How to Destroy Chinese Tanks?!

[@jankalivoda1196]

Theyr export light tanks have ERA side armor because they are intended to be exported into africa, where guerrila warfare is common place. Also china have wast numbers of tanks and this is probably a cost saving measure. Dunno if china will be ever involved in major war, but if yes, they are probably aming to be on the offensive, learning from soviet cold war tactic + using numbers to cover whole front and advance without need to protect your sides. Hope my opinion will lead to posotive conversation and opinion sharing :)

[@ComradeSalimDz]

Yes algeria use some chinese and russian tank.

[@Fauzanarief-n7i]

And also China are heavily focus on their navy,marine and airforce. Because most of the battle probably occur between strait of Taiwan, South China sea or east china sea

[@jingqiao5988]

Cost saving seems to be true. And China has be avoiding a full blown continental war with say Russia for nearly a century.

[@Fish-kz8xw]

What I think in my opinion is that the quality of armor that export variants receive is poor compared to their domestic in order to make it cheaper.

[@dimasakbar7668]

I dont think they will field equally powerful tank even if they could, since China use soft power power projection than hard power. Their advancement are not to overcome, but to be equal on paper. They rather use the cash to curry favour and winning by concession. Its like historical Chinese empire, all roads lead to China but this time, there will be enough fang just to remind the foreigner prospect of coming out at the very least bloodied even if victorious should they try to redo opium war.

[@CaptainSeato]

5:33 - "Why is the export tank better protected than the domestic?" Because China's domestic tanks aren't expected to face RPGs/ATGMs from Chinese citizens they are running over.

[@Hadeshands]

😂

[@lolasdm6959]

I think it's mostly money saving for the army, for example, Chinese troops for a long time only get body armor when they get depolyed overseas on UN missions where they expect to be shot at. Currently China probably doesn't expect to use any of those tanks in battle.

[@ecpgieicg]

There seems to be an overall approach to choose a strict weight limit and historically speaking at least high autonomy. Both are definitely limited by cost as well. Cost is such an overlooked idea in the West.

[@ecpgieicg]

The other thing is side ERA panel is rather easy to add when actually in conflict

[@92HazelMocha]

@Jjohnno 87 I think they were also just finishing up development on a new ERA too, so this would make sense.

[@mostlymessingabout]

@@ecpgieicg possibly. But when there are no evidence of them at all it probably means none were developed or tested so won't be available in combat anytime soon

[@joelau2383]

@@mostlymessingabout So you think their ERA development teams made those ERAs have been getting paid for years without developing or testing new ERA?

[@draxe9121]

Interesting video. I would not take the absence of add on armour as indicative of what to expect in a conflict however. You have pointed out that the Chinese have the expertise and capability to equip their vehicles with advanced add on armour and active protection systems. I expect that the Chinese army would do the same as most armies that employ armoured vehicles. Additional armour of any sort is added to meet operational requirements. During training It adds unnecessary weight that significantly increases wear and tear to a vehicle. This results in increased operational costs, reduced availability, and a shorter lifespan for the equipment. In the case of explosive reactive armour, it introduces a unwarranted additional element of hazard. If we start to see a massing of Chinese vehicles sporting a full complement of add on it may be cause for serious worry.

[@grizzles9652]

I think the reason is because China does not intend to get involved in any wars where the side protection is necessary. China is preparing for near pier adversaries not insurgent warfare. The only major nation to operate a large number of tanks with side ERA and addon protection as standard really is just Russia and other Eastern European countries. That level of side protection is not necessary in large scale conflicts. We can see that in the Abrams/Leopards and Leclerc. They only receive addon armor when being sent to fight insurgents.

[@The_Crimson_Fucker]

And, to be perfectly fair, this is almost entirely as a result of their experiences with insurgent warfare in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and similar conflicts. Furthermore, a lot of the countries in Eastern Europe - especially places like the Balkans - are far more concerned with infantry anti-tank weapons, light armored vehicles and ambush tactics than frontline armored warfare. Lastly, side protection and ERA blocks are a fairly cost effective way to _technically_ bump up the protection on your vehicles without spending the money, time, resources and political capital you may need to overhaul or upgrade your tanks primary defensive features. You'd be surprised just how much that shit can count when your entire political system is based on who's pocketing the largest share of the national budget.

[@91plm]

You might be correct on the logic, but the last 100 years warfare xp show you can't just go around cities, urban combat is necessary. Insurgent fighting doesn't require addon armor: it's the urban warfare that does and regular armies will create strogholds in cities.

[@solarc4667]

I agree to an extent that yes maybe you don't really need side armour when engaging at long range with infantry or tanks but side armour is extremely necessary for close quarters and urban combat where infantry can just pop up on your side with short range at weapons the Russians learned this the hard way in during the battle of grozney in the 1994-95 battle of Grozny where small highly mobile at teams destroyed quite a few of the russian armour assets Now i do agree that part of the problem was Russian infantry not really leaving the apcs to clear out buildings but aide armor is still very valuable also yes the Americans do use side armor especially during close quarters urban operations. your tank doesent need to be fighting other tanks to get knocked out. A infantry man with a small portable at rocket launcher can do the same job very well if you are careless.

[@The_Crimson_Fucker]

@@solarc4667 No offense but your entire comment was completely unnecessary. Grozny wasn't exactly near peer now was it? The type of combat you're describing is precisely the type of insurgent/guerrilla/ambush warfare the both of us mentioned above. "long range engagements with infantry and tanks" is exactly what most people image near peer warfare will look like(ignoring air and strategic elements here). You didn't really add anything or disagree to anything, you just...kinda proved you've got questionable reading comprehension. Resist the urge to say something when you've got nothing to say, for your benefit.

