Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

User avatar
ericdude88
Captain
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat 10 Mar 2012 00:56

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby ericdude88 » Thu 13 Feb 2014 17:04

TG92929 wrote:
Breadbox wrote:You can expect BMP-1 sp2 and budget Lav25.

interpretation: You can expect Type 86 IFV(bmp-1) and ZSL-92 IFV(25mm) :geek:
Personally I'm very much a IFV user, having an IFV with a decent cannon and missile like the BMP-2 is a big thing for me, the BMP-3 or M2A1 even better.

What will China have to work with in this department?

But for IFV lovers this one might be just what the doctor orders:
ZBD-86G(30mm+HJ-73C), 30mm for much dakka
This is somewhat BMP-2-ish, I would say that stat wise it will be similar to BMP-2 late models. As a prototype it is not likely to be OOTF, and it will not hurt the balance of the game even if it was introduced after 1995(MadMat was generous enough to give Japan a helicopter introduced in 2000 after all).
Image
If you want a heavier flavor machine then this will suit you. But be warned, it was only a prototype back in 1995:
ZBD-97 IFV(100mm smoothbore+30mm+100mm ATGM), 100mm of pure love
Image
Not likely to be included anyway, but if it does, it will be China's BMP-3. This machine in fact does not share the fundamental flaw of BMP-3: the position of the engine.
Last but not least, allow me to represent to you the 60 tons beast that packs a ZPT-98A(98-125T?) L/55 gun 8-)
China definitely took an western approach of tank designing after ZTZ-99. This tank shattered all of "Chinese tanks are just like Soviet ones" stereotypes . (seriously, since when did you see a Soviet tank with such big profile and bad azz looking? Main gun thermal sleeves and external fuel tanks? Brits have them too ;)
Image
The guy at the right hand side must be saying: "China stronk and can into space!" :twisted:
a little bit of off topic and definitely out of time frame, but if there will be a 2020 DLC then then this will be the 250 points only 3 available ultimate tank.


30mm autocannon sounds good :twisted: HJ-73 sucks comared to BMP-2 ATGM however.

And IMO Soviet tanks look more bad-azz and sleeker than Western box tanks,

However the ZTZ-99 is the most bad-ass looking of them all.

PS That looks like a ZTZ-96G :)

User avatar
T80U = tankbankai
Captain
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu 9 Jan 2014 21:15
Location: Land of dank memes and broken dreams
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby T80U = tankbankai » Thu 13 Feb 2014 20:19

H-J wrote:As posted by several members before, I also kinda like the way Eugen is dealing with the Chinese faction. Instead of building some generic faction with the usual pillars of battle, the heavy tanks, they are attempting to recreate an authentic PLA faction with all her disadvantages and advantages, making the faction as the PLA would have actually fought in that time-frame - and that is with cunning, flexible maneuver warfare and her arsenal of weapons that are built on an unique philosophy which aims to off-set her disadvantages by attacking the weak-points of the enemy and the things they are reliant on.

For example, the Z-9 with TY-90 AA missiles would give the chinese faction, which lacks an actual heavy gunship, a good means to hunt down the heavy gunships of the other nations. Anyone who has extensively played against NATO in ALB would know how the NATO forces rely on their large arsenal of attack helicopters in being both their speahead of attack and vital reserve (and panic button) for dealing with Pact armored attacks. China would have the means to counter that strategy by pitting a strong anti-air helicopter against that NATO advantage, without holding that same advantage themselves. China's good selection of ground based anti-air (PGZ-95 and HQ-7) also would help that cause.

This pretty much describes the Chinese doctrine of 'Assassin's Mace', which is still in use today - asymmetric means, designed to exactly counter the things on which the other side heavily relies on: Be it the Aircraft Carrier, which would be the job of the DF-21D ASBM, or the extensive military satellite network of the US, which would be the job for the plethora of Chinese ASAT weapons, such as Lasers, SC-19 and KT-1 direct ascent kinetic kill missiles etc. everything that China's adversary have as advantage is to be countered asymmetrically according to the doctrine, while China herself isnt necessarily holding the same advantages. But also not the same reliance.

