China to field most powerful tank in the world

China has made substantial advances in some areas of its ground and naval forces, including upgrades to tanks and armor, laser systems and anti-submarine warfare.

Jane's Defense Weekly, a respected Britain-based military journal, said the People's Liberation Army is set to deploy a new main battle tank, or MBT, that, when fielded, will become the most powerful of its kind in the world.

The magazine said the tank will feature a huge 152 mm main gun with an automatic loader that, when coupled with a new advanced aiming system, will enable the tank to fire on the move with high first-hit-first-kill capability.

The U.S. military's M1A2 Abrams MBT, which is generally considered one of the world's best tanks, features only a 120 mm M256 smoothbore gun, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany. It, too, can fire while in motion and has a high first-shot capability.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

The automatic loader makes this tank useless.

Any problem caused for any reason, and it is completely a sitting duck, this is why the USA has not switched over to Automatic loaders.

Like dog fighting, the skill with the tank is more important than the strength of the tank, or we'd never have won WW2 because the Tigers could kill our tanks at 10 times the range.

who's saying that the chinese aren't as skilled in their combat as we are? i know discipline is at least better in the PLA then the USAF. i bet you don't see soldiers in their bdu jacket and beret wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt underneath at the malls their like i have seen them here at salmon run in watertown. the only reason america is perceived as the strongest army, is because it has yet to fight another superpower since ww2, and all measurements of power have been against small weak countries with crazy governments, and drug lords. last big thing we saw was vietnam, how did that go? and what about korea, their still divided! noreaga, that damned fool isn't even a leader! he's being held in a federal prison in or near miami! osama and saddam are in hiding, the soviet union may have broken apart, but they're still around, and have also managed to maintain a large military force. economically, china isn't exactly under the gun either, there's is more or less on a rise, and ours, well, you know how that's been going. never base a militarys strength on the size of its guns, or it's size. three americans could cill thirty iraqis, while no americans were killed. who is to say that it couldn't be the other way around some day?

besides the USA has fought and won as many wars.

We are the best for a reason.

China's agenda to continue development of advanced weapons should be a concern for the West. The reported purchase by China of the Russian advanced anti-ship missiles should be sounding alarm bells at the Pentagon. I doubt all this Chinese investment in military hardware is for show alone.

The investment in new armour is more than likely aimed at strengthening China's ability to guard her borders and to be able to deal with any trouble at home. Remeber - it was tanks that the Red Army used to subdue the Tianamenn Square protests. Tanks are not only a formidable weapon against armies but are also very good at subdueing civilian populations. Look to Israel, Iraq and others for examples.

The fact that this tank carries a bigger gun doesn't make it all that special. With the technology of modern armour advancing so quickly in recent years it makes sense to pack more of a punch. The disadvantage is that your tank is going to be heavier and slower though. As the US has just proven - mobility in an armoured confrontation wins battles. From what I've read, the Chinese tanks are nowhere near the technological standard that the Wests tanks have achieved.
Sure, they've got the brains and the will to create better weapons in the future, but it's highly unlikely that a US tank would ever face a Chinese tank in battle simply because the conflict would have to take place in a situation where the two countries could meet face to face in conventional battle. Any conflict between the US and China is unlikely to range tank formations against each other. Perhaps the only scenario where this would be possible is if the US invaded a neighbouring country next to China and the Red Army sent regular forces to fight (or vice versa). However, this is highly unlikely. A conventional war between the US and China is not on the cards for the forseeable future.

I can kill a tank with my bare hands, even the Abrams lost to me once. albet it was close though! LOL

energy_wave

posted on 03/17/2003 at 11:05
besides the USA has fought and won as many wars.

We are the best for a reason.

many nations have been around longer than us. if you look through chinas history, it's fought more wars than a lot of places, including us. won, not sure. those damned mongolians got them pretty good. but i know they've battled since they're beggining. it's all good though.

I have to agree with the automatic loader thing, it's a piece of crap, if that tank had a man loading it i would say it's pretty damned good, but the automatic loader takes it down alot

As far as the autoloader goes, it depends on who makes it.

The Russian T-72 used an autoloader, and the gunner wasnt careful, he got loaded with the shell as he was sitting right next to it. (Killed more than a couple gunners as I understand it, and permanently disabled many more)

I believe the latest generation German Panzer and the British Chieftan use autoloaders that work just fine, although I may be wrong on this.

Originally posted by Leveller
A conventional war between the US and China is not on the cards for the forseeable future.

I disagree wtih you strongly because if a war does break out against US and China(which is very likely very soon) both the navies of both countries would be destroyed. And our airforce would be greatly reduced but still win. The only way to beat themis to take it conventionaly as you say throguh land powers. Also even with the new armor the abrams has a very high first shot rate and I doubt the new tank could repell spent uranium shells. The only advantage it would have would be if it was faster and more monuverable. And i us americans probly have a few tricks up our sleeve/

Actually, if a TRUE war (all out, not preengineered) broke out between the US and China, it would likely be over in less than 6 hours (and likely without the use of nukes).

I believe there would be a very fast deployment of scalar weapons on both sides, and likely there would be severe loss of life on both sides. The outcome would totally depend on who was able to power up the largest transmission, and concentrate it over the widest strategic area first.

What do you mean by scalar please elaberate. I dont understand you drgronrider//

Very good descriptions of scalar weapon usage.

216.247.92.101...

Originally posted by ELSFAW

Like dog fighting, the skill with the tank is more important than the strength of the tank, or we'd never have won WW2 because the Tigers could kill our tanks at 10 times the range.

The Tiger I & II MBT had a 88mm. The Sherman had a 75mm. So,I'm not sure the tigers had 10 times the Sherman range.

Also, the problem ( for the germans ) was the USA had 10 or 20 tanks while the germans had only 1 tank. 10 VS 1, you know who's the winner. The tigers tanks were lethal cuz they had a terrible weapon ( the 88 mm ) and a fantastic armor ( for that era ). It was a deadly arrangement. Fortunately, the germans were not able to produce the tiger on a great scale.

It show us one thing. Even with a terrible weapon, you can lose the fight if you are outnumbered.

P.S : Don't forget the Panther too.

UP is correct, the Allies didnt win the war due to either superior technology or vastly superior fighting ability... we out produced them. The US in particular had far more industrialized ability than Germany, even when combining all of conquered European industrialization.

The fact of the matter is that both sides kept blowing up each others tanks. We were able to replace those tanks that were destroyed on our side faster than the Germans were able to.

the description fits the black eagle tank that russia is making for korea.

Isnt that the same as the T-81?

Originally posted by dragonrider
Isnt that the same as the T-81?

there is a t81??..

it is based on the T80U

A most interesting point of the scalar weapons dragonrider..... they are news to me. The tank that the are producing could in all possiblity use spent uranium rounds as well so the hit kill ratio in a fight would be about even on both sides. As to the mass production i think that china would have us beat because of their population, it just overwhelms us. However if a war did break out i believe that the us would win because of the support we could pull from allies and the military that we have. I think that the russians would be quick to enter our side of the war if it did happen at all.