What is Best MBT in Asia?

[Orange_Julius]

i don't know but it seems like China has the best MBT fleet in Asia but as far as technology is concerned, the South Koreans and the Japanese are way ahead of the Chinese and even the Indians.

[zraver]

China undoudably has the biggest tank fleet, but I would not call it the best. The ZTZ-99 is fairly capable equal in some areas to early MBT's and marginally ahead in others but no where near the current level seen in the M1A2SEP, Leo 2A6, XK-2, or Challenger II/CLIP. The Type 96 is a joke its a pure medium tank with massively inferior protection. Even if the Gun live sup to the Chinese claims (Which I doubt) they are stall massively behind in FCS, thermal vision technology, IVIS systems, and powertrain/suspension issues and still use a T style hull. The best MBT in Asia is either the XK-2 or the M1A2SEP depending on how how you value the 3 vs 4 man crews vs the features the XK-2/M1A2 has/doesn't have vs the other.

[Officer of Engineers]

Despite the recent addition of new tanks, I still see the PLA as an artillery centric army. They've came out and deployed far more newer guns and rocket pieces than tanks. And they were the 1st ones to pioneer ballistic missile volley tactics.

[Bowman]

OOE, I'm interested in this comment that you made earlier -

"The fact is that the Israelis have no experience that even remotely comes close to the tank battles of WWII. They never experienced a attrition battle lasting months and in the losses of thousands of tanks. The Israelis never faced a Kursk which is by far the most important tank battle to be studied ever."

Doesn't Israel deserve more respect for it's strategy and execution?

It strikes me that Kursk was (arguably) the most significant land battle of WWII, but was quite notable for the poor strategy/tactics utilized by the Germans - particularly the excessive time taken to assemble their forces, their charging of layered anti-tank defences with massed tanks and their decision to employ a highly predictable "pincer" attack. On the other hand, that the Israeli use of large-scale armoured attacks in the 1973 war was exemplary in concept and execution. I would agree with you that the Israelis' experience of armoured warfare cannot compare with the depth of the Russians or the Germans, but they have certainly demonstrated competence. The closest comparable action to the 1973 war, would, in fact, be the U.S./U.K. attacks on Iraq in the two Gulf wars. The U.S. and U.K. outmanoeuvered their opponents in Guderian style - just like the Israelis.

What do you think?

[Stan187]

OOE, I'm interested in this comment that you made earlier -

"The fact is that the Israelis have no experience that even remotely comes close to the tank battles of WWII. They never experienced a attrition battle lasting months and in the losses of thousands of tanks. The Israelis never faced a Kursk which is by far the most important tank battle to be studied ever."

Doesn't Israel deserve more respect for it's strategy and execution?

It strikes me that Kursk was (arguably) the most significant land battle of WWII, but was quite notable for the poor strategy/tactics utilized by the Germans - particularly the excessive time taken to assemble their forces, their charging of layered anti-tank defences with massed tanks and their decision to employ a highly predictable "pincer" attack. On the other hand, that the Israeli use of large-scale armoured attacks in the 1973 war was exemplary in concept and execution. I would agree with you that the Israelis' experience of armoured warfare cannot compare with the depth of the Russians or the Germans, but they have certainly demonstrated competence. The closest comparable action to the 1973 war, would, in fact, be the U.S./U.K. attacks on Iraq in the two Gulf wars. The U.S. and U.K. outmanoeuvered their opponents in Guderian style - just like the Israelis.

What do you think?

In fact, the Israelis did everything right as far as armor in '67. In '73, they did exactly what the Germans did, in the beginning, and charge headlong into layered anti-tank defenses without proper use of combined arms. They learned their lesson quickly, and corrected it, and started working properly in combined arms teams (which were thrown together more or less ad-hoc because of this whole tankomania concept that had taken such a strong hold). So it depends on the time in the '73 war. In the beginning, they didn't do so hot on the offensive againt layered defenses (Egyptian front). They switched it up within a week.

[zraver]

The IDF has really been hot or moiss when it comes to tanks. They got handled roughly in 67 by the Jordanians but trashed Egypt and Syria. In 73 they wrecked Syria but got hammered intially by Egypt. Like wise thier attacks on Lebanon show elan (Peace for Gallilee) and stupidity (vs Hezzbollah recently). I would rate themj as competent but not elite.

[dulu]

Pls give me more information about Chinese newly built T-99zt . And compare it with Arjun. Who is superior to another one?

[dulu]

You are right. China will build more ztz-99 which is no where reach the level of advanced current ones, such as M1A2SEP, Leo 2A6, XK-2, or Challenger II/CLIP, and cheaper than them. But cheap price is a big advantage for ztz-99 in battlefield, because Chinese will use it's "human weave" to win the battle, meanwhile, compared with westerner's tanks, it's quality is far from inferiority, and power of it's gun seems to outmatch their westerner's counterpart .

China undoudably has the biggest tank fleet, but I would not call it the best. The ZTZ-99 is fairly capable equal in some areas to early MBT's and marginally ahead in others but no where near the current level seen in the M1A2SEP, Leo 2A6, XK-2, or Challenger II/CLIP. The Type 96 is a joke its a pure medium tank with massively inferior protection. Even if the Gun live sup to the Chinese claims (Which I doubt) they are stall massively behind in FCS, thermal vision technology, IVIS systems, and powertrain/suspension issues and still use a T style hull. The best MBT in Asia is either the XK-2 or the M1A2SEP depending on how how you value the 3 vs 4 man crews vs the features the XK-2/M1A2 has/doesn't have vs the other.