[@robertkalinic335]

I disagree, as many people already mentioned you need side armor in urban combat but also whenever terrain doesnt cooperate with you because smart defender will use overlapping fields of fire obstructed from your view. Your assumption that western tanks only get it when going to fight insurgency and it isnt useful in large scale conflicts doesnt really hold since its the only time they actually go to combat and maybe they put cage era and whatnot down during peacetime to ease maintenance.

[@RubbittTheBruise]

One big barrier to destroying Chinese tanks is that you would have to go into a land war on the Chinese mainland. Which you'd have to be lunatic to do. So the tanks are great to do.the job they are needed to do. Train cheaply.

[@LordLebu]

Or you can be a Mongol *sound of horse hoofs and throat singing in the background*

[@catisbetterthandog4688]

So china just wouldn’t operate tanks outside of the Chinese mainland? So when or if china invades Taiwan you just won’t be able to destroy a chines tank because they won’t be used in any operations outside of the Chinese mainland? Makes sense lol

[@91plm]

I think they designed the needed technologies to better protect the tanks but don't install them because it's too expensive. If war starts however, i bet they have a fast-track plan for quick instalment, maybe even on the field by the troops.

[@92HazelMocha]

Kind of like how in the US light armor at home never has the protection, via ERA or cages that you see overseas. It only complicates training and wastes money.

[@cosmoray9750]

Retired Judge's Reflection kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKO0aJ2jidyEqKs

[@Ghboy2]

That is what I am suspecting too. As shown with the "inferior" export models, they certainly have the knowledge and capability to mass produce all those enhancing accessories for their main service tanks, but just choose (I guess?) not to. Notice how even the commander on a modern domestic tank like the ZTZ-99A doesn't have a remote secondary gunner station, but still has to peek out in order to use the QJC-88 mount? But if you look at the export variants of all contemporary Chinese MBTs, even export 2nd generation tanks, they are all equipped with a quite advanced remote controlled QJC-88 station for the commander lol

[@MY-zj8pb]

Export versions are assumed to go to war. China tanks aren't at war so no point fully equipping them in training. Just how troops don't have body armour but whe they are station overseas they are fully equipped with all the gadgets and armour

[@christosvoskresye]

I think you're right. China has not needed to equip their tanks for combat because they have declined to invade Middle Eastern countries. Aside from a recent skirmish with India, they haven't really had to use their military for much more than suppressing the protests in Tiananmen Square.

[@RSID]

China has no immediate threats from land. The only rival country that can threaten them is India, but they're divided by the Himalays, so you can rule them out. The main bulk of their budget is going to the Navy, since it's a hostile neighbourhood out there. With the US Pacific fleet and Japan.

[@AHalz]

When will the Chinese actually use their tanks though? Against India, they can’t bring any heavy armor due to the heavily mountainous border. Against Taiwan, even trying to get light tanks across the strait will prove to be extremely difficult. Hence there doesn’t seem to be a strong use case for the Chinese to have the best protected tanks. Their export variants are a lot better protected these days simply because that is what other countries demand

[@92HazelMocha]

I think they're a mainly a deterrent? They wouldn't really have a place in any conflict that wasn't on the Chinese mainland.

[@sigmaprime4307]

Weapons are often rather exported than used by their manufacturer.

[@quisqueyanguy120]

They do have light tanks to fight in the mountains

[@danghoangluong2942]

VIetnam or Russia

[@gaiofattos2]

North Korea and Russia maybe as allies or else.

[@probegt75]

If you can score a hit in the gap between the turret and the main body with an ATGM you'll destroy pretty much any tank out there. That's where they taught us to aim. Also in the rear or try taking out the tracks as a last resort.

[@tonyl7286]

China doesn't expect to fight guerilla wars. Their tanks are deployed in areas where large scale armored engagements between professional armies are likely, hence the role of additional side protection is negligible. Most cold war MBTs have terrible side protection, and Chinese tanks take after their design and doctrine. It's only after Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, etc. where countries started to pay extra attention to additional protection from handheld weapons on armored vehicles. Also, most of China isn't actually tank-friendly from a geographical perspective; the PLA tries to put most of its tanks in more open areas (Northeast, Xinjiang, Vietnam border, parts of the Yellow River, Inner Mongolia) or in strongholds close to the Yellow and East China Sea - areas where tanks can exploit their maneuverability and frontal armor. But despite this, it's still a bit naïve on the PLA's part to not equip any tank with side ERA, since Chinese troops may see a lot of close-quarters fighting with armored support. The possibilities of close quarters ambush/hit and run attacks may make the PLA change their minds.

[@Kristof1]

the only place that their wouldn't have to fight guerilla war is in Vladivostok areas and the Mainland Central asia - Good luck Indochina - We've already seen this one India - Boy o boy like you said, its only a hit and run and it's gone.

[@werrkowalski2985]

Most cold war MBTs do have terrible side protection, but that also means that their new tanks follow outdated design principles. It is true that most of China is not tank-friendly, but at the same time also China is so large that the part that is tank friendly is still quite large.

[@tomk3732]

Cold war era tanks had poor side protection b/c there was no good protection available. Look at WWII - here importance of side protection started to show up - in WWII - we are talking 1943! Look at side skirts on old Panzer 4s. Now look at the same panzers in say France (few were in Poland) or in Soviet Union in late 1941. Since nothing better was available for decades - it was used like this for decades. Then Soviets developed ERA and started putting it - but where - obviously the first place it went was for most vulnerable - turret, front etc. But this was already 80s - we are talking ERA being standard on T-72B - it was optional on A model. Also first models of ERA were not good against any kinetic ammo at all - only kontakt-5 started to offer some kinetic protection. Even tanks such Abrams only recently started to add armor to the sides - and its not just close combat vs. infantry - infantry have weapons that can strike from miles away plus there is kinetic protection as well.

