Thailand to Buy Battle Tanks from China

[Johpa]

What a F scam !!!!!

Perhaps, but a more compassionate F-scam than the manufacturing of endless wars engaged in by the Neo-Con cabal in the west.

[GinBoy2]

What a F scam !!!!!

Perhaps, but a more compassionate F-scam than the manufacturing of endless wars engaged in by the Neo-Con cabal in the west.

That is a fatuous bland statement which means almost nothing.

We're not comparing military actions of other countries, if we were, how about the Chinese, or how about the North Koreans, they seem quite willing to starve their own people to afford nuclear missiles!

[starky]

The MBT-3000 is a recent Chinese main battle tank, developed specially for export. It is also referred as VT-4. It is being marketed by NORINCO. It is an improved version of VT1A. The MBT-3000 is similar to the Type 99G which is currently in service with the PLA, but has downgraded capabilities such as sights, propulsion and gun. A model of this MBT was publicly presented in 2012. First pictures of this new tank appeared in 2013. It seems that the MBT-300 was proposed for Pakistan as an Al Khalid Mk.2.

This tank is not an entirely new design. It owns its existence to the Soviet T-72 of the Cold War era which has been around for over 30 years. The T-72 proved to be reliable but not too effective in combat. In the 1980s China obtained this tank from Romania and cloned it. The MBT-3000 is the culmination of decades of fine-tuning many tank systems that have been of Soviet origin. Also this tank shows some Western influence in its design. A number of improvements over the previous Chinese designs is substantial, however none of them greatly improved tank's performance.

The MBT-3000 uses proven technology and is cost-effective. This tank is being proposed for developing countries, interested in upgrading their inventory. The MBT-3000 is a superior and more expensive alternative to the VT2, that is another Chinese design for export. However this tank is no match for modern Western MBTs.

This Chinese tank has a low silhouette. It is a key T-72 feature. Hull and turret of the MBT-3000 is of welded steel construction with a layer of composite armor over the front arc. Official sources claim that side skirts are also made of composite armor. Also there are modular add-on explosive reactive armor blocks. The MBT-3000 has a redesigned turret with a wedge-shaped armor, similar to that of the Type 99G. Front arc protection has been improved comparing with the previous VT1A. Side skirts can be fitted with reactive armor. The tank has an NBC protection system. It is also fitted with new fire extinguishing and explosion suppression systems.

This machine is also fitted with passive countermeasures system. It links laser threat warning reviver with smoke grenade launching. It reduces the chance of being hit by enemy anti-tank guided weapons.

The MBT-3000 is armed with a fully-stabilized 125-mm smoothbore gun. The gun is fed by an automatic carousel-type loader. The autoloader reduces the tank crew to three and allow to reduce dimensions of the vehicle. Both the gun and autoloader were copied from the Soviet T-72. Loading speed is 8 rounds per minute. This tank fires APFSDS, HEAT and HE/HEF rounds. It is also compatible with gun-launched anti-tank guided missiles. These are Russian 9K119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) missiles, produced in China under license. Missiles are launched in the same manner as ordinary munitions. Missiles have a maximum range of 5 000 m. Typically four missiles are carried. This anti-tank guided missile capability is not common in Western designs. A total of 38 rounds are carried for the main gun. 22 of them are loaded into the autoloader and are ready to use. Other rounds are stored inside the hull.

There is also a coaxial 7.62-mm machine gun. Also the is a roof-mounted 12.7-mm machine gun. Initially it was manually operated by the vehicle commander. Later it became remotely controlled from inside of the tank. So the tank commander no longer has to expose himself to enemy fire.

The tank is fully digitalized and is fitted with a battlefield management system. Gunner and commander use a second-generation cooled thermal imagers. It seems that these sights were jointly developed with ASELSAN of Turkey. Fire control system has a hunter-killer capability. This tank can fire accurately on the move. Vehicle is also fitted with a GPS navigation system.

The MBT-3000 has a crew of three, including commander, gunner and driver.

