China for the first time massively involved a new "mountain" Type 15 tank in exercises


China conducts large-scale exercises using armored vehicles and air defense systems in Tibet. The PRC official media report that the exercises are aimed at improving security and at combat coordination of units and formations.


China’s central television reports that military equipment was dispersed throughout the region — including mountain plateaus and passes. The height of the PLA military equipment above sea level amounted to 4 thousand meters.

For the first time in the exercises, China massively applied new light Tanks Type 15 (referred to as a “mountain tank” in China), as well as 155 mm self-propelled howitzers. Both of these versions of military equipment were recently demonstrated in Beijing - at a military parade on October 1, 2019.

The combat weight of Type 15 is up to 35 tons. The diesel engine has a power of 1000 hp. The main armament is a 105-mm cannon with 38 ammunition of various types. Additionally, the tank is equipped with a combat module with a machine gun installation.

Cruising range of the tank - 450 km. The highway speed is 70 km / h.

Military experts on the Chinese CCTV channel note that Type 15 light tanks can make it possible to gain an advantage in the event of an open border military conflict. From material:

They are able to carry out raids directly to the contact line under cover from the 155 mm howitzers, which will crush the enemy’s order and allow the tanks to penetrate deep into his (enemy) defense. Tanks are quite light and powerful, which allows them to maneuver perfectly in the highlands of Tibet.

These statements were brought to attention in India, saying that China is "escalating the situation in the Arunachal Pradesh region." This territory is disputed between Beijing and New Delhi. In China, it is called part of Southern Tibet.

The exercises using Type 15 tanks were the first PLA maneuvers in the coming year.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrifty 8 January 2020 09: 17 New
    • 13
    • 19
    -6
    Here, we have a similar tank, at least for its sale in a foreign country, too, does not interfere with the creation! Let not for yourself, but a purely export option, "bite off" a piece of this market from the Chinese! !
    1. Thrifty 8 January 2020 09: 38 New
      • 8
      • 22
      -14
      Everything, as always, is a bunch of minuses, and not one argument, why exactly! !! fool fool The minusers liberals have bitten, or the minusers themselves are totally liberals !!! negative fool
      1. Gray brother 8 January 2020 11: 16 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Quote: Thrifty
        Here, we have a similar tank, at least for its sale in a foreign country, too, does not interfere with the creation!

        T-55?
        1. seregatara1969 8 January 2020 11: 25 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          mountain is the elevation of the gun’s aiming angles. rangefinder sights and communications equipment. this is a minimum offhand
          1. Gray brother 8 January 2020 11: 33 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: seregatara1969
            mountain is the elevation of the gun’s aiming angles. rangefinder sights and communications equipment. this is a minimum offhand

            There is no sign that all this is there. All materials mention only increased mobility.
          2. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 11: 56 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            And how do you realize the aiming angles of 105 mm guns more than usual for a tank at the shown tower height? Where do you have the recoil devices and breech and how will the gun be charged?

            As for improved communications, in order to improve communication in the mountains, or you need a satellite or antenna in the mountains, do not mum your mother, I don’t see either one or the other.

            As for the sights, rangefinders did not understand.

