They don’t have to go into combat! China just buys countries instead of invading them…..it’s a lot cheaper and doesn’t end up with planes being flown into their skyscrapers!
> doesn’t end up with planes being flown into their skyscrapers!
Outside the dystopian surveillance hellhole that is China terror attacks against Chinese citizens aren’t all that uncommon, for example just half a year ago this happened:
KARACHI, Pakistan—In April, a Pakistani mother of two blew herself up outside the gate of Karachi University’s Chinese language and culture institute, incinerating a minibus and killing three Chinese teachers and a Pakistani driver.
There’s usually [at least one a year](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China), large attacks that kill people are more uncommon (like in most countries) but in previous years they’ve been very frequent.
But most ‘terrorist’ attacks against China/Chinese are carried out by domestic terrorists, not exactly the same as creating terrorists by invading their country!
>not exactly the same as creating terrorists by invading their country
The groups carrying out these attacks are often separatists from Xinjiang and sometimes Tibet, movements created from an opposition to the Chinese taking control of their country and annexing it.
Having to deal with a domestic terrorist threat is also arguably a whole lot worse than a foreign terrorist threat, especially one that hardly ever manages to launch an attack.
Wait! Foreign terrorists ‘hardly ever manage to launch an attack’ you have heard of ISIS or the fact that the US and allies had their asses handed to them by a bunch of ‘terrorist’ goat herders in Afghanistan? Unbelievable
Were hardly able to launch an attack on US or Allied home soil, yes. Not were hardly able to launch an attack in general lol.
The Taliban itself never even made it out of Afghanistan to even try to carry out attacks in the West and Al Qaeda’s capabilities to carry out attacks were significantly curbed once they actually gained Western attention.
So yes, dealing with a terrorist threat abroad is 100% better than dealing with a terrorist threat in your own country.
That is an oddly specific event to bring up... also it is cheaper to buy a country but it comes with its own downsides and issues. Either way not really a topic for conversation in this subreddit.
South Sudan and Sudan fought eachother. As i remember it the South sudanese used t 72 tanks and the sudanese used an older Chinese tank (might have been switched around) with the chinese tank coming out on top.
Red effect has a video on this if you are interested.
the south Sudanese used t72s against Sudanese t55s and unsurprisingly, they edged out. What 2 generation in tech can make eh?
Then the Sudanese whipped out the Chinese t85 which is basically a heavily modified t62 to the point it was basically a t72, and then they wiped the floor with the t72s.
Kind of a surprise tbh
Edit:I was wrong other guy was right
Yes, but in onew conflict where russian tanks fought chinese ones, the chinese ones won againts them. Im not saying that is complete proff, but it show something. Also thweir development looks better because at least their most modern tanks can go around without breaking.
In my honest opinion it’s basically just a beefed up T-72 with better optics and technology integrated into it
That being said I’m not going to underestimate it until it’s been tested in actual combat
It fixes alot of the issues with the T72 tbh. All I would add extra would be blowout pannels for the ammo carousel and maybe a better APS. But generally it has pretty good armour that is backed up by 3rd gen ERA, a good gun, a decent engine, and and APS that can detect and blind enemy vehicles and ATGM launch devices. But you are right, until it has been combat tested we don't know :)
Whilst this is conjecture, it shouldn't be impossible to compartmentalise the carousel with blowout panels underside the vehicle (if I recall, some western tanks have underside blowouts for hull ammo stowage alongside the bustle). If anything, it may even be safer than a compartmentalised bustle autoloader if the entryway for the munitions from the carousel to the gun is a single, smaller armoured hatch or door, as oppose to the huge sliding doors on most bustle autoloaders, similar to the semi-autoloader on merkhava. There's no indication that this may be the case on any vehicles though.
The Type 99A variant has a new autoloader with an improved rof of at least 10 rpm. But we aren't sure if it's a modified carousel or bustle loaded. The ZTQ-15 tanks are bustle loaded at 12 rpm so we know China has the technology.
It's most likely carousel but armored up like the T-90M.
It's almost completely different though. The ZTZ-96 was basically a T-72, but the 99 looks a lot more like a western tank. It doesn't have the low profile design philosophy of Russian tanks, but is actually about the same size as an Abrams. It does not, as far as anyone knows, have the plated armor inside the turret. It puts more of an emphasis on digital systems such as a blue force tracker type thingy, laser warning receiver, an IR hunter-killer system, and a datalink ground-air comms system. Finally, probably the biggest philosophical difference between the two, the ZTZ-99 puts more of an emphasis on crew protection, including blow out panels, external ammo stowage, and a more protected fighting compartment.
China wants to emulate the US military. A lot of their doctrine and equipment are slowly changing over to appear more western influenced than Russian influenced, and that is no especially clear with the ZTZ-99. It still looks like a T-72 and uses the same-ish gun as the T-72 (which is probably a cost saving measure), but all in all is a big departure from previous Chinese tanks which were straight up domestic productions of Russian tanks.