It is claimed that this main battle tank is fitted with an indigenous turbocharged diesel engine, developing 1 300 hp. However it might actually be of Ukrainian origin. It is worth mentioning that the Chinese Army Type 99G is powered by a more powerful engine, developing 1 500 hp and based on a German design. Some sources report that the MBT-3000 might be also fitted with a more powerful diesel, developing 1 500 hp. Engine is mated to an automatic gearbox. This MBT has a

"Reliable but not too effective in combat" hahaha another well thought out purchase. I imagine the number 1 thing you would be looking for in a tank is its effectiveness in combat. Oh wait, unless you never intended to use it combat, and it was only a show pony to use to stand over your own people should they fail to toe the party line.

[Srikcir]

Thailand would be China's first customer for this tank that has yet to go to full production. China's tank combat experience was last seen outside of China when it invaded Vietnam in 1979 and withdrew after 29 days.

Despite that, Thailand’s army chief Teerachai Nakwanich said he had full confidence in the high quality and performance of Chinese hardware - “I have confidence in the performance since I personally went to see them.” Better make sure the tanks come with a money-bank guarantee.

[beautifulthailand99]

Hmm the Thai army - how good are they in a real fight with external enemies with all this kit....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai%E2%80%93Laotian_Border_War

[GinBoy2]

Hmm the Thai army - how good are they in a real fight with external enemies with all this kit....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai%E2%80%93Laotian_Border_War

....uh useless sum's it up!

I was an Air-force officer for years but knew many guys who had participated with Thai's in Cobra Gold.

Ridicule might be too strong a word, but lets just say no one I knew that participated was exactly impressed by the performance of their 'partners'

[Gene1960]

Thailand has bought light tanks from China before,quite a

while ago,and the majority developed cracks,I think once

bitten ,twice shy,should be taken into consideration.

regards Worgeordie

As far as I remember , it was the Ukrainian Oplot Main battle tank that was totally unreliable and developed cracks. Edited May 19, 2016 by Gene1960

[jayboy]

Thailand has bought light tanks from China before,quite a

while ago,and the majority developed cracks,I think once

bitten ,twice shy,should be taken into consideration.

regards Worgeordie

You misunderstand.The driving motive in Thai military procurement is not whether the kit will work or not, nor even whether it is appropriate.

[callaway]

If it is Chinese then it has to be a copy. Who did they copy off of?

[Johpa]

What a F scam !!!!!

Perhaps, but a more compassionate F-scam than the manufacturing of endless wars engaged in by the Neo-Con cabal in the west.

That is a fatuous bland statement which means almost nothing.

We're not comparing military actions of other countries, if we were, how about the Chinese, or how about the North Koreans, they seem quite willing to starve their own people to afford nuclear missiles!

I thought I was comparing"F-scams".

[GinBoy2]

What a F scam !!!!!

Perhaps, but a more compassionate F-scam than the manufacturing of endless wars engaged in by the Neo-Con cabal in the west.

That is a fatuous bland statement which means almost nothing.

We're not comparing military actions of other countries, if we were, how about the Chinese, or how about the North Koreans, they seem quite willing to starve their own people to afford nuclear missiles!

I thought I was comparing"F-scams".

Don't be cute, you knew exactly where you were going with that comment, the tired old 'west (read US) sticking it's nose where it's not wanted'

That gets aired Ad Nauseam on this forum

[JAG]

If it is Chinese then it has to be a copy. Who did they copy off of?

Russia. It is a heavily reworked modernised T72. A Soviet design from the height of the Cold War.

[robblok]

The American made tank is better.. but I wonder how many times more expensive. These things are not cheap.. and even Hitler found out that its not always quality that matters but numbers. The tanks going up against the Pantzers were not as good the American tanks were inferior back then but numbers made up for it.

So the question is how many tanks could be bought for the same price and is it then still inferior numbers might make a difference.

I am always quite against military spending, as i prefer a world without war (and military toys are expensive). However that is a nice dream and not realistic. Even in Europe I thought we had seen the last of war but now Russia and the US are heating things up again.

Anyway.. IMHO Thailand spends too much on military. (and many other countries too)

[xylophone]

No problem really as the way the Thais drive none of these will be around for long!!