            But in general, the mountain here is lightweight with an engine sharpened under discharged air. The Chinese with their tank designs have always had problems with the mass culture of equipment, so they have a light tank with weak weapons weighing more than the T-62.
          3. voyaka uh 8 January 2020 14: 22 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            "mountain is the gun’s aiming angles" ////
            ----
            You're right. We need significantly increased gun pickup angles. Moreover, up and down!
            It does not seem to be embodied.
      2. mvg
        mvg 8 January 2020 14: 32 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        t-72, in the initial version, also 36 tons, 125 mm, 780 engine. why is it worse? its storage is unmeasured. the price tag is 500 thousand. You can buy on ebay. do it THAT, add spare parts and logistics and that's it.
    2. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 11: 30 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Than the T-62 is worse than this "light" tank.
    3. YOUR 8 January 2020 11: 57 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Yes, that you are so struck by selling, selling, selling. You can still understand this for yourself, although why is it better when there is an "Octopus".
      1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 12: 31 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Octopus ... Octopus you will not sell to anyone. He has excess capabilities for a "mountain" tank to parachute and buoyancy. As a result, it is difficult to maintain (GPP) and very expensive. Now, if it had been made without separate titanium assemblies, on torsion bars, and maybe made of steel instead of luminium ... then it could have been sold :)
        1. knn54 8 January 2020 20: 37 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          They create a new light amphibious tank based on the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun. The armored car will be used in hot, humid tropics and highlands.
    4. Zaurbek 9 January 2020 21: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      A question of need .... as the Kurganets are finished, 20 tons will be the base. BO from Octopus available. That's 30-35tn (DZ or without) ....
  2. Aerodrome 8 January 2020 09: 18 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    let's have your TYPE on Biathlon ... let's see. with us, nevertheless, the crew’s work is “taken out” on that one, .. the mech-driver is an idler from the Urals, (Batu BEHU took and sent to the army) a shooter from Buryatia ... (except he doesn’t get anywhere), (however grandson Shoigu) commander ... let's go! (our ours ....) - this is the key to success! and you ...: wings ... wings ...:
    1. seregatara1969 8 January 2020 11: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      here! on squirrels you need to draw the eye of a squirrel. on ours at least. in the GSVG at the tank shooting range it was forbidden to smoke very strictly. but the offenders were often punished by the tankers themselves. while the violator of the ban lit a cigarette, the gunner had time to get inboard 30 cm below the target. The targets were illuminated at night with a red light
  3. K-50 8 January 2020 09: 19 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    light tanks Type 15

    Light targets for anti-tank weapons. yes
    Minimal armor, lack of dynamic and active armor, and finally, a soldier with RP grenade launcher has much greater mobility and invisibility in mountainous areas. yes
    1. Lesorub 8 January 2020 09: 44 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: K-50
      lack of dynamic and active armor

      As far as can be judged with Type 15 dynamic armor, they were equipped with all the same (most likely, by analogy, contact 1)
      1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 11: 21 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Lesorub
        As far as can be judged with Type 15 dynamic armor, they were equipped with all the same (most likely, by analogy, contact 1)

        Most likely, a "smart" tank. Like everyone. Well, there is the opportunity to visit the "bricks" on the tanks, but the simple Liao and Zheny will go (in a possible battle) naked, without these expensive gadgets.
        So what? Even if there will be an escalation of conflict, the Chinese women are still giving birth. What really, and China really has the highest human resource in the world.
        1. Sergej1972 8 January 2020 18: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Fertility is one of the lowest in the world. And the human resource of working and childhood is the largest in India.
    2. donavi49 8 January 2020 09: 55 New
      • 8
      • 11
      -3
      Well, Hindu Fri means will split the T-90MS in any projection. Unless of course, they are not in the ceremonial parts only, but in the area of ​​maximum friction with China. Therefore, armor is not an argument.

      But the argument is that this tank can be driven into mountains and passes where another tank cannot be driven. As a result, you will have tanks, but the enemy will not.
      1. K-50 8 January 2020 10: 22 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: donavi49
        Hindu PT means razmolyut T-90MS in any projection

        Somewhere you have a mistake.
        Will the Hindus shoot by themselves? what
        1. donavi49 8 January 2020 12: 02 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          No, I just showed that armor is not an argument.
      2. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 11: 27 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, Hindu Fri means will split the T-90MS in any projection.

        With dynamic protection, no.
        And China will not fight in earnest with India. This is not beneficial to anyone. Here it is more likely to look at Pakistan.
        But the argument is that this tank can be driven into mountains and passes where another tank cannot be driven. As a result, you will have tanks, but the enemy will not.