[@jameshailerthepostmaster4389]

And the fact that China Has no Experience in modern Warfare and Urban Warfare, and the essential countermeasures against it.

[@tranquoccuong890-its-orge]

here is a general plan from the modern vietnamese perspective: since our border with china doesnt have that much flat open terrain (except for coastal areas), most anti tank would be done by rocket launcher, atgm, recoiless gun & older anti tank gun in ambush of course thats just the ground battle only, disregarded the air space situation

[@oboknb1oboknb147]

China has active defense solutions and options. Pakistan's Chinese imported VT-4 tanks were photographed with side/skirt mounted reactive armor plus extra thick/double-mounted reactive armor mounted on the front. So, additional armor fittings obviously depends on the needs and situations. Retro-fitting any additional armor is no problem given China manufacturing capacity and speed.

[@rotoface5469]

I think China do have an armour package but they have no reason to use it because they aren't at war Yet

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

Yup. And of course they already have the armor packages. If they don’t their export variants won’t have them lol but they do meaning China is fully capable of attaching them

[@jagdpanther2224]

China perfer light tanks not the heavy tanks! Mobility and maneuverability comes first!

[@chenko9238]

@@jagdpanther2224 that's true Especially in guerilla warfare East Asia is pretty much full of jungles and forest And the Japanese used that speed advantage against the Americans during ww2 to defeat them with lighter tanks

[@left-2-write28]

@@chenko9238 I havent ever really heard of japanese light tanks consistantly defeating american tanks. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm sure it did, but from my limited amateur understanding of the Pacific theater, the Japanese use of light tanks was more due to their own inability to transport heavier tanks, which was what they based their doctrine around, not vise versa.

[@liltigris4335]

I think China tanks are more like those old school orthodox tanks: They simply don't participate in those urban grinder fights. They are designed for the only purpose to destroy enemy tanks, so side protection in a way is not as necessary while you have to cut weight for more mobility (1500 HP can still be a little limited lol). But still, this is only my guess.

[@ooxx201]

These tanks were supposed to fight with Soviet Union's T72 and T80 on the Mongolian steppe. But the Soviet Union suddenly disappeared in 1991, thus the eastern Kursk battle will never happen, and the priority to upgrade tanks is very low for PLA.

[@ooxx201]

@John Grigg let me tell you what china wants: 1. Unify Taiwan 2. Build a huge free-market that covers China, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia. 3. Ensure the security of China's trade with Europa and Africa. What China pursuing is a new local area economic system that is not under US's control. This system will ensure China's economic development in the future, and the final target, become a developed country in 2050. This is CPC's promise to all people. If CPC cannot achieve it, it will in very very big trouble. CPC can rule China without election because it realized every promise it made. Every time CPC makes a promise, people believe that will come true for sure. China will only take the territory it claimed in 1949, no less and no more,. this is a promise. Taking Taiwan back is mandatory, but taking more territory is not.

[@vivelarevolution2835]

@John Grigg the last statement is fails though, xi doesnt have limitation in his term, but he wont be there for any longer than 10-20 years, the chinese government is more of parlimentary more than dictatorship with 7 most powerfull figure, they can be rival and many has be there before xi, and all of them are elected through parliment election and xi wont be able to appoint any because he dont have the power to do so

[@vivelarevolution2835]

@John Grigg but still, the chinese government did not try to conquer it by force but rather a peaceful unification, that would definitely a triump for the chinese in the diplomatic field, which is what they desperately need right now

[@riza-2396]

@John Grigg China naver said anything about Colonization, the entire neo colonialism is just white people from EU and USA imagining what China will do from their dark history, they use black slaves so they imagine China will use slave workers in 21th century an era that China actually use MACHINES, they also think China is seeking for colony because they have commited crimes like that before, they always think others are the same evil empires like them

[@timc513]

I think China is focusing on its navy and air force, not too many major upgrades for its army lately.

[@RusskiBlusski]

actually, their infantry received new helmets, body armour and weapons very recently. Those new helmets can actually mount NVGs now, and the body armor is actually ceramic instead of thin steel plates. Those Chinese are up to something.

[@ihatecabbage7270]

@@RusskiBlusski I mean getting new tech makes for a good morale, they can't stuck with old ass rifles forever.

[@the80386]

yep. getting new toys boost morale for the boys!

[@timc513]

@@RusskiBlusski well yeah, but comparing with those new 055 cruisers , new aircraft carriers, new 2 seats j-20s and drones. What the army got wont change alot. Beside, got rid of those old ass type 59 tanks and adopted type 08 8X8, turing those "armour divisions" to something like a stryker brigades, this is major upgrade to me.

[@talltroll7092]

@@RusskiBlusski They are trying to convert to a "quality" army, instead of a "quantity" one. Those young men are better employed (literally) in the real economy where their demographics are burdening the under-65s hugely, and a few million extra bodies will really help

[@georgedang449]

As ppl already pointed out, they (or even our own M1A2s) don't mount armor packages unless the need arise. I'd like to point out one other thing - those blocks are not ERAs, they're modular composite blocks. There's no such thing as irregular shaped and sized ERAs - they would affect reactive explosive characteristics.

[@mackam440]

I would take the export version as an example of what china would do during a war. I.e. fit ERA side skirts etc. No point in having it on prior is there? Gives potential enemies insight and could result in damage during training

[@stc2828]

The "armor" on the backside of the turret is not armor, it's a thin sheet of metal for storage. If you simply look carefully at the left side of the turret at 2:20 you can see it's an empty sheet of metal. So yes there is only side protection near the front, and that makes a lot of sense.