Sure, in RD China is faced with strong opponents who all field those new fearsome super-heavies, which really requires China to have some form of hard counter against them. Because armor combined with high power and accuracy value speaks for itself and will be very hard to deal with by using asymmetrical means in a field battle.
As such, it is indeed imperative for China to have the weapons to penetrate their thick hides when push comes to shove, as playing around with elaborate ruses wont help anyone if M1A2s, Leo2A5 and Type 90s are boxing you in from all sides. China, in reality, tried to solve that same question first with the immediate development of dedicated self-propelled Tank-hunters, like the PTZ-89, and the upgrade of her 2nd generation tanks with larger and more powerful guns (Type 85 and Type 90 series), along with her new heavy ATGMs like the HJ-8 series, while later on she enbarked on her 3rd gen tank programme, which would eventually gave birth to the ZTZ-99.

And even if the last fruit of this development wont appear in RD; her previous ones are still in, giving the player the tools they need to asymmetrically counter the armored threat.

TBH, in the last few weeks I've come to play without any heavies at all in ALB, as I found that the mediums are just as powerful if played right and vetted accordingly. And actually, I do not even rely on my tanks that much, only calling in a maximum of four at the start of each game, while accomplishing most objectives with infantry and artillery alone, while my tanks are more used as fire-support and not as frontline brawler, chosen more for their accuracy and firepower rather for their armored protection. But this is only my own playstyle.


This + over 9000
I wasn't really interested in the red dragons until as of late but now my first decks will be a Chinese armored deck purely because of H J and this thread.
Wargame: Mediterranean Factions/Thread Of The Year
Image
Countess Bathory wrote:Nearly all of humanity's problems could be solved by delicious fried chicken.

User avatar
TG92929
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri 20 Dec 2013 09:16
Location: YVR
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby TG92929 » Thu 13 Feb 2014 21:26

ericdude88 wrote:30mm autocannon sounds good :twisted: HJ-73 sucks comared to BMP-2 ATGM however.

And IMO Soviet tanks look more bad-azz and sleeker than Western box tanks,

However the ZTZ-99 is the most bad-ass looking of them all.

PS That looks like a ZTZ-96G :)

You can never have enough dakka when it comes to dakka :twisted:
Seriously, HJ-73C is vastly improved compared to baseline one, with SACLOS, and ability to defeat ERA, it is more than enough to deal with 80-110 points tanks and bear in mind, a volley of above 10 missiles can take out even the heaviest tanks. Konkurs is not exactly too amazing after all.
You think that cast turrets are sleek, but for me it is "death to the cast turret!!!".. :evil:
ZTZ-99 is still ugly and too T-72-ish, this 60 tons of beast is the true good looking tank as well as it is the true stronk tank.
ZTZ-96G has higher profile compared to Soviet ones, therefore giving it good gun depression compare to not only Soviet tanks, but also ZTZ-99.
The tank I shown in picture is ZTZ-99A, western media usually called it "A2", but really, since when did you see Chinese military naming their hardware with "A1" and "A2"? They follow "A", "B", "C"... line.
Image
AMRAAMS FOR THE AMRAAMS GOD, FLANKERS TO THE FLANKER THRONE, LET THE SKY... BURN! :twisted:

Kovlovsky
Captain
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 07:18
Location: Québec
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby Kovlovsky » Thu 13 Feb 2014 21:29

TG92929 wrote:
ericdude88 wrote:30mm autocannon sounds good :twisted: HJ-73 sucks comared to BMP-2 ATGM however.

And IMO Soviet tanks look more bad-azz and sleeker than Western box tanks,

However the ZTZ-99 is the most bad-ass looking of them all.

PS That looks like a ZTZ-96G :)

You can never have enough dakka when it comes to dakka :twisted:
Seriously, HJ-73C is vastly improved compared to baseline one, with SACLOS, and ability to defeat ERA, it is more than enough to deal with 80-110 points tanks and bear in mind, a volley of above 10 missiles can take out even the heaviest tanks. Konkurs is not exactly too amazing after all.
You think that cast turrets are sleek, but for me it is "death to the cast turret!!!".. :evil:
ZTZ-99 is still ugly and too T-72-ish, this 60 tons of beast is the true good looking tank as well as it is the true stronk tank.