        You will be surprised at what can be done with the help of blunt muscular strength, dedication and faith in the Leader. The French did not understand this at one time. And then the Vietnamese dragged along a completely impassable terrain a bunch of howitzers of serious caliber. What secured a victory for themselves.
        https://topwar.ru/95972-bitva-pri-denbenfu.html
      3. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 11: 59 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Um .. Hindu PTs can penetrate into the forehead a packet of passive combined armor of the forehead of the tower and the T-90MS case behind the Relic? :)
        Where does the information come from? Voices in my head? :)
        1. donavi49 8 January 2020 12: 07 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Well, that is, do you think that the Cornet developers are lying? If that India probably already has 30% of the new M2 missiles from 1300mm per DZ (again, all the questions for the Cornet developers - if you don’t like something).

          All Spikes, Lahats, Nagas and others can not be considered.
          1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 12: 11 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            It is unlikely to lie, but here is the question ...
            1. And 1300 at the cornet for WHAT DZ? :) For a blazer, pin-1, pin-5, relic? :) You know? I no, you too.
            2. Do you know what thickness of homogeneous armor the T-90MS package is equivalent to? I no, you too.
            So for your part, simple balabolstvo about anything :)
            1. donavi49 8 January 2020 12: 35 New
              • 4
              • 4
              0
              Well, I understand you too.

              If Abrams then diagonally breaks through 3 DZ. If the T-90, then no, no. wink

              Plus, the Indians have a lot of roof-blowers - the same Spikes, Nagas.

              And yet, if you look at my post you will understand everything:
              Therefore, armor is not an argument.


              That is - Type15 does not need serious armor. For there is no point. The Hindus have a wagon of vehicles against modern MBT.
              1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 12: 39 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                You didn’t understand anything.

                An abrams, even with a set of DZ in the frontal projection, has no DZ. And then abrams? Yes, and DZ at the abrams on the sides is clearly not a fountain, because in the development of DZ the west is very far behind.

                As for the fact that due to anti-tank means, Type-15 armor is not needed, then why do they put a car on type-96 and type-99 armor? Fools are Chinese, smart only in VO :)
                1. donavi49 8 January 2020 12: 50 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  Well, because these are different classes of technology.

                  Light tanks and wheeled vehicles have a protection standard of 23-30 in the forehead and 14,5 in a circle. Plus, the cover from the COP - like wearable grenade launchers, and then usually the PG-7VM maximum.

                  The Type-15 fully meets these requirements. Well, he will climb where Type96 / 99 does not climb. Military equipment is a compromise - in this case, emphasis on mobility and accessibility of complex areas.
                  1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 13: 00 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    1. I.e. with delusions about breaking into the forehead of the T-90MS from the Hindu ATGMs we ended? Already good :)

                    2. Now, on the basis of different classes of technology. This "light tank" weighs almost like a T-64 :) At the same time, the rifled 105-mm, no armor, no guided weapons. Yes, the engine is stronger. But what kind of mobility and accessibility are we talking about? It is at the level of Soviet tanks from the time of Afghanistan, plus or minus a brick.

                    3. What are the challenges for a can with a 105 mm cannon, God forbid, rising 20 degrees in the mountains? According to the results of Afghanistan, the USSR made a BMP-3 with a triple :) Yes, there it is, there is no armor, but in the version with additional armor and DZ - 30 horses per ton + 100 mm + 30 mm with aiming angles almost at the zenith. There are 28 forces per ton, there is also no armor and weapons that are only suitable for shooting old tanks (for the destruction of infantry fighting vehicles it is excessive, for the destruction of MBTs it is not enough).
      4. carstorm 11 8 January 2020 13: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        this in no way cancels the fact that the same ATGMs will be in the same passes) this mountain tank is itself a flawed concept. highlands still will not make it possible to concentrate something serious in one place. here it will be as usual, escort of columns and capture of some small bridgeheads.
      5. SARANCHA1976 9 January 2020 02: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        With such a mass of various ATGMs and RPGs, it’s not very relevant
    3. seregatara1969 8 January 2020 11: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, according to this principle, all our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are an easy target.
      1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 11: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: seregatara1969
        all our armored personnel carriers and bmp light target

        BMP-3 - a very biting target, I dare to notice.
      2. K-50 8 January 2020 11: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: seregatara1969
        Well, according to this principle, all our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are an easy target.

