I'm curious to see pictures of this thing. Sounds like they are crossbreeding tanks with artillery. I don''t see the tactical advantage of that...
Hosted by Darren Baker
China to field world's most powerful tank
GeneralFailure
Joined: February 15, 2002
KitMaker: 2,289 posts
Armorama: 1,231 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:58 AM UTC
Desert-Fox
Joined: October 22, 2002
KitMaker: 652 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 04:41 AM UTC
I think you'll find that the Chinese very rarely come out with new things, (unless they steal it from someone else of course LOL ). Almost all of their equipment from small arms to artillery is copied from Russian or western ordnance.
Wonder who they copied this off? I wonder if this is their rendition of the super pershing or more likely the T-28 super heavy tank?
The British, I believe, use depleted uranium in the Challenger 2?
Wonder who they copied this off? I wonder if this is their rendition of the super pershing or more likely the T-28 super heavy tank?
The British, I believe, use depleted uranium in the Challenger 2?
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 05:34 AM UTC
It sounds like the T-28 to me, dunno why but its got that kind of idiot feel to it. Great model potential but DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jim 
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 05:52 AM UTC
Easy on the China bashing dudes.
ToonArmy
Joined: February 13, 2003
KitMaker: 89 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 08:07 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I think you'll find that the Chinese very rarely come out with new things, (unless they steal it from someone else of course LOL ).
Maybe the Chinese are slowly back to their ancient glory era again....the era when most of Europeans were still illiterate or even lived in caves; but they already knew how to count 1 2 3 & add.
. Surely one of their 1.2 billion ppl can come up with this idea 
GIBeregovoy
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,612 posts
Armorama: 449 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm curious to see pictures of this thing. Sounds like they are crossbreeding tanks with artillery. I don''t see the tactical advantage of that...
Makes sense to me. It'll help reduce overall costs - having roughly the same spare parts for maintenance. It would simplify logistics. On the battlefield, 'hybrid' tanks could act as 'stop-gap' artillery. Say, a tank with a 125mm gun that could be elevated (?) at a high angle. When the enemy is too far away for a direct strike, mass your tanks and you have an artillery battery.
Quoted Text
I think you'll find that the Chinese very rarely come out with new things, (unless they steal it from someone else of course LOL ). Almost all of their equipment from small arms to artillery is copied from Russian or western ordnance.
Wonder who they copied this off? I wonder if this is their rendition of the super pershing or more likely the T-28 super heavy tank?
The British, I believe, use depleted uranium in the Challenger 2?
You could say the same thing for the fUSSR during the Cold War. Remember the Foxbat, Foxhound, and Fencer? The first two can be argued to be rough copies of the F-15, while the last can be argued as a rough copy of the F-111. Same also for the AA-9 which is a rough copy of the AIM-54 Phoenix, and some of their early ATGMs which look like the TOW.
China is a licensed producer of some Russian equipment (Su-30s among one of them), and what they're doing I would term as 'tech transfers.'
China also is getting "help" from the Israelis, like one of their ATGMs which have a striking resemblance to that being developed by the Israelis - they just added more fins.
I wouldn't dismiss China's attempts to copy other countries' equipment. Besides, it makes sense - why start from scratch when you could steal or buy the designs?
Re:DU and Chally 2, what do you mean? The armor or the ammo? IIRC there was a flap on DU ammo use in the British Army because of its negative effects and were considering phasing it out and replacing it with tungsten ammo.
penpen
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,757 posts
Armorama: 929 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 11:20 PM UTC
about the copying thing : that's how a new industry always start, in every country.
When you're late, that's the best way to get in line with everyone. But then you start developing your own stuff. And China certainly has all the brains and the manpower to do this.
Looking at model companys for an exemple : see how academy started by copying tamiya. Now they produce their own great stuff.
Who said the USSR copied the F15 to produce the Mig25 ?
The Mig25 was developped in the USSR before the F15 ever appeared ! It was a local development to stop fast bombers like the B70. it was not a copy. The USSR did plenty of copys, learning a lot that way. This allowed it to develop it's own technologies. Now, they are still behind western countrys in some areas but they are very good if not the best in others !
It is dangerous to dismiss someone because he's late ! If he works harder than you, he might end up in front of you ! So guys, let's keep our eyes open !