Personnally, I love cast turrets. It gives them a unique look. I'm not really a fan of boxed turrets, it makes tanks look like older than they are a bit like older cars.
Image
Courtesy of Graphic

User avatar
TG92929
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri 20 Dec 2013 09:16
Location: YVR
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby TG92929 » Thu 13 Feb 2014 21:36

Kovlovsky wrote:
TG92929 wrote:
ericdude88 wrote:30mm autocannon sounds good :twisted: HJ-73 sucks comared to BMP-2 ATGM however.

And IMO Soviet tanks look more bad-azz and sleeker than Western box tanks,

However the ZTZ-99 is the most bad-ass looking of them all.

PS That looks like a ZTZ-96G :)

You can never have enough dakka when it comes to dakka :twisted:
Seriously, HJ-73C is vastly improved compared to baseline one, with SACLOS, and ability to defeat ERA, it is more than enough to deal with 80-110 points tanks and bear in mind, a volley of above 10 missiles can take out even the heaviest tanks. Konkurs is not exactly too amazing after all.
You think that cast turrets are sleek, but for me it is "death to the cast turret!!!".. :evil:
ZTZ-99 is still ugly and too T-72-ish, this 60 tons of beast is the true good looking tank as well as it is the true stronk tank.


Personnally, I love cast turrets. It gives them a unique look. I'm not really a fan of boxed turrets, it makes tanks look like older than they are a bit like older cars.

I guess that's because you are of French origin :twisted: so you does not share the taste of the rest of the NATO...
Joke aside, Soviet turret does have one major flaw, the position of ammo racks. Chinese are wise to abandon it in 1980s, so they can store extra ammo in a safe, box shaped magazine in the rear of turret. The rumor is, Chinese tanks rather carry only 28 rounds, for the sake of safety. BTW Chinese really took the lessons of Soviet tank's fiasco in Operation Desert Storm and 1st Chechnya War to the heart, they have done a lot in term of developing good auto fire extinguishers for their tanks.
I'm not sure of this, we have to summon H-J to answer it, I have done quite some research in Chinese military hardware, but H-J can always surprise me.
Image
AMRAAMS FOR THE AMRAAMS GOD, FLANKERS TO THE FLANKER THRONE, LET THE SKY... BURN! :twisted:

Kovlovsky
Captain
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 07:18
Location: Québec
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby Kovlovsky » Thu 13 Feb 2014 22:01

TG92929 wrote:
Kovlovsky wrote:Personnally, I love cast turrets. It gives them a unique look. I'm not really a fan of boxed turrets, it makes tanks look like older than they are a bit like older cars.

I guess that's because you are of French origin :twisted: so you does not share the taste of the rest of the NATO...
Joke aside, Soviet turret does have one major flaw, the position of ammo racks. Chinese are wise to abandon it in 1980s, so they can store extra ammo in a safe, box shaped magazine in the rear of turret. The rumor is, Chinese tanks rather carry only 28 rounds, for the sake of safety. BTW Chinese really took the lessons of Soviet tank's fiasco in Operation Desert Storm and 1st Chechnya War to the heart, they have done a lot in term of developing good auto fire extinguishers for their tanks.
I'm not sure of this, we have to summon H-J to answer it, I have done quite some research in Chinese military hardware, but H-J can always surprise me.


First of all, I'm not French, I'm Quebecer. I may speak French, but the last of my ancestor that was French lived in 18th century and is long dead (and in fact, the Frenchs already differenciated the colonists as being a separate people since the 17th century. We called ourselves "les Canadiens" which has nothing to do with the current state that was formed in 1867). I'm actually not too fond of the Leclerc even if I'm generally supportive of french weaponry in general, but they aren't my favorite. I tend to prefer Deutsche Qualität, but I also love Centurions and Chieftains. They look nice. ;)

My second point, is that the adding of a separate compartment for ammunitions only started in western equipment in the 1980 when Leo 2 and Abrams generation appeared. At the time of the introduction of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 families, this wasn't featured anywhere. Did the Soviets lacked foresight? Absolutely, but that was a common deficiency, particularly if you take note that new tank generation wasn't that much widespread at the time.