        No one claims the opposite, because they were created to protect against small arms, and not anti-tank weapons.
        The experience of all military clashes is clearly demonstrated. sad
  4. Udav kaa 8 January 2020 09: 22 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Well, China, well done, while here in the world there is a showdown with Israel .. They do not get involved anywhere and are heavily rearming
    1. antivirus 8 January 2020 09: 50 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      shavings from China will be taken without war, Trump blames, but someone does not understand and then it’s more to recover from democratization from the usa
    2. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 10: 31 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Udav Kaa
      They do not get involved anywhere and are heavily rearming

      I envy the good pace and ability to re-equip the fleet. Here the Chinese are really ahead of the rest.
      And that makes me doubly sad about the state of our Navy. T_T
  5. svp67 8 January 2020 09: 30 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Well, you can see right away that the next "relative" of our T-55, clearly "grew" out of it
    1. donavi49 8 January 2020 09: 53 New
      • 10
      • 6
      +4
      Which of these was on the T-55?
      1000 h.p. 35t engine
      Multimode optics with TPV channel
      6 roller skating on lightweight small diameter rollers
      welded tower
      on some prototype or on VT5 (export version) there is also a hydropneumatic suspension (on the x / z series)

      He is the same relative of the T-55 as Renault17. They need a tank for the mountains - they made it. To replace type 62.
      1. The leader of the Redskins 8 January 2020 10: 08 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Running definitely not 55ki ...
      2. svp67 8 January 2020 10: 14 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: donavi49
        He is the same relative of the T-55 as Renault17

        Well, everyone all ... won.
        Although .... The end of the 90s Design Bureau of the Omsk Tank showed the option of upgrading the T-55, T-55M6, can you see anything?

      3. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 10: 26 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: donavi49
        He is the same relative of the T-55 as Renault17.

        And why not immediately remember the rhombic tanks then? Their cross-country ability was in every way higher than that of Renault. And the first tank on the battlefield was just rhombic.

        Although in fact, the tank was invented again in Russia. "All-terrain vehicle" Porokhovshchikova.
    2. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 10: 48 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      Well, you can see right away that the next "relative" of our T-55, clearly "grew" out of it

      Maybe heresy I’ll say, but I’ll argue that the T-54 / T-55 is a much more epochal tank than the boomed “thirty-four” (it was just lucky, though deserved, to take out the whole burden of the Second World War). Of course, this was not MBT (it was only the T-62), but the T-55 is reliable as a nail, and for sluggish conflicts it is the best tank in terms of price / efficiency ratio.
      Well, no wonder the most massive tank in the world.
      1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 12: 10 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Well no. The T-34 is just the first main tank in concept, along with the T-50 (which should be cheaper and therefore more massive)
        - On it for the first time for a tank, a gun was installed corresponding to the divisional cannon (76 mm high ballistics in the tower).
        - It provides for booking at the level of heavy tanks of its time.
        - It contains mobility close to the mobility of light tanks due to the use of a powerful engine (V-2 diesel)
        - And most importantly, they were equipped with this tank and it was suitable for manning actually both tank regiments and battalions of infantry divisions, and tank brigades and divisions. Those. there is no concept of infantry, cruising like that of the Britons, or even medium and heavy (Kv was eventually abandoned due to the lack of advantages over the T-34 at Kv-1S). Yes Is-s were made, but very limited in comparison with the T-34 they went to the breakthrough regiments. Yes, the T-70s were made, but then out of need. And so the T-34 solved all the problems.

        T-44V / T-54 - simply brought the T-34 concept to perfection, abandoning ineffective solutions like a longitudinal engine and candle suspension.
        1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 13: 24 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: 30hgsa
          - On it for the first time for a tank, a gun was installed corresponding to the divisional cannon (76 mm high ballistics in the tower).

