27&Su35 would be more like the relationship

[edit on 16-9-2006 by warset]


I meant that the F-15 AND the F-16 are airframes developed in the late 60s? and they are still extremely capable a/c as of today, due to ..yes upgrades.
The Su-27-35 story is not as good an analogous example as the crhonology has only been say 10-15 years(1985 onwards).
The 'upgrade' connotation should not be used in a derrogatory fashion w/o examining what exactly the upgrade brings forth.
Again as I said, the chassis is the same but everything from the engine - up has been replaced.
How a tank looks isn't obv. a good gauge of whether it is outdated or not.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Lets not let the discussion get off track into aircrafts shall we. (Cause the russian clearly have the advantage in that field.)

Heres a comparison of each others tank developments by date. For the sake of time, I'm just going to do the 1950s+:


Russian:

1943 --- developments start on the T-44 tanks, supposively to be a replacement for the T-34 series. Later developments of the T-44 would eventually lead to the T-54 tank.

1947 --- First T-54 tank rolls off production line. At that time, it instantly became one of the most powerful tanks in the world with its 100mm rifled anti-tank gun, sloped egg shaped turret, and powerful engine. (for its time)

1951 --- First T-54A rolls off production line. Esstentially a T-54 with stableized gun and more reliable engine.

1957 --- First T-55 rolls of prodcution line. T-54 with 2d stablized gun, night fighting equipment, and basic fire control. Night fighting equipement mainly being IR searchlights for both commander and driver.

1961 --- First T-62 rolls of production line. IR search lights for both commander and gunner, semi-automatic loader (probramatic), 115mm smoothbore, increased weight and engine power. Gave the western bloc quite a scare.

1967 --- T-64 rolls of prodcution line. Composite armor, first generation 125mm smoothbore, full auto-loader, same equipment as T-62, except with better fire control.

1973 --- T-72 rolls out, basically a T-64 with an inferior auto-loader and cast steel turret. Lighter by 4 tonnes, but 1/3 the price.

1975 --- T-64B modification. Replace IR searchlight with actual night vision. Added At-8 capabilities. Also replace 14.5mm AAG with 14.5mm AAG with turret control.

1978 --- T-80 rolls off production line. 1100hp gas turbine, Night vision for both commander and gunner, computerized fire control, ceremic armor. Numerious other modifications.

1985 --- T-80U Kontakt 5 ERA added. Along with 1250hp turbine. Upgraded 2A46 gun. (Not exactly sure in what way.)

1993 --- T-90 enters low rate production. First Russian BMS, thermal sights, 730hp engine. Essentially an upgraded T-80u turret on a T-72 chassies.

Future --- Black eagle and the T-95. (They're different projects)




Chinese:

1956 --- Russia agrees to help China with tank production. No prior experience.

1958 --- First T-54 rolls off production line. Basic soviet version without stablization or night vision.

1959 --- China achieves first self-suffienct tank prodcution line in the forst of the T-59. (Essentially a T-54A)

1969 --- Soviet-Chinese boarder clash. Capture T-62 used as inspiration. Project using 122mm rifled on T-62 hull failed. T-69 enters production. No apparent relations. T-69, 100mm smoothbore, laser range finder, basic firecontrol, IR searchlight based on soviet first generation LUNA.

1976 --- First T-79 goes into production. 105mm L7 gun, british firecontrol, basic image enhancer. Replaced IR imager with night vision. Added basic ceremic armor to front glacies. First chinese tank with western characteristics.

1985 --- T-85 enters prototype stage, later envolves into T-90 tanks. 105mm standard NATO gun, improved british fire control/imager. British 730hp engine. Square turret having western influence.

1988 --- Revert back to soviet doctrines. Esstentaully a lighter and cheaper
T-85 using indigenous technologys. First chinese tank to receive ERA, although not commonly used.

1997 --- Type 96 is put into service. 125mm gun of unknown origin, GPS, indigenous ceremic armor and fire control. 1000hp engine probrably of foreign origin. ERA capable. At-11 capable. Soviet-Chinese co-operation.

1998/99 --- Type 98/99 put into service. 1200/1500hp gas turbine of German origion. Unknown gun/fire control. Heavier than contemporary soviet armor by ~5 tonnes. Active defence. At-11 capable, as well as Two-contact sabot rounds. (I got a photo to prove it)




Dam word limit.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by xihaoli321456
as well as Two-contact sabot rounds. (I got a photo to prove it)


You mean the charge and sabot round?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Actually, I was referring to the two point contact sabot rounds now being deployed with both Russian and Nato forces. The advantages of such rounds are numerous, long round length, great mass, increased L/W ratio.

armor.kiev.ua...

Refer to the 3VBM-19





posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
What exactly is the difference?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by warset
T90s are pretty much upgrades from T72


Which was probably not a good idea considering where they were designed to figth. At less than 500 meter range averages pretty much anything (in terms of tank main guns ) penetrates anything else and the Russians have long used dual missile/gun turrets for the longer range shots.



the black eagles are actually a different tank from T72, but it will probably never be used in russian army since the company that developed black eagle had bankrupt, and the russian government is not planning on using the black eagles in the future.


They do not need anything more modern that the T-80's and even those are probably a mistake in terms of relative complexity and armor levels.


so far, all they did is to upgrade the T72s.... they give it other names, similar to the Su27 fighter series. Su27/30/34/35/37....but still Su27 class


They frequently indulge in this type of arms control fooling games where a whole new plane ( bar the wheels ) gets the same name. As far as i know your claim here is not inaccurate on the whole but naming can be very deceptive if one uses it as general guide.


compare the composite armor used on the two tanks, the russian ones look out dated.


Since when does looks count? Adding composites are to ward off AT missiles and you do not need the most high tech stuff in the world that pretends you can survive main gun exchanges at half kilo ranges... You only need that much complexity when you intend to smash enemy tank concentrations and defenses with massed artillery fire anyways. People need to get out of tank dual mindset as that is NOT what the Russian doctrine tells us they will do.


russian military seems almost stoped advancing in terms of equipment nowadays, the news i found about russian equipments are often very old, where as PLA military equipment has significantly upgraded in recent years. If you compare PLA wargame in the 90's with recent PLA wargames, youll see the big difference.


They had to upgrade from a far lower level and they just skipped a generation as there was no reason not to. There comes a point where maintaining what you have ( look at the US defense budget) eats up your funds to such a extent that you are hard pressed to add large numbers of new weapons to your inventory.


USSR had pretty the same level of military power (if not more) compare the US in the 70s-80s. but now, its equipments are apparently out dated compared to the modern US equipments.


The USSR was superior ( if you take their chosen nuclear war doctrine into account) in all the fields i have looked at so far and as far as i am concerned that has not changed significantly or at all with the deployment of interferometer weapons and the like.


anyways, i just kind of feel sorry for the ppl of USSR, and those who fought bravely (and many even died) for the glorious cause of communism, and only ended up like this.


Glorious cause of communism? Communism very nearly destroyed Russia completely and if it was not for the first world war and the resulting communism ( it would not have happened otherwise IMO ) they might very well not only have been a strategic superpower but also a economic and industrial powerhouse to rival most others. If one looks at German/European literature pre first world war Russia was going places in many more ways than one and it's part of the reason they got smashed the way they did by Wall street and their British backers.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Dont forget the only tanks the NATO and its allies faced were old monkey versions of russian tanks and with most of the time poor training.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join