[@Bytional]

I see nearly 40 years of anti terrorist/guerrila warfare really change their tactic and weapon design in the west. But remember, China never had any of these wars nor it intends to fight one, fighting in a urban environment where your tank can get hit from all sides is the very thing China tries to avoid, they have seen how even American and Russian failed in this. Sure they can upgrade their tank with ERA, mount expensive optic on their infantry rifles, but once they fight like American in Afghanistan or Russian in Chechnya, they will lose like American and Russian.

[@alessandromsk3195]

Vietnam, Tibet, sinkjiang

[@Bytional]

@@alessandromsk3195 none of these place is likely to have a major conflict, and even it does happen, these places are unsuitable for MBT operation.

[@Bakotcha]

@@Bytional uhmm.. have you ever heard about the Sino-Viet war?

[@Bakotcha]

@@jack99889988 That's interesting stuff, I'd like to read your source mate. Can you provide us with one?

[@Bytional]

@@Bakotcha Yes, and if u read more about that war, u know how it was fought, most of the tanks China and Vietnam deployed were light or amphibious tanks, but even they had a hard time in the mud and juggle. The lesson China learn from that war: they need more IFV , light all terrain transport vehicles and serious number of heavy heli, not tanks.

[@NathanBonsal]

There is a good strategy possibility- to develop side active armor systems and stockpile them, but not mount them to tanks unless you're engaged in a conflict involving your tanks. There is NO reason to actively display the capabilities of your MBT in full battle dress prior to their use in combat. Automatic and passive systems like active armor also don't need to be mounted to fully train your tank crews. I would not think that they would field a MBT without considering all angles for armor. And I can think of a lot of good reasons to not fully dress your tanks when not in combat.

[@Alex-ee5pl]

This sounds good until you actually need ERA and vaporize nearby friendly infantry because you trained without it

[@NathanBonsal]

@@Alex-ee5pl if you train with separation as if you had ERA then you don't actually have to discuss the ERA system for that tank much

[@ChaosSebastian]

@@Alex-ee5pl you think the party cares about their infantery ? You might want to read up on China's track record...

[@georgedang449]

@@Alex-ee5pl None of Chinese MBTs are meant to be infantry support tanks. None of them are assigned to mechanized infantry, all assigned to pure tank battalions. No infantry should be anywhere close to it, much less using it as cover. They're not Israelis. Different battlefield, different doctrine.

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

Perhaps they simply don’t mount the era because they have no need to? Like maybe they have all the side protection but they are just not attached untill the need arises.

[@beefstew6512]

thats like not giving your troops guns because they dont need it at home, i think its a cost issue

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

@@beefstew6512 nah the difference is that soldiers need to train with their guns. tank crews don't need to train with some extra ERA

[@92HazelMocha]

@@beefstew6512 But soldiers *don't* walk around with rifles at home. They stay in the armory until they're used in training and then go right back. Only in combat zones do soldiers always have their weapons on them.

[@beefstew6512]

@@92HazelMocha i meant as in home country

[@left-2-write28]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldnt the extra ERA add more weight to the tank, meaning that it would maneuver differently? Idk, it might not weigh enough to make any difference, but that's the first thing I thought about.

[@tinetales-v.0217]

It's not for a War. It's only for a Parade to show how vast their Armoured Division.

[@thomaszhang3101]

Oh no, our Strategic Fooling Department had failed its job.

[@yuluoxianjun]

It is time for Strategic Threaten Department

[@flameablelucifer1066]

Have ever wondered why do their sideskirts have one small square hole on eachs? Yes, those are created to attach the armor package, they can attach either cage or era blocks on them. They just don't put them due to inconvenience.

[@flameablelucifer1066]

Also they don't bother to put an additional armor such as ERA on the lower glacis is simply because the thickness of the chemical defense is not something to be worried of since they are capable up to 1500mm+. Even against kinetic projectile it is still considerably strong and competed that of the M1A2s at around 850mm+. Because in fact they designed it to have more composite armor on the lower glacis compared to the upper glacis, the other thing is atgm mostly aimed at the centre of the target, hencewhy they put the ERA blocks on the upper glacis by default.

[@flameablelucifer1066]

Oh i was talking about the Type 99A, not the T-70 or T-90 hull based Type 99. On Type 99 it is indeed really lacking armor on the lower glacis since it is considerably small to get hit to begin with, that is why Russian's don't bother with it, so does China with their Type 99.

[@flameablelucifer1066]

As for the VT-4 or Type 90-II hull based, they have huge lower glacis compared to the others, surely it is weaker than the Type 99A, but it is still far capable of that the Type 85-II or Type 80/88 variants.

[@zwen3763]

Cost cutting. A large number of tanks are essential but at the same time very low on the priority list for China.

[@TheKevinFanClub526]

I wounder how would all the different shapes of ERA affect logistics.

[@davidgirkin7733]

Would the lack of side armor be something that could be modularly added if it was needed? Have an entire variant ready to go that could allow ERA to be added rapidly to vehicles that might need it. This really screams of being a peace time cost saving measure that could be quickly modified and scaled up if it needed to be.

[@kishibenoa3346]

ofc since it's not rocket science, if they can do that on export variants, they can mass produce and do that at home

[@velentr]

You mirror my thoughts almost to a T. Another salient point would be; exactly whom would be crazy enough to involve themselves in land war fought within mainland China?

[@noobikus5475]

@@kishibenoa3346 yes, but it takes time to Equip your Tanks and the chinese should do it before trying to start shit.

[@kishibenoa3346]

@@noobikus5475 they are not at war with anyone currently, some small frictions with Indian for sure, but they have already deployed some fully equipped light tanks and APCs around the border. Unlike US just pulled out from Afghanistan, ending a 20 yr war, every m1 Abrams you see in the photo are mounted with ERA, because they been constantly at war for ages

[@dvls442]

Probably yes, its basically the same with Western tanks tbh which unlike Russians have no ERA. Thats cuz if there was a conflict they'd be quickly modified and Western armor would become vastly superior than Russians. Main thing is its supposed to compete without ERA while being able to have it added if necessary, thats what makes western vehicles vastly superior imo. Cuz without era = they can compete, with era which is super cheap, fast and easy to add = much better vehicles.