My third point is that I'm very aware that the egg chaped turrets makes harder to separate ammunitions from the crew compartment. However, the Ukrainian T-84 has now a separated ammunition compartment which was installed by expanding the back of the turret while retaining most of the egg shape that I love so much ;) . They have also adavantages, like having a better profile by example.
Image
Courtesy of Graphic

User avatar
TG92929
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri 20 Dec 2013 09:16
Location: YVR
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby TG92929 » Thu 13 Feb 2014 22:14

Kovlovsky wrote:First of all, I'm not French, I'm Quebecer. I may speak French, but the last of my ancestor that was French lived in 18th century and is long dead (and in fact, the Frenchs already differenciated the colonists has being a separate people since the 17th century. We called ourselves "les Canadiens" which has nothing to do with the current state that was formed in 1867). I'm actually not too fond of the Leclerc even if I'm generally supportive of french weaponry in general, but they aren't my favorite. I tend to prefer Deutsche Qualität, but I also love Centurions and Chieftains. They look nice. ;)

My second point, is that the adding of a separate compartment for ammunitions only started in western equipment in the 1980 when Leo 2 and Abrams generation appeared. At the time of the introduction of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 families, this wasn't featured anywhere. Did the Soviets lacked foresight? Absolutely, but that was a common deficiency, particularly if you take note that new tank generation wasn't that much widespread at the time.

My third point is that I'm very aware that the egg chaped turrets makes harder to separate ammunitions from the crew compartment. However, the Ukrainian T-84 has now a separated ammunition compartment which was installed by expanding the back of the turret while retaining most of the egg shape that I love so much ;) . They have also adavantages, like having a better profile by example.

First of all, it was a joke, of course I'm aware of how French and Canadiens are different in some ways. I spent some years in Montreal, but left there before I was French/Quebec-nized... :twisted:
Chieftain and Centurion are good but they are simply not fast enough to reach the battle before its over.
Another problem with Soviet turret is the space inside, it is cramped. T-84's separation only made it worse. Soviets were forced to recruit tank crew members with minimal height while NATO had no such restriction. If you are forced to operate a T-80 I would expect you to say "Merde" a lot unless you are no more than 5 feet tall 8-)
Image
AMRAAMS FOR THE AMRAAMS GOD, FLANKERS TO THE FLANKER THRONE, LET THE SKY... BURN! :twisted:

Kovlovsky
Captain
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 07:18
Location: Québec
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby Kovlovsky » Thu 13 Feb 2014 22:35

TG92929 wrote:First of all, it was a joke, of course I'm aware of how French and Canadiens are different in some ways. I spent some years in Montreal, but left there before I was French-nized... :twisted:
Chieftain and Centurion are good but they are simply not fast enough to reach the battle before its over.
Another problem with Soviet turret is the space inside, it is cramped. T-84's separation only made it worse. Soviets were forced to recruit tank crew members with minimal height while NATO had no such restriction. 8-)


No problem, I wasn't angry. I don't mind explaining the reality of Quebec to people. Just a thing I want to add on this matter (if you know it already, it's ok. I just want to explain it to other people who are curious). The use of the term "Canadien" alone has fallen in disfavor in the second half of the 19th century to describe specifically the francophone people in Canada because the people of british descent started to use the term "Canadians" to describe themselves (in Ontario at first because only Quebec and this province were united starting in 1840). We started to use the term "Canadiens français (French Canadians) until about the 1960s. It fell in disfavour in Quebec because we progressively lost our ties with francophones of other provinces and our national identity focused on the Quebec province. The Quebec nationalism also lost its focus on ethnicity and went to a modern concept of a freely formed nations of citizen from multiple ethnicity. French Canadian is sometimes used for describing ethnicity instead of national identity (Quebecer of french canadian decent). However, it's still in use in francophone communities outside Quebec. Depending on the circumstance or personnal ideology, we use the term "Canadien" for our official nationality.