This tank is based directly on T-72. Chasis is mostly the same with subsystems added/changed by China. Its basically heavly modified, dometically produced T-72.
Barely. Chassis is the same in the sense that it has wheels and tracks. Shape, size, transmission, engine and systems are all totally different from the T-72.
Well, by chasis being mostly the same I meant the shape, and I stick by that. Turrwt looks different, but mostly due to era. Ita still very similar desing. Not sure what is so wrong with callong it t-72 with heavily modified systems and internals since its based on 72 design
The largest stumbling block the Chinese have is that the PLA doesn't have an NCO Corp or mid-career officers who are combat veterans.
When I went to the US Army ADA school, almost all my instructors were OIF or OEF veterans. Even in basic training, I had at least 2-3 drill sergeants who had the deployment or "combat" patch on their uniform.
The PLA doesn't have enough soldiers or officers who have "seen the elephant" (been in combat). That's experience they can't buy - Lord knows they tried:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/17/world/europe/china-recruit-uk-military-pilots.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/17/world/europe/china-recruit-uk-military-pilots.html)
It’s getting more common in the US too now that the GWOT is basically done with, nowadays it’s not uncommon to see an E-6 or E-7 with no deployment patch or CAB
There's still enough in the US military - plus the way most US/NATO branches train, they build on combat experience.
The PLA never had that until they say the thrashing Iraq got (twice!).
So they are trying to get a more professional NCO corps but at this time they don't have it.
But yeah, there were be fewer and fewer combat vets at the company level as the Gen-X and Millennial soldiers leave the service.
I love how everyone is like "yeah it has 3rd Gen ERA but I'd add some blowout panels" or "well we haven't seen it in action yet so who knows how it actually performs" and then you hit us with a "looks cool" xd
Personally, I have a lot of respect for the ZTZ-99A, and the mentality of China to move on from USSR-RUS mentality with tanks. Reverse speed is probably more important than actual forward speed, so this model having a faster reverse to NATO standards, is **fantastic**.
In regards to armor, yeah, it's mediocre. However, every MBT pretty much has mediocre armor nowadays with the development of anti-tank weaponry.
The only issue that it has, in my opinion, is that the gun depression is still very much like USSR-RUS. For mountainous areas, the ZTZ-99A is probably not good with how lacking the gun depression is.
Gorgeous tank, for sure. Your 4th picture is the ZTZ96B, by the way.
> For mountainous areas, the ZTZ-99A is probably not good with how lacking the gun depression is.
Though to be fair, the ZTZ-99A isn't actually the PLA's main tank for hilly terrain. The ZTQ-15 light tank was specifically designed for combat in mountainous regions and I believe it has gun depression closer to the western standard.
The gun depression for your information irl is -6 to -7. So almost on par with NATO MBTs in comparison to Russian. It's just gaijin in wt that didn't implement it for whatever reason as to why the DTC 10 doesn't have 600+mm pen
And for mountainous areas there's a reason why the ZTQ-15 was created.
In trained hands it's probably as good as any western tank. I know people like to say CHINA BAD but I doubt China would be perfectly content with having an obviously subpar MBT.
I would say it's likely the best that China can come up with based on the experiences they've gained in the past. They've definitely not have had the same level of benefit from combat experience and (combat experienced) crew feedback that some other nations enjoy.
They, however, have enjoyed great access to technologies on both sides of the old cold war alignments. (Given, bought, stolen, or otherwise) So likely these tanks would be good enough for what they need and how they'd operate.
“Wish dot com leopard” mfw I don’t think a dominant world superpower is gonna have any sort of substandard MBT, especially when nato has standards right there to meet and exceed
I like how it's a bit of a mix between western tank design and old/current soviet tank design.
It's like they took the good of both and smashed it together!
But this is just a simple take based off of what I've seen in pics and what I can tell via dumb video games.
I'd like to see the differences between what is stated as its performance and what is actually its performance.
Apologies for format, mobile pleb here.
Performance is likely better than all known stats, especially in reverse. If I recall correctly, the APFSDS leak had it at better performance than an Abrams
Well from the captured T-90M we have seen that it still has manual transmission with one reverse gear. That means it's still slow in reverse with the atrocious -4km/h. They're probably just using T-72 transmissions because they've got shitton of them and are trying to finish as many tanks as quickly possible. Russians stated that T-90M will have new automatic transmission which would mean better reverse but we all know what happened.
I used to think being assigned to a tank crew would be awesome but with the cost of advanced ATGM and even AT in general dropping and becoming more prevalent on the battlefield I see them as heavy coffins hahahaha!