[@mattipps]

“Quantity has a quality all its own.”

[@OB_JUAN]

I believe this would change in the case of war. No need to mount extra weight onto a tank for training purposes.

[@noobikus5475]

To get the logistics and Equipment process Running is a time Consuming act.

[@liran547]

@@noobikus5475 if facing a war, they will prepare, but no conflict in the near future, no need for the extra body amor, cause these things have expire dates, just as body amor, btw, china is the largest manufator of the body amor kits, but its army dont wear them in day to day training at all, no need if you dont go to war with some countries constanly, like the US...

[@Bialy_1]

@@noobikus5475 " is a time Consuming act." Yea few hours and the job should be over for the crew of the tank... NATO also have vehicles that can be easly modified and you can bust this armor, for example Polish KTO Rosomak, you can easly replace panels if they are damaged or mount heavier panels if extra protection is needed.

[@liran547]

@@rottingravensblood9106 so you are saying the buyers are stupid or blind? China do business better and fairer then westerners as always

[@cristobalalvarez5491]

Makes no sense since Uwant the crew to be adapted to the tank in the stress of combat with the armor it’s merely just games

[@jonsong4592]

I think its going to be a bigger problem if they do start putting ERA on the tanks, which would imply combat readiness. Export VT5s have additional armor because they are combat ready. Kind of like how medieval knights dont do their daily training in full armor either.

[@shrektheogre5755]

The onion division can beat the us, Russian, and Chinese military with little to no effort

[@wheneggsdrop1701]

They french? No way!

[@TheCrimsonZ_Hunter]

But can you defeat Arjun?

[@muuphnyi]

@@TheCrimsonZ_Hunter Of course they can't. Don't be ridiculous

[@zachreal-09]

Russian tanks specifically the T14 have excellent crew protection

[@TR33ZY_CRTM]

@@TheCrimsonZ_Hunter Arjun MBT stronk

[@kde5fan737]

So I'm wondering if something like a 20 or 30mm AP round would penetrate the whole way through the side armor? I'm talking about something like the 20mm vulcan with a tungsten core.

[@mingshili9769]

I guess auto cannons with apds can kill any modern mbt from side, since many of them have over 100mm pen, even you have ERA, a long burst on side could still be very lethal to any mbt.

[@leneanderthalien]

Penetration doest depend from caliber, but from velocity and shell hardness/weight, but a 20mm vulcan cannot because the propellant charge from the 20x 102mm ammo is way too low to allow enought speed...

[@obliviouz]

Man, I'm a blue collar worker in a big Western country city centre. If I ever meet a Chinese tank in battle, *something has REALLY gone wrong*.

[@zluke1384]

LOL~Don't worry mate it won't happen, we hate war but we are not afraid of it. We prefer not to invade people's homes.

[@jr8147]

@@zluke1384 China is trying to invade Taiwan wym? lmao

[@Phunny]

@@jr8147 That’s just posturing. Why would China spend the time to invade the island when the mainland’s economic sanctions or an economic blockade would almost immediately cripple Taiwan’s economy?

[@1treation_443]

@@jr8147 TW is an internal affair of China. Thank u🤓

[@ahtheh]

Having Chinese tanks are like having a shot gun in your house in the 21st century. Most of the time it's useless but it's low maintenance and other people will think twice before messing with you

[@harryw4480]

Good work comrade! The Strategic Fool You Agency needs you!

[@eslSlightz]

Maybe the Chinese tanks would get fitted with ERA if they would go into an actually "hot “ conflict 😉

[@petersmythe6462]

Perhaps this signals a highly great power oriented mentality for these tanks. Unlike export variants where side protection is given more concern.

[@lucisleesion8824]

Modern warfares are systematical, and informative wars are fought before everything. In other words, you wanna beat Chinese tanks, go for China air force first. You wanna beat the Chinese air force, go get informatics first, etc.

[@kdrapertrucker]

You want to beat Chinese tanks you sink them in the Taiwan straits before the invasion fleet reaches Taiwan. Remember, it doesn't matter how Good China's warships and aircraft are if the PLA troop transports are on the seafloor.

[@sayitnow7748]

@@kdrapertrucker says the overconfident westerner 😂😂😂

[@CJONTHEHOUSE]

@@kdrapertrucker im sure you know everything about war, colonel

[@didyoumissedmegobareatersk2204]

@@kdrapertrucker Only thing that Gets into sea floor is that overrated piece of scrap Called F35 which divs like a submarine

[@OhFookinELL]

Any direct hit on any tank would be a kill with anti tank weapons.

[@6565hopepy]

Hi Red effect. I think when the real war start Type99 will start putting on side armor. Now in the peace time PLA think it is a waste of resource

[@combatmuffin3192]

But you never know when a real war starts

[@TK-pl9cu]

@@combatmuffin3192but first there are other means of defense before they would need to use their tanks

[@Ilovecruise]

@@combatmuffin3192 large country IMINT system definitely knew the incoming of war days, if not week before event occur

[@jonseilim4321]

RedEffect's community is such a breath of fresh air from western "chinabad", most everyone is rational and loves tanks

[@JadeoftheGlade]

China is bad. This is a rational statement.

[@Jake-dh9qk]

From the looks of it, the Chinese MBT is more or less a tank destroyer. It's intended role is to eliminate other tanks first and foremost. Patrolling, infantry-support roles mare secondary. I'm guessing they will use the tanks to eliminate all other tanks so that their APCs and IFVs can advance and take care of the infantries.