When you're late, that's the best way to get in line with everyone. But then you start developing your own stuff. And China certainly has all the brains and the manpower to do this.
Looking at model companys for an exemple : see how academy started by copying tamiya. Now they produce their own great stuff.
Who said the USSR copied the F15 to produce the Mig25 ?
The Mig25 was developped in the USSR before the F15 ever appeared ! It was a local development to stop fast bombers like the B70. it was not a copy. The USSR did plenty of copys, learning a lot that way. This allowed it to develop it's own technologies. Now, they are still behind western countrys in some areas but they are very good if not the best in others !
It is dangerous to dismiss someone because he's late ! If he works harder than you, he might end up in front of you ! So guys, let's keep our eyes open !
GIBeregovoy
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,612 posts
Armorama: 449 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:24 PM UTC
Quoted Text
about the copying thing : that's how a new industry always start, in every country.
When you're late, that's the best way to get in line with everyone. But then you start developing your own stuff. And China certainly has all the brains and the manpower to do this.
Looking at model companys for an exemple : see how academy started by copying tamiya. Now they produce their own great stuff.
Who said the USSR copied the F15 to produce the Mig25 ?
The Mig25 was developped in the USSR before the F15 ever appeared ! It was a local development to stop fast bombers like the B70. it was not a copy. The USSR did plenty of copys, learning a lot that way. This allowed it to develop it's own technologies. Now, they are still behind western countrys in some areas but they are very good if not the best in others !
It is dangerous to dismiss someone because he's late ! If he works harder than you, he might end up in front of you ! So guys, let's keep our eyes open !
Ah yes, my bad. IIRC now the F-15 was developed to replace the F-4 and to match the MiG-25. My bad my bad. But the Su-27's design is 'said' to be 'influenced' by the F-15.
Correct about dismissing anyone who is late. Never underestimate anyone. Especially the Chinese. They work hard, they produce good stuff. Who knows, that uberPanzer, coupled with really intensive training, and a volunteer army patterned after the US would give US Army tankers a run for their money. Or perhaps frighten the bejeezus out of the Russians in Sibirskaja.
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Friday, May 23, 2003 - 06:05 AM UTC
Mig-25 was made to counter the XB-70, which never saw the light of production. F-15 was designed to counter the Mig-25. THen the russians made the SU-27 to "one-up" the F-15. and on and on...
There is no direct equivelant to the Mig-31's phased array and tracking radar..for size/function anyhow.
The radar unit in the Mig-25 was "barrowed" from the russians and is now in the nose of the B-1's.
Rmember how freaked out people got when those Mig-29's showed us a nice WORKING IRST (infra-red Search and Track) ball? Passive detection stuff.
Anyhow, the Chinese have their own game to play and they generally play by their own rules. They may not have a force to attack with well (notice how we all fixate on the offensive side of vehicles?) but I would not want to face this proposed tank, well, if it works as it is supposed to, in-country were it is a defender.
Ah, nothing like a flush head, full of victory, to give one dreams of granduer beyond reason...I believe it was not long after the fall of France that Germany cast a longing glance off eastward...and lost.
There is no direct equivelant to the Mig-31's phased array and tracking radar..for size/function anyhow.
The radar unit in the Mig-25 was "barrowed" from the russians and is now in the nose of the B-1's.
Rmember how freaked out people got when those Mig-29's showed us a nice WORKING IRST (infra-red Search and Track) ball? Passive detection stuff.
Anyhow, the Chinese have their own game to play and they generally play by their own rules. They may not have a force to attack with well (notice how we all fixate on the offensive side of vehicles?) but I would not want to face this proposed tank, well, if it works as it is supposed to, in-country were it is a defender.
Ah, nothing like a flush head, full of victory, to give one dreams of granduer beyond reason...I believe it was not long after the fall of France that Germany cast a longing glance off eastward...and lost.
GIBeregovoy
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,612 posts
Armorama: 449 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:32 PM UTC
Ok, it's NOT the super tank, but here's some pix (from TankNet) of the Type 98:
Below is a post from this thread by Paul Lakowski:
Scary...