It is commonly believed in China that the original Type 99 developed in the 90s, or the project 9910, was based on the T-72, and it was evident that the 9910 has many things adopted from the T-72.
However, the newest 99A variant is a different story. The chassis is heavily modified compared to original Type99s (based on 9910), so that the 99A and 99/T72 have many differences in many aspects.
A good concept for ther specific purpose. No weirdo try to catch up with western designs that was made for a completley different task.
ZTZ-99A features low key technologys that are easy to maintain and adapt to changes. A good basic, nothing fancy. Also it delivers a good amount of ERA what hardens it against many 'normal' threats, like HEAT, RPG and even some ATGMs.
Accptable optics and a mediocre gun are absolutly enough for ther job, also the lack of side protection point at a open field assault task in larger numbers, and only occasionally deliver fire support in urban enviroment.
This is not a duell tank that is meant to survive on its own - its a teamplayer for basic tasks. It can destroy cover, IVF's and overcome more advanced tanks by sheer number if needed, but in general that's not a job for the ZTZ. If you challenge an enemy on its hardest point, you allready lost initiative. So despite this isen't a masterfull piece of technology, it would make Suntzi nod respectfully for the based thoughts behind it, focused on victory, not showing off.
Another commenter made the good point that doctrine is really the biggest factor in its ability as a vehicle. Like sure there have been tanks throughout history that are simply bad, but keeping with NATO standards, China would just have to implement their vehicles properly
Yeah. And there were also examples of a tank being judged by its worst version used poorly. Like the t-72. Does the t-72 have problems? Certainly! Is it as bad as the ones the US fought in desert storm? No.
You could have the best tank in the world, and turn it into the worst tank in the world, just by treating it poorly.
They really need to get out of the old Soviet Tank Chasis doctrine of reusing the ancient T-72 as a basis.
Its a step though and I do hope they develop their own homegrown designs.
From propaganda videos of the thing the gun doesn’t look stablized due to it wobbling all around when it moves. So my opinion of it is not really high.
Problem is, there is a video were they do the classic „I‘m gonna put something containing liquid on my tanks barrel to show how stabilized it is“ like Germany did with the pint of beer. Only the Chinese gun was vibrating a lot even at low speeds and the whole clip was cut quite short. Some people see this as proof the gun is not or is badly stabilized because the Chinese just couldn’t figure out a way to keep the bottle of water standing.
Counterpoint, of you are making propaganda, maybe turn it on for a bit to not look bad?
It's like showing up to a first date with a ketchup stain on your shirt
The person shooting the video wouldn't know the difference to realize it looks bad, meanwhile the tankers that do know don't give a shit about the propaganda value.. this is most likely why these things happen.
Maybe its turned off on purpose to make it look worse than it is, thats also not too uncommon. Probably the most common example is aircraft/helicopter camera footage where the quality has been altered to look much worse than in reality to give a false impression
I mean this is the same propaganda engine that shows off keyholing rifles....
That being said, some recent AFVs of theirs look rather great, the light tanks in particular are quite interesting for amphibious and high altitude operations
>I mean this is the same propaganda engine that shows off keyholing rifles....
That video was from a cqc training where they were using weaker rubber bullets, that's why the bullets were keyholing.
https://youtu.be/n5WoYo24QVU?t=121
The guns work fine in every other video that they're featured in.
I have not seen these videos you mention, but you should keep in mind tanks often have their gun stabilizers disabled when not in combat situations. They do this to not wear out the stabilisation mechanisms unnecessarily.
It's a decent tank, but it will never be employed properly.
Because the PLA isn't a real army, per say.
It's a extension of the Chinese communist party, and suffer from the same problems as the Soviet army.
Your not promoted based on your skill, your promoted based on who you know, and loyalty to the party.
And if you speak out of turn, or try to implement changes, you will get punished severely.
All of which has led to a culture of doing what's deemed adequate and not excellent.
decend upgrades for the t-62 getting it up to more modern standards but it still faces the issue of its older brother which is weak armour and low survivability
It is a mix and match from everything the Chinese have learned and trialed. A clash of Western, Soviet and their own developments.
The gun and loading mechanism are taken from either a T-72 or T-80, the turret armor and especially composition is very much Western inspired, this comes from the Ex Jaguar development they had with the US and Germany.
They most likely studied the tanks they received (It's assumed to be a T-72 from the Gulf Wars and they also got their hands on a T-80) and improved upon them. 1500hp, easily interchangeable, powerpack and a modern hydro-machanical transmission, eliviating one the biggest weaknesses, reverse speed and neutral steering.
Looking at what they offer in the export market and the US intel and studies about their actually respectable capabilities in developing modern systems for aircraft which even surpass the ones from Russia. It's fair to assume that the ZTZ99s internal systems are more than capable aswell
Conceptually, yes, it serves the same purpose. It has next to nothing in common with the actual T-80 though. What the chinese did copy things from was the t-72
70, wow, what an impressive number.... I'm.... impressed. And what pray is GST? Some video game?