The scrap metal merchants will be happy though!!

[jayboy]

If it is Chinese then it has to be a copy. Who did they copy off of?

Russia. It is a heavily reworked modernised T72. A Soviet design from the height of the Cold War.

Actually that's a recommendation of sorts.Russian tank technology is of a high order.The most effective tanks in WW2 were Soviet made.

[jamesbrock]

The American made tank is better.. but I wonder how many times more expensive. These things are not cheap.. and even Hitler found out that its not always quality that matters but numbers. The tanks going up against the Pantzers were not as good the American tanks were inferior back then but numbers made up for it.

So the question is how many tanks could be bought for the same price and is it then still inferior numbers might make a difference.

I am always quite against military spending, as i prefer a world without war (and military toys are expensive). However that is a nice dream and not realistic. Even in Europe I thought we had seen the last of war but now Russia and the US are heating things up again.

Anyway.. IMHO Thailand spends too much on military. (and many other countries too)

According to the same article that valued the Chinese tanks at $4 million a piece, the M1 Abrams costs around $6.9 million.

http://defence-blog.com/army/china-offers-100-vt4-main-battle-tanks-for-peru.html

The RTA has budgeted $150 million for the purchase of 28 VT4's ($5.4 million each) - so they could theoretically get 21 M1 Abrams for the same cost as 28 inferior thanks that are "reliable but not too effective in combat"

[VN4now]

According to the same article that valued the Chinese tanks at $4 million a piece, ...

The RTA has budgeted $150 million for the purchase of 28 VT4's ($5.4 million each)

Why us Thailand paying $5.4m vs. $4m? As the inaugural customer (foolish) you would think Thailand would get a discount, not pay a premium.

Edited May 20, 2016 by VN4now

[JAG]

The American made tank is better.. but I wonder how many times more expensive. These things are not cheap.. and even Hitler found out that its not always quality that matters but numbers. The tanks going up against the Pantzers were not as good the American tanks were inferior back then but numbers made up for it.

So the question is how many tanks could be bought for the same price and is it then still inferior numbers might make a difference.

I am always quite against military spending, as i prefer a world without war (and military toys are expensive). However that is a nice dream and not realistic. Even in Europe I thought we had seen the last of war but now Russia and the US are heating things up again.

Anyway.. IMHO Thailand spends too much on military. (and many other countries too)

According to the same article that valued the Chinese tanks at $4 million a piece, the M1 Abrams costs around $6.9 million.

http://defence-blog.com/army/china-offers-100-vt4-main-battle-tanks-for-peru.html

The RTA has budgeted $150 million for the purchase of 28 VT4's ($5.4 million each) - so they could theoretically get 21 M1 Abrams for the same cost as 28 inferior thanks that are "reliable but not too effective in combat"

I think the "effective in combat" factor is rather more a reflection of the ability of the crews and more so the commanders deploying and leading the armoured formation than a reflection of the capability of the tank per se. Syrian T72s took a kicking from Israel (who had older less formidable M60s) in the 1982 Lebanese war, and Iraqi T72s were comprehensively out fought and defeated by the UK (Challenger) and US (M! Abrams) in both Iraq wars. These Chinese versions have significantly upgraded armour and engine/transmissions so should be less vulnerable, but it all depends on how they are used. For armoured formations to be effective they need to train, a lot, using both simulators and the real thing. That is very expensive and hard work. It also wears out the kit which increases maintenance requirement.

Tanks themselves are the "tip of the spear" in armoured warfare. The "shaft" which allows them to be used is the logistic, maintenance, artillery, engineer (mobility) and armoured infantry in support together with the command control and communication systems that command them. These are also very expensive, and need extensive training. Without it the Tanks are "shafted", and basically are so many superficially impressive expensive toys. I do wonder ( and very much doubt) whether the Thai military have given sufficient thought and money to the provision of such a shaft.

Edited May 20, 2016 by JAG

[returnofthailand]

these tanks are useless. I saw video how guys in Syria take care of them. just a can opener is enough.