Below is a post from this thread by Paul Lakowski:
Quoted Text
You should know that this Type 98 is rated at 830mm KE resistance and is claimed to have a > 30:1 L/d DU APFSDS that penetrates 950mm KE armor @ 2km range.
If this is true it can fight with LEO-2A4/5 and M-1A2 class of tanks.Post penetration survival probably sucks and while ROF is almost as fast as a 120mm smooth bore gun, the FCS probably isn't as good quality....but if this becomes a numbers race that all could be balanced off?
Scary...
keenan
Joined: October 16, 2002
KitMaker: 5,272 posts
Armorama: 2,844 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 12:34 AM UTC
Man, this thread is a blast from the past. I have a couple of comments:
First, I would almost guarantee that the fire control system on an Abrams is better than Ubertank's. The first shot is critical and I think the Abrams, and their crews, would score more of them.
Secondly, these things, in a modern combat environment would probably end up as Maverick bait. Unless you assume that the Leopards, Abrams and Ubertanks are going to just sit and duke it out...
Shaun
First, I would almost guarantee that the fire control system on an Abrams is better than Ubertank's. The first shot is critical and I think the Abrams, and their crews, would score more of them.
Secondly, these things, in a modern combat environment would probably end up as Maverick bait. Unless you assume that the Leopards, Abrams and Ubertanks are going to just sit and duke it out...
Shaun
mikeli125
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,595 posts
Armorama: 1,209 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 01:27 AM UTC
if this is for real china will have to change its full doctrine to fit it in maybe it will be used in limted nombers like the tiger was developed for "heavy break through tank" and also may not these days but who says it will have a turret, hertzers,jadgpanthers ect all were deadly pieces of kit and not forgetting the103c by the sweden.
But one thing is that they just simpaly dont have combat training like the UK/US tank crews have and no amount of training can prepare you for that. funny though that russia/china are sharing hardware
sounds like the old soviet/nazi pact from the 30's russia would be pissed off if its own tech
stuff was used against them by their so called "freinds"
But one thing is that they just simpaly dont have combat training like the UK/US tank crews have and no amount of training can prepare you for that. funny though that russia/china are sharing hardware
sounds like the old soviet/nazi pact from the 30's russia would be pissed off if its own tech
stuff was used against them by their so called "freinds"
penpen
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,757 posts
Armorama: 929 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 02:19 AM UTC
mikeli... China and Russia are not exactly friends... and this since the 60s !
They even faught a few border limited combats here and there (in the 70s I think).
The border with ex-USSR countries is probably where most chinese armament was deployed.
Now, about fire-control. It depends mainly on electronics and software. This means that it depends on the technology available to your country. Well, it certainly looks like China has invested a lot in such fields ! Let's also remember that the chinese often work with israely companies... who have developped advanced systems.
I heard that China had begun the "numerizing" of some of it's army. This is just what all western armies are beginning, or trying to begin to do... This is just to say that they may not be as late as we tend to believe.
Now... communist countries are also known for very inefficient organisation... immense but badly trained and qualified armies... How true is it today ? How much have things changed on that matter ? i have no idea...
They even faught a few border limited combats here and there (in the 70s I think).
The border with ex-USSR countries is probably where most chinese armament was deployed.
Now, about fire-control. It depends mainly on electronics and software. This means that it depends on the technology available to your country. Well, it certainly looks like China has invested a lot in such fields ! Let's also remember that the chinese often work with israely companies... who have developped advanced systems.
I heard that China had begun the "numerizing" of some of it's army. This is just what all western armies are beginning, or trying to begin to do... This is just to say that they may not be as late as we tend to believe.
Now... communist countries are also known for very inefficient organisation... immense but badly trained and qualified armies... How true is it today ? How much have things changed on that matter ? i have no idea...
mikeli125
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,595 posts
Armorama: 1,209 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 03:56 AM UTC
.
I heard that China had begun the "numerizing" of some of it's army. This is just what all western armies are beginning, or trying to begin to do... [/quote]
WHats this mean never heard of it before i'd heard of the border clashes but why share the hardware with someone over the border who might just use it against you!