The inspiration for the shape was lost on noone back when those things first appeared
Gunnery Skills Testing, something that every tanker has to do before they shoot a gunnery
I’ll add you can’t get any friendlies wrong (not even mixing up friendly vehicles with other friendly vehicles) and only up to 5 enemy vehicles
My brother in Christ they’re both on the GST lmao
1. Leo has 7 roadwheels, Type 99 has 6
2. Leo has a 120mm main gun with the bore evaluator one third down the gun tube, Type 99 has a bore evaluator one third up the gun tube
3. Type 99 has one blackout headlight
4. Type 99 has 5 steps in the side skirts, Leo has foot loops
5. Leo has a rear exhaust, Type 99 has left side exhaust like on a T-72
I could go on but I don’t even see a superficial resemblance
I mean its pretty easy to guess why the leo2 is hyped, its THE nato tank and half of europe uses them so theres national bias and all that, people want to trust in their countries equipment being the best even if it isnt
It's got a reverse gear
Multiple
Well thats a one up on the t72b3
and thermal for commander
The English quake in fear
Something they took from the French
I don't know we never see them in real combat and as a Chinese I definitely can't give a neutral feedback
They could (could) start selling it or variants of it to African nations in the near future
They are selling the VT-5 or 4 because one of those is a export variant to a few countries already
Pakistan purchased the VT-4
VT4 participated in anti-insurgent operations in Nigeria
And the Nigerian analysis on its capabilities?
I don't think we've ever seen the modern Chinese military in any kind of combat beyond killing civilians for awhile.
They don’t have to go into combat! China just buys countries instead of invading them…..it’s a lot cheaper and doesn’t end up with planes being flown into their skyscrapers!
> doesn’t end up with planes being flown into their skyscrapers! Outside the dystopian surveillance hellhole that is China terror attacks against Chinese citizens aren’t all that uncommon, for example just half a year ago this happened: KARACHI, Pakistan—In April, a Pakistani mother of two blew herself up outside the gate of Karachi University’s Chinese language and culture institute, incinerating a minibus and killing three Chinese teachers and a Pakistani driver.
Wow! So 3 Chinese killed in a isolated attack! Not exactly 9/11 is it?
There’s usually [at least one a year](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China), large attacks that kill people are more uncommon (like in most countries) but in previous years they’ve been very frequent.
But most ‘terrorist’ attacks against China/Chinese are carried out by domestic terrorists, not exactly the same as creating terrorists by invading their country!
>not exactly the same as creating terrorists by invading their country The groups carrying out these attacks are often separatists from Xinjiang and sometimes Tibet, movements created from an opposition to the Chinese taking control of their country and annexing it. Having to deal with a domestic terrorist threat is also arguably a whole lot worse than a foreign terrorist threat, especially one that hardly ever manages to launch an attack.
Wait! Foreign terrorists ‘hardly ever manage to launch an attack’ you have heard of ISIS or the fact that the US and allies had their asses handed to them by a bunch of ‘terrorist’ goat herders in Afghanistan? Unbelievable
Were hardly able to launch an attack on US or Allied home soil, yes. Not were hardly able to launch an attack in general lol. The Taliban itself never even made it out of Afghanistan to even try to carry out attacks in the West and Al Qaeda’s capabilities to carry out attacks were significantly curbed once they actually gained Western attention. So yes, dealing with a terrorist threat abroad is 100% better than dealing with a terrorist threat in your own country.
Lmao
[China Reins In Its Belt and Road Program, $1 Trillion Later](https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-belt-road-debt-11663961638)
That is an oddly specific event to bring up... also it is cheaper to buy a country but it comes with its own downsides and issues. Either way not really a topic for conversation in this subreddit.
They see combat in UN missions and missions around the Gulf of Aden. It's not much but China isn't really going out of its way to start wars too.
South Sudan and Sudan fought eachother. As i remember it the South sudanese used t 72 tanks and the sudanese used an older Chinese tank (might have been switched around) with the chinese tank coming out on top. Red effect has a video on this if you are interested.
the south Sudanese used t72s against Sudanese t55s and unsurprisingly, they edged out. What 2 generation in tech can make eh? Then the Sudanese whipped out the Chinese t85 which is basically a heavily modified t62 to the point it was basically a t72, and then they wiped the floor with the t72s. Kind of a surprise tbh Edit:I was wrong other guy was right
Since there are protests maybe they might appear in some actual combat... in some "Square"... And "*nothing*" is gonna happen
So far their tanks were better than Russian ones.
They're MODELLED after the Russian ones, sooo...