[@jagdpanther2224]

We(Chinese) perfer light tanks! Not heavy tanks!

[@left-2-write28]

@@jagdpanther2224 sure have a lot of heavy tanks tho.

[@samhilton8788]

I love how this information is so casually available on the internet lol

[@pabcu2507]

Just call in bob semple, there job done

[@jamebrooke894]

Well it's good to know their consistent!

[@greenmagic8ball198]

When is a RedEffect making a infantry anti-tank weapon tier list? 😆

[@MrToastercide]

I think you may be missing the point that hardkill and ERA tends to 'deter' friendly infantry support.

[@1joshjosh1]

Oh jee thanks RedEffect. Now the Chinese know how to improve their tanks! 😥

[@123zhc]

Depends on the intended enemies. These tanks are more likely equipped to fight major powers, so the added armor won't make any actual difference. Kind of like not wearing expensive and heavy medieval armor to a modern gun fight.

[@leekaijit36]

I don't think that the tank weak points was major issue when you get the air superiority... PLA tank forces were mostly utilize in large scale wars (some tank used in extreme terrains or environment), rarely use in urban due to (Mostly) Rocket (Artillery) forces and Air force perform a clean sweeping any military units or position at priority first wave combat... And even having tank enter the urban warfare, the tank were rather became as infantry mobile assault guns (See the Infantry-Tank collaboration tactics)...

[@henryachey1441]

I'm an old Cavalry Trooper, the easiest way to disable any tank is so simple, a couple of plastic bags. Now you've got to get close but in combat your already dead. Just fill the intake with plastic bags and it will stop running. Also with an armor piercing round out of a 50 cal shoot the bore evacuator one died it will lock back out of battery and cannot be fired.

[@thunder_chunder6491]

It's simple, domestic tanks are cheap and needed in numbers, export need to compete with better western tanks and try to offer similar features for less.

[@crocidile90]

That and systems testing, trial by fire is the best way to get glitches and problems out before a major conflict. It can mean the difference between having 60% of you tank core obliterated before the problem can be fully solved and implemented to 10% or less losses as only minor things need fine tuning.

[@earle.education1385]

Nigga looks like lego tanks

[@name-yn6vu]

Chinese military tactics say that china isn't (supposed to be) going to fight an offensive war. It makes sense that they wouldn't place expensive armour to defend against ambushes on a tank that will be doing the ambushing.

[@-qsprey7881]

The real reason is that PLA’s army establishment goal is aimed at confrontation between major powers, or aimed at his only imaginary enemy: the US army (in fact, this has been the case since the Iraq War, pla has never seriously considered a full-scale military confrontation with India or Japan) . The military conflict between major powers is a system confrontation, not a single weapon confrontation. A weapon needs to play its specific role, rather than being designed to be strong and versatile. For example, the performance of the Tomahawk missile itself are not good ( Low speed, non-stealth, low mobility), but relying on the US Navy's extensive global deployment, as well as a large number of mature and reliable vertical launch devices, and a detailed and comprehensive satellite geographic information system, the combat effectiveness of the Tomahawk is unparalleled. China’s tank design ideas are somewhat similar. The People’s Liberation Army attaches great importance to battlefield informatization and electromagnetic countermeasures. They believe that if they do not take electromagnetic control of a certain area, then it is meaningless to send armored troops. Tanks only need to perform in certain scenarios and some parts of the role is enough. The combat environment of ztz99a is set to have strong battlefield information support. Various reconnaissance communication systems such as drones will clearly calibrate various threats and targets, so the tank does not need comprehensive/side protection. , He only needs to face the threat with the hardest shield. So you saw such a strange design, but there are also benefits. On the one hand, the cost is lower. On the other hand, the 99a's combat weight is about 56 tons, but it is equipped with a 1500 horsepower engine. It may be the most fast MBT. .

[@raw1175]

I am pretty sure America has learned this lesson but China is not been a real war since the 50s you cannot expect for one wonder Waffen to fix everything you will be in situations you would not like to be in that war you will be ambushed by people using RPG 7s

[@Phunny]

@@raw1175 He literally just said that different equipment is used to fill different roles and that there are no wonder weapons or systems. Larger countries don’t need to go to war to actually see what works and what doesn’t. They can get that information through IMINT and other intelligence-collecting methods by observing foreign militaries at war.

[@jawarakf]

@@raw1175 China and Russia war experience are based on their customers and testors (insurgents, militants) feedback, results that fought US & allies in war. Tandem charged warhead, new AT missiles, newer RPG are all part of Russia/China experiments for their military hardware and technology improvement

[@davidpankonin6650]

On would

[@陈文辉-u5z]

This is not a technical problem for China, nor is it a lack of funds. If China needs it, it can quickly modify all tanks according to the needs of the battlefield.

[@pashapasovski5860]

I think that destroying a single tank is probably possible no matter how well protected it is! But destroying a tank division that's going in with 100s of tanks and supporting vehicles is a different story! Chinese building anything, from infrastructure to hypersonic missiles, I have no doubt that they'll adopt faster than the invading forces! Besides Art of War is Chinese bestseller and they show only what they want you to see!

[@regizeelement8511]

Totally agree with you… Thank you Red Effect lol

[@werrkowalski2985]

Russia has developed a hypersonic missile way before them with a fraction of the budget.