I heard that China had begun the "numerizing" of some of it's army. This is just what all western armies are beginning, or trying to begin to do... [/quote]
WHats this mean never heard of it before i'd heard of the border clashes but why share the hardware with someone over the border who might just use it against you!
penpen
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,757 posts
Armorama: 929 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 04:31 AM UTC
"numerizing" an army : using "numerical" technology for communication, command and control... and many other aspects...
That's the big step forward that many armies are trying to take. Many companies are working on such devices, for different levels (army, battalion...). For this, you need new command platforms, to send and receive orders, radios, roughened computers, software... it is very complicated !
Why sell hardware to someone who might use it against you ? Well, the USSR stopped selling and providing aid to China in the 60's... and it didn't start doing so again for quite a long time ! Then it started again. The political situation must have calmed down... and the need for cash must have increased !
That's the big step forward that many armies are trying to take. Many companies are working on such devices, for different levels (army, battalion...). For this, you need new command platforms, to send and receive orders, radios, roughened computers, software... it is very complicated !
Why sell hardware to someone who might use it against you ? Well, the USSR stopped selling and providing aid to China in the 60's... and it didn't start doing so again for quite a long time ! Then it started again. The political situation must have calmed down... and the need for cash must have increased !
Savage
Joined: June 04, 2003
KitMaker: 1,405 posts
Armorama: 656 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 04:37 AM UTC
It is true that China has copied its fair share of weaponry, but letting someone else do all the expensive development and then copy the end product adding a few modifications for item to better suit your needs is not a stupid idea, but a very shrewd one.
China already has most of what it needs to build a 152mm tank destroyer, take the Type 89 (also known as PTZ-89) tank destroyer. The Type 89 tank destroyer is based on the Type 321 utility self-propelled artillery chassis (Type 83 152 mm SP howitzer). Developing a low recoil 152mm gun should not be too difficult for them. They have developed a 125mm smoothbore gun (as used on the Type 98) that has quite some amazing abilities. The dazzler system already exists and is fitted on the Type 98.
Sounds far fetched? Low recoil = low velocity? Not true take LIW’s GT7 105mm low recoil gun, now vehicles such as the Bradley, Scorpion and Warrior can be configured as tank destroyers.
http://www.denel.co.za/liw/gt7/system.htm
From what I have seen of the Type 98, there is a lot of room to install a larger turret etc.
Bigger tanks do not frighten me, but the thought of a Scorpion tank destroyer should terrify tankers. Just remember that the British Scorpion is only slightly bigger than the average family car.
At last an idea for my T2000 project, something like this:
China already has most of what it needs to build a 152mm tank destroyer, take the Type 89 (also known as PTZ-89) tank destroyer. The Type 89 tank destroyer is based on the Type 321 utility self-propelled artillery chassis (Type 83 152 mm SP howitzer). Developing a low recoil 152mm gun should not be too difficult for them. They have developed a 125mm smoothbore gun (as used on the Type 98) that has quite some amazing abilities. The dazzler system already exists and is fitted on the Type 98.
Sounds far fetched? Low recoil = low velocity? Not true take LIW’s GT7 105mm low recoil gun, now vehicles such as the Bradley, Scorpion and Warrior can be configured as tank destroyers.
http://www.denel.co.za/liw/gt7/system.htm
From what I have seen of the Type 98, there is a lot of room to install a larger turret etc.
Bigger tanks do not frighten me, but the thought of a Scorpion tank destroyer should terrify tankers. Just remember that the British Scorpion is only slightly bigger than the average family car.
At last an idea for my T2000 project, something like this:
keenan
Joined: October 16, 2002
KitMaker: 5,272 posts
Armorama: 2,844 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 04:42 AM UTC
Reference weapons sales:
The only way most if not all countries can afford to support their own domestic weapons production programs is to sell some of those weapons to other countries, or sell the licenses to those other countries so they can build there own. Then there are the decade long maintenance contracts, spare parts contracts, training contracts, etc. It is a lot easier to spread a billion dollars worth of research and development money out over 5,000 units than it is over 500.
I am not an economics professor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Shaun
The only way most if not all countries can afford to support their own domestic weapons production programs is to sell some of those weapons to other countries, or sell the licenses to those other countries so they can build there own. Then there are the decade long maintenance contracts, spare parts contracts, training contracts, etc. It is a lot easier to spread a billion dollars worth of research and development money out over 5,000 units than it is over 500.