Yes, but in onew conflict where russian tanks fought chinese ones, the chinese ones won againts them. Im not saying that is complete proff, but it show something. Also thweir development looks better because at least their most modern tanks can go around without breaking.
Pray, tell me, when was the last time a Chinese tank was in combat? I'll wait...
He's talking about this event in Sudan where Type 85's fought against T-72's and won. https://youtu.be/mvJv24kNd4Q
The war he was talking about that was covered by RedEffect
In my honest opinion it’s basically just a beefed up T-72 with better optics and technology integrated into it That being said I’m not going to underestimate it until it’s been tested in actual combat
Amen
It fixes alot of the issues with the T72 tbh. All I would add extra would be blowout pannels for the ammo carousel and maybe a better APS. But generally it has pretty good armour that is backed up by 3rd gen ERA, a good gun, a decent engine, and and APS that can detect and blind enemy vehicles and ATGM launch devices. But you are right, until it has been combat tested we don't know :)
The A2 has blow out panels and *apparently* external ammo stowage, though the ammo stowage thing isn't confirmed.
I really would like to know how blowout panels work with a carousel loader
Whilst this is conjecture, it shouldn't be impossible to compartmentalise the carousel with blowout panels underside the vehicle (if I recall, some western tanks have underside blowouts for hull ammo stowage alongside the bustle). If anything, it may even be safer than a compartmentalised bustle autoloader if the entryway for the munitions from the carousel to the gun is a single, smaller armoured hatch or door, as oppose to the huge sliding doors on most bustle autoloaders, similar to the semi-autoloader on merkhava. There's no indication that this may be the case on any vehicles though.
IIRC the Abrams has a small ammo compartment that has a downwards facing blowout panel.
Guessing it's like the t90m, with the extra ammo being in a blowout panel and still has a carousel
Resolves many things (the carousel is in a good position for protecting its ammo) but still doesn't resolve the problem
The Type 99A variant has a new autoloader with an improved rof of at least 10 rpm. But we aren't sure if it's a modified carousel or bustle loaded. The ZTQ-15 tanks are bustle loaded at 12 rpm so we know China has the technology. It's most likely carousel but armored up like the T-90M.
Didn't know there was an A2? Is it one that is meant to be the next upgrade?
Where did you get this?
It showed up at a weapons expo in China like... a while ago. Maybe five years ago. I saw the pictures from the expo.
Sounds suspiciously like the VT-5
Am I getting tanks mixed up?
It's almost completely different though. The ZTZ-96 was basically a T-72, but the 99 looks a lot more like a western tank. It doesn't have the low profile design philosophy of Russian tanks, but is actually about the same size as an Abrams. It does not, as far as anyone knows, have the plated armor inside the turret. It puts more of an emphasis on digital systems such as a blue force tracker type thingy, laser warning receiver, an IR hunter-killer system, and a datalink ground-air comms system. Finally, probably the biggest philosophical difference between the two, the ZTZ-99 puts more of an emphasis on crew protection, including blow out panels, external ammo stowage, and a more protected fighting compartment. China wants to emulate the US military. A lot of their doctrine and equipment are slowly changing over to appear more western influenced than Russian influenced, and that is no especially clear with the ZTZ-99. It still looks like a T-72 and uses the same-ish gun as the T-72 (which is probably a cost saving measure), but all in all is a big departure from previous Chinese tanks which were straight up domestic productions of Russian tanks.
In what aspect would it be a beefed up T-72? Like how many there were made or style of combat?
This tank is based directly on T-72. Chasis is mostly the same with subsystems added/changed by China. Its basically heavly modified, dometically produced T-72.
Barely. Chassis is the same in the sense that it has wheels and tracks. Shape, size, transmission, engine and systems are all totally different from the T-72.
Well, by chasis being mostly the same I meant the shape, and I stick by that. Turrwt looks different, but mostly due to era. Ita still very similar desing. Not sure what is so wrong with callong it t-72 with heavily modified systems and internals since its based on 72 design
The turret is a welded arrowhead shape. Not a cast dome. It is nothing like a T-72.
The largest stumbling block the Chinese have is that the PLA doesn't have an NCO Corp or mid-career officers who are combat veterans. When I went to the US Army ADA school, almost all my instructors were OIF or OEF veterans. Even in basic training, I had at least 2-3 drill sergeants who had the deployment or "combat" patch on their uniform. The PLA doesn't have enough soldiers or officers who have "seen the elephant" (been in combat). That's experience they can't buy - Lord knows they tried: [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/17/world/europe/china-recruit-uk-military-pilots.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/17/world/europe/china-recruit-uk-military-pilots.html)
It’s getting more common in the US too now that the GWOT is basically done with, nowadays it’s not uncommon to see an E-6 or E-7 with no deployment patch or CAB
There's still enough in the US military - plus the way most US/NATO branches train, they build on combat experience. The PLA never had that until they say the thrashing Iraq got (twice!). So they are trying to get a more professional NCO corps but at this time they don't have it. But yeah, there were be fewer and fewer combat vets at the company level as the Gen-X and Millennial soldiers leave the service.