[Stan187]

The IDF has really been hot or moiss when it comes to tanks. They got handled roughly in 67 by the Jordanians but trashed Egypt and Syria. In 73 they wrecked Syria but got hammered intially by Egypt. Like wise thier attacks on Lebanon show elan (Peace for Gallilee) and stupidity (vs Hezzbollah recently). I would rate themj as competent but not elite.

They did fairly well against the Jordanians in '67. Granted they had air superiority, but the Jordanians didn't manage to hold any Israeli advances at all. In 73, it was a whole new ballgame technologically, and they adapted quickly. The initial Peace for the Galilee advance was not bad either. Recent advance was bungled, that is true. I don't know what your ranking really means. They are one of the most experienced tank forces since the end of WWII, and they generally do very well. Competent, in my opinion, is undercutting it.

[zraver]

You are right. China will build more ztz-99 which is no where reach the level of advanced current ones, such as M1A2SEP, Leo 2A6, XK-2, or Challenger II/CLIP, and cheaper than them. But cheap price is a big advantage for ztz-99 in battlefield, because Chinese will use it's "human weave" to win the battle, meanwhile, compared with westerner's tanks, it's quality is far from inferiority, and power of it's gun seems to outmatch their westerner's counterpart .

it's not cheaper you can get that idea out of your head. It may cost less in total dollars but China has less to spend overall than the US in terms of real dollars. It doesn't matter how cheap the tank is if you can't afford enough of them.

As for the gun, it might just be able to equal the perfomance of the current crop of L/44 120's firing non-DU rounds if you fudge some numbers. But it most assuredly does not overmatch them, let alone the new L/55's.

The tank also has inferior protection.

Stan,

The Royal Jordanian tank forces out fought thier jewish counterparts several times in 67. Jordan's problem was being tied to a fixed location and not haivng enough infantry, air support, or artillery.

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

Despite the recent addition of new tanks, I still see the PLA as an artillery centric army. They've came out and deployed far more newer guns and rocket pieces than tanks. And they were the 1st ones to pioneer ballistic missile volley tactics.

I guess that indicates something of their realistic intent to invade Taiwan. It's all well and good to have the arty, but you need to move it across the sea to make it an offensive weapon. Which brings me to a question sir, how well, overall, do you rate the PLA as a professionally lead force? From this board I have gotten the impression that generally no one respects the leadership of the PLA, but as our resident expert, I'm wondering what your opinion is?

[Stan187]

Stan,

The Royal Jordanian tank forces out fought thier jewish counterparts several times in 67. Jordan's problem was being tied to a fixed location and not haivng enough infantry, air support, or artillery.

As I said earlier, they did fairly well. But it wasn't even close to good enough. The fact that they fought well in a few encounters didn't bring them any closer to victory, partly because of the factors you just mentioned yourself.

[Officer of Engineers]

Doesn't Israel deserve more respect for it's strategy and execution?

My apologies but I'm in the midst of a move right now and don't have time to source down everything. The Israelis are a good army but they are not better than the WWIII Armies of Central Europe. Somewhere on WAB are links of the Israeli cabinet scared crapless when the Soviet threatened intervention in 1973. If I remembered right, the Soviets drew up plans for the intervention of 2 Armies. By numbers alone, that's way more than the Israelis could ever dream of handling ... but not the US V and VII Corps.

[Officer of Engineers]

From this board I have gotten the impression that generally no one respects the leadership of the PLA, but as our resident expert, I'm wondering what your opinion is?

Not only this board but the resident Chinese Minister of Defence don't think much of the PLA leadership. General Cao has stated that his goal in 20 years (15 now) was to produce a modern officer corps - not a modern army but a modern officer corps.

The main problem with the PLA is that it's extremely overbloated. Colonel Denis Blasko, former US Defence Attache to Beijing, observed that the PLA can be reduced by 50% and lose none of its combat effectiveness; meaning that 50% of the PLA does nothing except to establish the CCP's political presence in a specific area. Why you have an entire brigade in Beijing and a division within a days march is beyond me.

They've come leaps and bounds but you get that from moving from a foot army to a truck army but to think you're now on par with the US simply because you've got kids who knows how to drive?

Compare this to our resident 1RTR men who did all sorts of jobs from armoured recee in nothing more than a modified dune buggy to manning the world's deadliest tanks. Driving a truck ain't exactly measuring up.

[Bowman]

My apologies but I'm in the midst of a move right now and don't have time to source down everything. The Israelis are a good army but they are not better than the WWIII Armies of Central Europe. Somewhere on WAB are links of the Israeli cabinet scared crapless when the Soviet threatened intervention in 1973. If I remembered right, the Soviets drew up plans for the intervention of 2 Armies. By numbers alone, that's way more than the Israelis could ever dream of handling ... but not the US V and VII Corps.

I agree that there is no comparison in terms of overall firepower, but the Israelis seem to have been master strategists in the '67 and '73 campaigns. The Soviet tank armies and US V and VII Corps of the same period could have overwhelmed them. Would they have been as tactically brilliant, though? I'm sure you could shed some light on the relative sophistication of the US/Canadian! armored tactics of the period. Perhaps when you've finished with your move? Thanks.