RAMPAGE
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 5,855
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
You sure, cuz we've heard nothing for quite some time?Ideas 2016 ...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You sure, cuz we've heard nothing for quite some time?Ideas 2016 ...
not sure about Ideas 16 either ... but heard about itYou sure, cuz we've heard nothing for quite some time?
New Recruit
Other solutions maybe in hand and are being looked at. Perhaps this might translate into a new product or changes might be brought about in our own drones based on the concepts being studied. We need to be a bit patient.We should also produce large amounts of Drones to target enemy tanks and APCs in case of an armoured onslaught! I suppose 1 Burraq UAV can have the capability to target 3 tanks in one sortie, if we develop it a bit further with anti-tank laser guided missiles. One missile one tank, seems reasonable to me
New Recruit
If this is the official stance, then its very reassuring!Other solutions maybe in hand and are being looked at. Perhaps this might translate into a new product or changes might be brought about in our own drones based on the concepts being studied. We need to be a bit patient.
A
Our drone have already become nightmare for our enemies. You can not expect what we might reveal when the day comes since our armed forces like to maintain the element of surprise.We should also produce large amounts of Drones to target enemy tanks and APCs in case of an armoured onslaught! I suppose 1 Burraq UAV can have the capability to target 3 tanks in one sortie, if we develop it a bit further with anti-tank laser guided missiles. One missile one tank, seems reasonable to me
My new finding: MBT-3000 chassis shape looks the same as MBT-2000. They use inferior chassis to prevent the enemy shell compared to other Chinese built tank which use upper chassis
View attachment 278488
View attachment 278489
If we compare the two without reactive armor, then we can see:
View attachment 278492
If we compare 99 to 99A, the engineer has added one layer of armor to 99
View attachment 278493
View attachment 278494
Form the shape change we know that MBT-3000 turret has added one layer of armor to MBT-2000
You provide your customers with an MBT having an inferior chassis? That's a shame really.
Nah pal, he means the tank on the image below the first one but I believe you understood the 'pun'
well, I mean MBT-2000/3000 put the major armor at the down part of the chassis, in Chinese it is called: 首下迎弹; for other Chinese tank it use:首上迎弹You provide your customers with an MBT having an inferior chassis? That's a shame really.
well, I mean MBT-2000/3000 put the major armor at the down part of the chassis, in Chinese it is called: 首下迎弹; for other Chinese tank it use:首上迎弹
eg:MBT-2000, MBT-3000 and M1A2 use "首下迎弹"
while T-90, type 99 and Challenger 2 use “首上迎弹”
This is a good way to trace the development route of the Chinese tank, and it hints that MBT-2000/3000 design concept is different from type 99; when we refer to the published materials, they are indeed developed by different chief engineers