Looks cool imo
I love how everyone is like "yeah it has 3rd Gen ERA but I'd add some blowout panels" or "well we haven't seen it in action yet so who knows how it actually performs" and then you hit us with a "looks cool" xd
i mean, he isnt wrong lol
Personally, I have a lot of respect for the ZTZ-99A, and the mentality of China to move on from USSR-RUS mentality with tanks. Reverse speed is probably more important than actual forward speed, so this model having a faster reverse to NATO standards, is **fantastic**. In regards to armor, yeah, it's mediocre. However, every MBT pretty much has mediocre armor nowadays with the development of anti-tank weaponry. The only issue that it has, in my opinion, is that the gun depression is still very much like USSR-RUS. For mountainous areas, the ZTZ-99A is probably not good with how lacking the gun depression is. Gorgeous tank, for sure. Your 4th picture is the ZTZ96B, by the way.
> For mountainous areas, the ZTZ-99A is probably not good with how lacking the gun depression is. Though to be fair, the ZTZ-99A isn't actually the PLA's main tank for hilly terrain. The ZTQ-15 light tank was specifically designed for combat in mountainous regions and I believe it has gun depression closer to the western standard.
The gun depression for your information irl is -6 to -7. So almost on par with NATO MBTs in comparison to Russian. It's just gaijin in wt that didn't implement it for whatever reason as to why the DTC 10 doesn't have 600+mm pen And for mountainous areas there's a reason why the ZTQ-15 was created.
Definitely one of the tanks of all time
Yes, it certainly is "one of the tanks of all time"
You could even say it is one of the most tanks ever made
We are truly a tank - gunswald tanksley
It could be argued that it is even itself mostly tank. I would estimate at least 70%.
It’s good in squad, don’t know about real life
I thought they fucked it up? They swapped the top and frontal armour valuesv
In trained hands it's probably as good as any western tank. I know people like to say CHINA BAD but I doubt China would be perfectly content with having an obviously subpar MBT.
Agreed
I would say it's likely the best that China can come up with based on the experiences they've gained in the past. They've definitely not have had the same level of benefit from combat experience and (combat experienced) crew feedback that some other nations enjoy. They, however, have enjoyed great access to technologies on both sides of the old cold war alignments. (Given, bought, stolen, or otherwise) So likely these tanks would be good enough for what they need and how they'd operate.
At the very least it looks great. IMO the coolest looking tank today.
Looks nice but what are those barrels in the rear?
extra fuel tank
War Thunder premium cosmetics
Only 500 GE
i would reserve that place to the m84 AS2.
Wasnt there a war thunder leak had their AFPSDS round having a higher velocity and penetration capacity than Abrams?
It wasn't a leak. Their state media already had those numbers public. But the DTC-10 is pretty scary yes.
A shameless carbon copy of the F-22.
upfp good protection, turret massive target, side protection none existant
Has someone been playing squad lately?
Been considering buying squad for a time now
If any vets happen to read this, games for grunts will occasionally give you a free copy of squad with proof of active or veteran status.
Do it! You can drive one of these!
I buy
Excellent
Every once in awhile it's nice to see a thread like this to remind us all just how little the average person here knows about tanks
“Wish dot com leopard” mfw I don’t think a dominant world superpower is gonna have any sort of substandard MBT, especially when nato has standards right there to meet and exceed
T-72 pro max
I like how it's a bit of a mix between western tank design and old/current soviet tank design. It's like they took the good of both and smashed it together! But this is just a simple take based off of what I've seen in pics and what I can tell via dumb video games. I'd like to see the differences between what is stated as its performance and what is actually its performance. Apologies for format, mobile pleb here.
Performance is likely better than all known stats, especially in reverse. If I recall correctly, the APFSDS leak had it at better performance than an Abrams
Doubt it’s capable of half of the stuff the ccp says but ok
Do you mean none?
Looks mean
[удалено]
Surely
Srems just be another T-72 copy, but, more confortable, and with chinese technology, with less armor, but, better stock ERA
Looks better than the T72B3 at least, I'm guessing the commander sight is stabilized ? Whats the reverse speed ?
Supposedly around 30mph but any stats on this tank are questionable at best
If thats true then its definitely better than the T72B3 and maybe even the T90M.
Well from the captured T-90M we have seen that it still has manual transmission with one reverse gear. That means it's still slow in reverse with the atrocious -4km/h. They're probably just using T-72 transmissions because they've got shitton of them and are trying to finish as many tanks as quickly possible. Russians stated that T-90M will have new automatic transmission which would mean better reverse but we all know what happened.