To return to the tank subject, I feel the british tanks to be nice defensive tanks. But the speed is indeed, very slow. The cramping in soviet tanks is certainly a problem, but it was reasoned that a lower profile would increase survivability enough to warrant the disadvantage and it's less damning in later models since they have an autoloader. Since they don,t have to move a lot in their battlestations, it's less problematic than in a T-62 by example. I feel both ways have their good sides and bad sides. I have a weakness for Pact tanks, but I still love Leos 1, 2, Centurions and Chieftains. I have also an exotic interest in chinese tanks. They have characteristics of both sides and I like that kind of mix. They have the small profile, autoloaders and gun from soviet and russian tanks, but also some western technology and particularisms.
Last edited by Kovlovsky on Thu 13 Feb 2014 22:43, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Courtesy of Graphic

User avatar
OpusTheFowl
General
Posts: 6660
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 19:52
Location: White Rock, Canada
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby OpusTheFowl » Thu 13 Feb 2014 22:42

There is a PM function you can utilize when you want to continue an off-topic conversation with somebody...

Back on topic please
Image

User avatar
TG92929
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri 20 Dec 2013 09:16
Location: YVR
Contact:

Re: Type 85 and 90: decent quality Chinese tanks

Postby TG92929 » Thu 13 Feb 2014 22:49

OpusTheFowl wrote:There is a PM function you can utilize when you want to continue an off-topic conversation with somebody...

Back on topic please

Aye sir, right away sir.
Here's something more:
Actually, Type 85-IIM is more or less confirmed here:
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=35442&start=3680
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Image

Any idea on how it might perform?
I would say it is a 100-120 point tank somewhat like AMX-40, M1IP Abrams, T-72B/B1 and Leopard 2/2A1. You might have like 2 cards, 12 tanks each, with totally 24 available if they are going to be the only Chinese heavies. Since china does not have 130+ heavies, might as well give them a little more number when it comes to heavy armor to more or less balance it.
Or they might be like this:
Type 85-IIM: 110 point tank, 1 card, 12 tanks
Likely to have indigenous 125mm L/48 gun for greater punch and much better accuracy than 2A46M (due to higher bore pressure), as usual, to make up its lack of ATGM. Will be like 19 AP, 10 acc, 15 front armor, and 65km/h, range and stabilizer remains same. This will be the only Chinese tank that has AP power to tackle super heavies like T-80U, but 15 armor means that even T-64B and M1 Abrams can pose a good threat on them. 65 km/h means it cannot reliably get away. 12 tanks are quite sufficient if you mix them with earlier Type 85s, which form the backbone of your Cat A Chinese armored deck.
Type 85-II: 90 point tank, 2 cards 12 tanks each
packs an exact copy of 2A46M, accuracy is better than Soviet ones, again to make up their lack of ATGM. Will be like 17 AP, 9 acc, 14 front armor and 65 km/h, range and stabilizer remains same
Type-85-I: 80 point tanks, 2 cards, 16 tanks each
M1 Abrams and T-64B like tanks, higher AP value than M1 to make up the lack of same armor, much better accuracy than T-64B to make up its lack of ATGM. It will be like 15 AP(due to shorter barrel gun), 9 acc, 14 front armor and 65 km/h, range and stabilizer remains same
(not really a heavy, but it is within the same family of tanks)Type-88: 70 point tanks, 2 cards, 16 tanks each.
I would suggest similar to what H-J have suggested, give it 16 AP(long barrel 83-105T), 9 acc 2275m range, and a good stabilizer, but only 11 armor. 65 km/h
Last edited by TG92929 on Thu 13 Feb 2014 23:19, edited 20 times in total.
Image
AMRAAMS FOR THE AMRAAMS GOD, FLANKERS TO THE FLANKER THRONE, LET THE SKY... BURN! :twisted:

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 45 guests