[@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent]

It's unlikely they would. China has severe extremely severe issues with command and control to actually adapt. Plus against a foe that's experienced in modern combat. China in a conventional battle would lose. Especially against a enemy that is designed to destroy forces like China's current armed forces. Hence why china is hell bent on changing its army to one more fluid

[@pashapasovski5860]

@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent Like US ,that couldn't defeat poppy farmers in Afghanistan after 20 years made embrace to itself

[@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent]

@@pashapasovski5860 Sorry but the US was doing quite well against said poppy farmers. Its the fault of the Afghanistan government for not trying to keep its soldiers trained and motivated and the fault of the last US president in negotiating with a known enemy of the US that the fallout happened. Gurrellia fighters have always been the bane of modern forces. A low tech force that is not easy to take on. However we are not talking about that. We are talking about super powers and in a battle of actual powers. China would get beaten pretty hard by the US as its experienced in combat. Also lets remember Soviet Russia didn't exactly do well either.

[@Buzzard23100]

If you have a bulletproof vest, do you need to wear it all the time

[@abhilashyadav2274]

No . Only during sleep .

[@langcheng4480]

Is this whole series about teaching guerilla fighters how to destroy MBTs? Chinese tanks are designed to fight the Russian Army, and they are not guerillas with RPGs my pal.

[@V-V1875-h]

Just because they are designed for one thing doesn't mean they won't meet the other often

[@langcheng4480]

@@V-V1875-h I can't see China involved in any major counter insurgency operation any time soon.

[@V-V1875-h]

@@langcheng4480 if and when they take over Taiwan and they have a solid holdout there they may run into well armed militia, plus the countries they sell some older-ish tanks to fight them

[@starfoxdelta]

Can't wait to apply this newfound knowledge, good tutorial! :D

[@aburetik4866]

What gave this dude the courage to think he is "smarter" than the Chinese tank designer? 😂

[@Maaaattologyyyy]

? hahaha

[@left-2-write28]

I mean... I know nothing about tanks but what this guy was saying made a whole lot of sense. Idk if I'm getting r/whooshed rn but I dont think the idea of giving your tank armor so it doesnt die if its hit in any of a number of angles is dumb.

[@gasmaskalan1771]

Will be very useful in the future Will share with my friends

[@zongtaoli7721]

You can say that the overall "combat-readiness" of the PLA ground force is pretty low. Most Chinese equipment is at the "bare-minimum" configuration. When the situation escalates, PLA usually loads the equipment to a more sophisticated configuration. This logic applies to stuff like body armor, air-to-air missiles, and ofc ERAs for tanks. Like Chinese soldiers are not issued with armored plates if they are not serving on the borderlines. However, most of the armored vehicles sent to the Taiwan-front recently were seen to be loaded with ERAs everywhere and configured very differently compared to those vehicles we saw on parades and training. I think this explains why China chooses to load the export versions of the tanks with full protection but doesn't do the same to the domestic tanks; Going cheap is the way. As cheap as possible.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

Wrong. It's not about "going cheap".

[@torbai]

给他们解释干嘛，看评论区的乐子不就完了嘛。我最喜欢看这些乐子了，每次都能带给我无尽的欢乐

[@MichaelRosales777]

Frist time seeing your channel,it's all bout tanks that's badass👍

[@theredbar-cross8515]

Side mounted armor makes track maintenance a HUGE pain. Dismounting live ERA blocks is not only slow and tedious but also dangerous. This is why they don't bother with it. For export, it's something that the customer wants for a peace of mind, so they add it for them.

[@udaloy117]

I don’t think ERA blocks can detonate that easily

[@nhatlehong8803]

unless you can some how you can hit the ERA block faster than an autocannon (if it's a Kontakt-5) or top mounted MGs (for most other ERAs) then they is just a metal plate

[@irishkiwi477]

How to destroy a tank: S H O O T I T

[@unudo3359]

China is a country that does not like wars, and it has not had wars for 30 years. The United States has not been at war for only two years since its founding. Therefore, China is unwilling to invest in the military like the United States. But American behavior is forcing China to make changes. The Americans are deploying more and more troops near China and are helping the separatist Taiwan with a high profile. This has led to the rapid development of China's military power in response to the threat of war from the United States. China has ordered 900,000 pieces of body armor, and in the later period of President Trump's administration, China has entered second-level combat readiness. If the Americans change their belligerent character, China will be able to reduce military expenditures. But the reality is that Trump, as the only U.S. president who has not waged a foreign war, is the only U.S. president who has not won the Nobel Peace Prize for many years. Americans are proud of killing. This cannot be changed. Their peace awards are given to those who kill.

[@sylvainvanduyl6143]

Why Chinese tanks don't have ERA on the side and some export versions have?... Because of the weight? The ERA (full or empty) weight something. That wears down the tanks. Plus, ERA on the side could be damaged faster during driving and training. Maybe, when a war starts, ERA is being placed on the sides and Under side of the frontal plate.

[@hellomoto1426]

As an Indian infantryman , this helped me a lot . Thanks , the tanks we are facing now we know their weak points . I have konkurs atgm

[@hellomoto1426]

@@rottingravensblood9106 sure mate , I am from Martha light infantry and you ?

[@terozontondu]

they do have era on the sides there just not equipped at peace time the USA does the same for there Abrams for example you can see how Abrams that were in Iraq or Afghanistan have era and mesh cages but the tanks on the us mainland don't have the additional armor also the plate on the side of the turret for the ztz96 and ztz99 is a shot trap do not shot there you will die because there is nothing on the other end of that plate its purposely empty so a round can go through the turret without harming it and it makes the turret look larger than it actually is so that you will miss

[@elmagnificoroca]

Meanwhile the general staff at Taiwanese army headquarters : “Write that down ! Write that down! “

[@Maaaattologyyyy]

Haha

[@Strigon01]

Pretty sure the reason we dont see their tanks with any extra protection on them is most likely do to the fact that they arent in war time with anyone. No need to dress up the tank for just a simple drill at 4P.M. in the afternoon that last 40 mins and everyone goes back to the barracks and clean their equipment.