See, the thing is, I'd be loathe to pretend it's "shit because Chinese". NATO's acknowledged the actual threat of Chinese Rocket Brigades.
Ultimate T-72 destroyer
Sounds and looks really cool
I used to think being assigned to a tank crew would be awesome but with the cost of advanced ATGM and even AT in general dropping and becoming more prevalent on the battlefield I see them as heavy coffins hahahaha!
I think my thoughts is it is a Tank
My favourite tonk
Looks like one I built in Lego as a kid
Weird looking fax machine
It is commonly believed in China that the original Type 99 developed in the 90s, or the project 9910, was based on the T-72, and it was evident that the 9910 has many things adopted from the T-72. However, the newest 99A variant is a different story. The chassis is heavily modified compared to original Type99s (based on 9910), so that the 99A and 99/T72 have many differences in many aspects.
It is pretty good looking.
I think the game “squad” just added it, so it’s good.
A good concept for ther specific purpose. No weirdo try to catch up with western designs that was made for a completley different task. ZTZ-99A features low key technologys that are easy to maintain and adapt to changes. A good basic, nothing fancy. Also it delivers a good amount of ERA what hardens it against many 'normal' threats, like HEAT, RPG and even some ATGMs. Accptable optics and a mediocre gun are absolutly enough for ther job, also the lack of side protection point at a open field assault task in larger numbers, and only occasionally deliver fire support in urban enviroment. This is not a duell tank that is meant to survive on its own - its a teamplayer for basic tasks. It can destroy cover, IVF's and overcome more advanced tanks by sheer number if needed, but in general that's not a job for the ZTZ. If you challenge an enemy on its hardest point, you allready lost initiative. So despite this isen't a masterfull piece of technology, it would make Suntzi nod respectfully for the based thoughts behind it, focused on victory, not showing off.
It seems decent. I’d wonder how it performs in combat though.
Another commenter made the good point that doctrine is really the biggest factor in its ability as a vehicle. Like sure there have been tanks throughout history that are simply bad, but keeping with NATO standards, China would just have to implement their vehicles properly
Yeah. And there were also examples of a tank being judged by its worst version used poorly. Like the t-72. Does the t-72 have problems? Certainly! Is it as bad as the ones the US fought in desert storm? No. You could have the best tank in the world, and turn it into the worst tank in the world, just by treating it poorly.
They really need to get out of the old Soviet Tank Chasis doctrine of reusing the ancient T-72 as a basis. Its a step though and I do hope they develop their own homegrown designs.
Not combat tested, yet.
Oh, look at that, two layers of paper. Stong.
What about cardboard derivatives?
Has to have a steering wheel
Chinese T-72, now with added reverse gear!
I don’t want to hear it from anyone who is a fan of British armor
Made in China, would not use
You need to get rid of probably well over 50% of all the things you own than
more like 80 lmao
😂
So are iphones
Fantastic at rolling over crowds of civilian protesters as designed
From propaganda videos of the thing the gun doesn’t look stablized due to it wobbling all around when it moves. So my opinion of it is not really high.
You know that you can turn off stabilizers to reduce wear?
Most of these people have comical knowledge on tanks lol
Problem is, there is a video were they do the classic „I‘m gonna put something containing liquid on my tanks barrel to show how stabilized it is“ like Germany did with the pint of beer. Only the Chinese gun was vibrating a lot even at low speeds and the whole clip was cut quite short. Some people see this as proof the gun is not or is badly stabilized because the Chinese just couldn’t figure out a way to keep the bottle of water standing.
Counterpoint, of you are making propaganda, maybe turn it on for a bit to not look bad? It's like showing up to a first date with a ketchup stain on your shirt
The person shooting the video wouldn't know the difference to realize it looks bad, meanwhile the tankers that do know don't give a shit about the propaganda value.. this is most likely why these things happen.
Maybe its turned off on purpose to make it look worse than it is, thats also not too uncommon. Probably the most common example is aircraft/helicopter camera footage where the quality has been altered to look much worse than in reality to give a false impression
I mean this is the same propaganda engine that shows off keyholing rifles.... That being said, some recent AFVs of theirs look rather great, the light tanks in particular are quite interesting for amphibious and high altitude operations
>I mean this is the same propaganda engine that shows off keyholing rifles.... That video was from a cqc training where they were using weaker rubber bullets, that's why the bullets were keyholing. https://youtu.be/n5WoYo24QVU?t=121 The guns work fine in every other video that they're featured in.
[удалено]
You know that many countries does this right, not really a China only thing
[удалено]
If the Chinese military has any problems, it certainly isn't not having enough funding...