I am not an economics professor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Shaun
Savage
Joined: June 04, 2003
KitMaker: 1,405 posts
Armorama: 656 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 06:20 AM UTC
Oops, my mistake the LMT-105 turret can only be fitted to vehicles with a combat weight of 12tons and up.
Still, the Warrior and Bradley are not much bigger than the Scorpions and the ASV 150, or ASV XM1117 as designated by the US Army is the correct weight, just slightly bigger than the Scorpions.
Still, the Warrior and Bradley are not much bigger than the Scorpions and the ASV 150, or ASV XM1117 as designated by the US Army is the correct weight, just slightly bigger than the Scorpions.
Bodeen
#026
Joined: June 08, 2002
KitMaker: 1,744 posts
Armorama: 1,359 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:34 AM UTC
everytime something like this gets posted it turns into a US vs. World thing! Maybe this topic would be better posted in current events. I am a very proud Conservative Republican American and i'm sure there are very proud Chinese who read this stuff. We are, however, all modellers. This is a modelling forum...not a political forum. I think we should keep the Anti-American and Anti-Chinese, Anti-Pig,Wolf,Fluvian, etc. sentiment out of this forum. I don't want to be a stick in the mud..but i learned early on here that Politics and Modelling don't mix well here. Let's stick to what we have in common here and not try to create disharmony. I know the post started out harmless enough. I only had to read one page to see how it deteriorated and that was enough for me. Let's stick to what all drew us here in the first place. The LOVE of MODELLING!!!!!! Jeff
airwarrior
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 2,085 posts
Armorama: 1,227 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
NNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!! NOT MY JOISEY!!!! YOU SICK SICK MAN!!Quoted Text
Re. a possible Red Chinese invasion of NJ, one of China's problems is the lack of amphibious warfare capablity. It would also have to construct a new generation of tank-landing craft to move the new "Super-Tank"........jim
hmmmmmm, they can have New Jersey,
:-)
sourkraut
Joined: May 11, 2002
KitMaker: 602 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 12:42 PM UTC
building guns has never been chinas strong point
yagdpanzer
Joined: August 21, 2002
KitMaker: 415 posts
Armorama: 231 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 01:25 PM UTC
I don't think we have to worry about China's "uber" tank. Like the Maus, it would be a tactical liability. Nor do I think the tank is going to be phased out. After all, the tank was declared dead by some experts when the wire guided Sagger was used in numbers against the Israeli's in the Sinai.
New armor, new engines, guns, ammo and electronics brought new life to the tank and I have no doubt that similar advances in technology will keep the MBT alive for many decades in the future.
If not, we can always hire Hammer's Slammers to take care of any problems that pop up.
New armor, new engines, guns, ammo and electronics brought new life to the tank and I have no doubt that similar advances in technology will keep the MBT alive for many decades in the future.
If not, we can always hire Hammer's Slammers to take care of any problems that pop up.
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 01:36 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I've been reading all of these posts, and all I can say is... What's the fuel consumption on this thing? It'll probably cost $6000 just to fill it up! Hey, they could be on to something...just think, with all the gas boys needed, they could jumpstart their economy...maybe we need a 2000 ton useless tank... #:-)
If you haven't noticed, there is already a jump start in China's economy. per capita, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei owns most of the Mercedes, Rolls Royce, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Rolex, Vacheron Constantin, Ferragamo in the world.
keenan
Joined: October 16, 2002
KitMaker: 5,272 posts
Armorama: 2,844 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 02:19 PM UTC
Okay, this thread is going downhill, rapidly. Bodeen, disregard my PM. When this thread was resurrected most of us were talking about the viability of the the Chinese supertank and the arms trade. However, from where I am sitting this thread is getting a little ugly. Bodeen saw it coming. How about we all call it a thread and just quit posting before someone posts something they regret or someone gets their feelings hurt.
Shaun
Shaun
MajorNumpty
Joined: April 14, 2003
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 03:14 PM UTC
Forget you zipperheads and all your recoil and exhaust and "can't fit through tunnels when loaded on a train." What about the infantryman with a M-16 and a M72 faced with a 152mm Chinese armoured dragon?
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.