[@anuragmishra5312]

Thank you so much sir😊. You really made my day. One day, Indian Army and US Army will make these tanks into metal scrap. Love from India 🇮🇳.

[@didyoumissedmegobareatersk2204]

🤣🤣😂😂lmao build toilye

[@Relyt345]

Just a guess but I think if China widened their tanks it would throw a wrench into their transportation setups. That and the fact that their armed forces prioritize looking good statistically on paper.

[@tubecrafter9980]

Most common us ATGM TOW 2 should not have a problem with laser anti missle System of the 99 because it’s steered by cable from the origin point. It doesn’t steer itself.

[@ThisGuyAd.]

Does this apply in Squad?

[@obsidianstatue]

The simple answer is cost, in all likely scenarios where China might go to war, China simply doesn't need mass armor, there is no realistic scenarios where China's tank force would meet enemy armor in open plain, the only possible opponent is Russia, but China and Russia is on very good terms. The most likely scenario, being over Taiwan, where the opponent is poorly equipped and trained. especially their obsolete tanks, the need for superior armor is not that urgent. what will win the war over Taiwan is the air force, navy and marines/ infantry for urban warfare Even scenarios against India, heavy MBTs aren't that useful in mountainous areas, also keep in mind, despite the hordes of indian media fanning the flames, the border situation is nowhere near high enough for a war, none of the 2 sides even use firearms, let alone tanks. But the Type-15 light MBT are designed to be used in the Tibetan plateau where large MBTs would struggle to move at speed. The funding for the PLA today are mostly going into the Air Force and Navy, Even the Amphibious Brigades of the Army are being transferred to the Navy to serve as Marine Brigades

[@ricksanchez3176]

You see them now without the add ons. War breaks out, the plates, cages, and reactive come out of the warehouses.

[@KSCBob]

Thanks, i feel prepared for WW3 now. :)

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

Just move around so they have to drive the tanks. If they are built to the same standards as other Chinese products, they will break on their own.

[@a.bit.of.trolling7837]

69420- social credit. Lol

[@bobreil7464]

In an urban setting molotovs can be especially crippling because they can be dropped from rooftops or upper stories above armored vehicles where exhaust systems usually lead out to suck air into the engine

[@TheLittleMaestro2911]

Vt5 and vt-4 tanks are already using Zl-5 APS system..

[@xylem2202]

What's the background music in the video?

[@heavenyin5592]

Ok, the reason is simple: Type 96B without ERA can run faster in Tank biathlon. And when it comes to an export model, the ERA can make more cash LOL.

[@GusMortis]

Take out train tracks, fuel ammo and new tanks are usually transported by rail. Air drops are time consuming and expensive. Find them when parked and plug the barrels with liquid aluminum or lead. Tracks are a target always.

[@mottscottison6943]

Don't you think accessories like ERA panels could have been easily put on when the situation comes?

[@sfinami]

Remember the old Chinese tactic of the "human wave" attacks. If they do that with their tanks, they really won't need any kind of side armor.

[@bobsmoot2392]

That air gap on the side of the turret IS protection. Hend held, shaped charge weapons, like RPGs, are defeated by that gap. The plazma jet, looses focus in the gap.

[@forexman4894]

Can you explain the 30degree angle? Please

[@aquasport3078]

Don't forget US lost Korean War, and Vietnam War, plus during 1962 US and Russia supplied India with all kind of sophiscated weapons including tanks, and India lost the war in a hurry. The enemy probably won't even get to see the Chinese tanks before they see God.

[@sevn_f0rty_sevn726]

i am wondering, how you are still alive after year since you have published this

[@Bakotcha]

People saying that it is cost effective, could be equiped when the war is on and stuffs are not wrong. But the thing is, I don't see any hard point / mounts where the ERA could be placed on the side of the tank. Correct me if I'm wrong "I'm not an engineer" but to do that "placing ERA on the side mounts" they'll need some mountings and stuff. Oh and another thing that I saw from the comment regarding China not fighting any urban warfare style of war is wrong because a few decades ago they were invading Vietnam and.. yeah.. that did not go so well for them..

[@Kruemel98]

Works like this: 1. Search target with T-Pod 2. Press TOO (middle console block) a "1" get shown on top middle block digital display above the number block 3. Press "ENT" on the number block. the location is now T1 4. Search new target and repeat the procedure. the Target-point number automatically to "2" than "3" and so on 2.1. after you marked all Targets select the JDAM 2.2 when you selected the JDAM. On top left click TGTS, than you can select all target (you programmed), activate all targets you programmed 2.3 Fly into drop range and drop all bombs in a line 2.4 BOOM all selected targes are dead ;)

[@DJ_not_DJ]

I really hope that in a few years I won’t be sitting in a leopard 2A7 trying to remember the contents of this video

[@user-sm5sj6mg2t]

If I'm ever stuck fighting a defensive war against the Chinese, I'll remember to send you my kind regards for saving my ass.

[@yuluoxianjun]

lol

[@thegooddoctor2009]

Well considering the tanks are made in China, they'll all break down in under a month.

[@edvinarvlo3617]

How high quality is even The armour on those things?

[@ylstorage7085]

Sometimes you need an army to fight, sometimes you need an army just for show. Tony Stark may prefer the weapons you only need to fire once, but I still prefer what his dad said "the weapon you don't ever need to fire"

[@andrewbaker6908]

I am not an expert at all but if you can destroy the actual tracks of the tank it will be rendered immobile?Just like lasers don't work in the rain.

[@michaelbrett3749]

The reporter hopes these tanks will be improved with reactive side armour ......unbelievable

[@hypehype1982]

It's likely they don't think there is a huge chance of a large tank battle on Chinese soil. China doesn't have planes of invading anyone with large tank formations.