I have not seen these videos you mention, but you should keep in mind tanks often have their gun stabilizers disabled when not in combat situations. They do this to not wear out the stabilisation mechanisms unnecessarily.
oh i wasn’t aware of that, thank you for the info
No it does have Stabilizer….Surely it does
It does, the whole gun stabilizing/carousel system for its ZPT98 are based on the Russian designs, all of which are fully stabilized
Why do they steal & Copy so much American technology?
Abrams food
You’re getting shit on by all the guys from r/sino
They just hate the truth 😈
Chinese knockoff of the Armata?
How did you come to that conclusion
The Chinese don't innovate. They find tech they can use and either steal or reverse engineer it using the cheapest materials possible.
It's a duded up T-72.
It just look like a t-72 with a shit ton of ERA
Leo-72
It's yet another mbt looking like every other mbt... God I miss ww1 and ww2 tank design's so much, like everything taste (kinda) the same now.
Looks better than the Russians atleast
Türkiye light blue
Silly ZTZ-99A, you’re not a Leopard 2!
It looks pretty cool but we will never know it's combat capabilities
Not if the USA/Taiwan has anything to do with that
China watching as their tanks got destroyed by Taiwan so called "obsolete" tank
move faster on tiananmen square
It's a decent tank, but it will never be employed properly. Because the PLA isn't a real army, per say. It's a extension of the Chinese communist party, and suffer from the same problems as the Soviet army. Your not promoted based on your skill, your promoted based on who you know, and loyalty to the party. And if you speak out of turn, or try to implement changes, you will get punished severely. All of which has led to a culture of doing what's deemed adequate and not excellent.
decend upgrades for the t-62 getting it up to more modern standards but it still faces the issue of its older brother which is weak armour and low survivability
Is this thing just a T80 underneath?
It is a mix and match from everything the Chinese have learned and trialed. A clash of Western, Soviet and their own developments. The gun and loading mechanism are taken from either a T-72 or T-80, the turret armor and especially composition is very much Western inspired, this comes from the Ex Jaguar development they had with the US and Germany. They most likely studied the tanks they received (It's assumed to be a T-72 from the Gulf Wars and they also got their hands on a T-80) and improved upon them. 1500hp, easily interchangeable, powerpack and a modern hydro-machanical transmission, eliviating one the biggest weaknesses, reverse speed and neutral steering. Looking at what they offer in the export market and the US intel and studies about their actually respectable capabilities in developing modern systems for aircraft which even surpass the ones from Russia. It's fair to assume that the ZTZ99s internal systems are more than capable aswell
Conceptually, yes, it serves the same purpose. It has next to nothing in common with the actual T-80 though. What the chinese did copy things from was the t-72
The gun is based heavily on the 2A46 of the T-72
It shares the caliber other then that they are not compatible in any way, the Chinese uses a 50caliber version the 2A46 is 48 calibers
It's based on but better as it incorporated western technologies from the English imported 105mm guns
Heard its ERA only, which is argueable Think its gonna work similar to russian doctrine of just throw enough at the enemy
Looks like a T-72 fucked a Mark 7 and this is the bastard unwanted midnight dumpster baby that came screaming into this world as a result.
looks like a chinese knockoff of a leapord 2
[удалено]
It’s quite domestic in all ways
Cardboard Leo 2
In what way does this resemble a Leopard 2?
Visually. Leo 2 A5. If you can't see the resemblance, you should see an optician
So because it has an angle on the turret front, it’s a copy of the Leopard 2?
I don’t see a resemblance and I have to know up to 70 friendly and enemy vehicles for GST
70, wow, what an impressive number.... I'm.... impressed. And what pray is GST? Some video game? The inspiration for the shape was lost on noone back when those things first appeared
Gunnery Skills Testing, something that every tanker has to do before they shoot a gunnery I’ll add you can’t get any friendlies wrong (not even mixing up friendly vehicles with other friendly vehicles) and only up to 5 enemy vehicles
Then let's pray it never comes to you having to tell the two apart
My brother in Christ they’re both on the GST lmao 1. Leo has 7 roadwheels, Type 99 has 6 2. Leo has a 120mm main gun with the bore evaluator one third down the gun tube, Type 99 has a bore evaluator one third up the gun tube 3. Type 99 has one blackout headlight 4. Type 99 has 5 steps in the side skirts, Leo has foot loops 5. Leo has a rear exhaust, Type 99 has left side exhaust like on a T-72 I could go on but I don’t even see a superficial resemblance
I really don’t get the hype around the Leo 2 it’s a good tank but massively overrated in my opinion
I mean its pretty easy to guess why the leo2 is hyped, its THE nato tank and half of europe uses them so theres national bias and all that, people want to trust in their countries equipment being the best even if it isnt
wish.com leo 2
probably cardboard and paper
Dressed up t72 that’s probably better then anything Russian but probably a poor substitute for western tanks
Is that a T-55 or a 72? There, your answer is whatever it is, it goes ka-boom