          Bullshit. Bourgeois installed normal guns on their tanks before.
          - It contains mobility close to the mobility of light tanks due to the use of a powerful engine (V-2 diesel)

          This is true, but few people know in what torment this B-2 was born and brought to mind. I have our, a Tankograd book on this subject (published in a rather modest edition for the USSR, where all this was described ... that is also an epic).
          - And most importantly, they were equipped with this tank and it was suitable for manning actually both tank regiments and battalions of infantry divisions, and tank brigades and divisions.

          Well, here it’s exactly garbage, because our states generally sailed from and to (and there is no special merit for the T-34 here, thirty-four stupidly replaced light tanks — well, starting from the 42nd year, before that we feverishly produced ersatz in the form of the T-60) . The tank regiment of the beginning of the war and the tank regiment not even the end, but only the middle - are already two huge differences. Here are the same self-propelled guns, say ... Su-85, for example. Regiment - it was sixteen (16!) Cars. Regiment. And at this time the Germans platoon heavy tanks totaled five pieces (sometimes six).
          1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 19: 40 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, call me a serial bourgeois tank with a divisional cannon in the turret up to t-34. If bullshit.
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. K-50 8 January 2020 13: 10 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Kuroneko
        Maybe I’ll say heresy, but I’ll argue that the T-54 / T-55 is a much more epoch-making tank than the promoted “thirty-four”

        Without the thirty-four, there would have been no T-54/55. It is on her first applied protivosnaryadny booking, diesel engine.
        1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 13: 40 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: K-50
          It was precisely on it that the first was applied protivosnaryadny booking, a diesel engine.

          Nope.
          The French and the British have forgotten. This is about ballistic booking. Yes, and the domestic T-50, even though it was a light tank, had it. And he was made before.
          But the diesel engines were generally used up by the Japanese before all (they, by the way, also “invented” the machine gun). Yes, and pasta also respected them. Diesel engine.
          The T-34 was just a damn successful alloy of all the chips needed and useful for the tank. Plus some purely Russian fine-tuning (Well, you can’t do without vodka!). But how much he was originally "raw" is already clearly evidenced by the fact that the dude, who later made a human gearbox for the T-34, instantly wrote out the Stalin Prize.
          1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 19: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The French and British infantry tanks had ballistic armor. T-34 Was the so-called single tank.
      3. carstorm 11 8 January 2020 13: 55 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        and from what reliable as a nail grew up?))) epoch 34 not only in what it did the war but also in what exactly the concept of the main tank began with it. mass and simple. The concept of application also grew precisely from 34. Tactical techniques are more precise than their basis.
        1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 14: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: carstorm 11
          and from what grew reliable as a nail?)))

          From extremely high-quality refinement and disposal of childhood diseases. T-55 was not in vain received such a name, because there was also T-54 - which suffered from some of these diseases. And this was not the time when, at the behest of some EBN, the deep modernization of the T-72 was called T-90 due to purely commercial considerations.
          And the T-55 is really reliable just like a nail. Firstly, it is the MOST massive tank in the world. Secondly, all (well, many) of his problems are really repaired by a sledgehammer and the mention of such and such a mother. Thirdly, the T-55 still has a rifled gun. Yes, nioch power, but awesome accuracy. The same T-62 and T-64 in the troops for a long time did not like precisely for (then) worthless accuracy. Now, of course, this is much better. But the shells themselves are a little expensive. And for the T-55 shells by the standards of the arms market are worth a penny. Ordinary rifled ones. And repairing it is easy and cheap (if he survived, but just in a sluggish conflict he has excellent chances).

          Incidentally, I won’t be surprised if a regular African republic doesn’t see another “Kalash” on its flag, but a T-55 silhouette. Which again speaks of its reliability. Even in Africa and with African technicians, our tank works at 100%.
          1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 19: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            T-55 became 55 because it was redesigned for collective protection against weapons of mass destruction. Children's illnesses were overcome in the t-54.
      4. mvg
        mvg 8 January 2020 14: 46 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        best tank in terms of price / performance.

        Can you tell me what conflicts he won? is this your epic tank? well, fighting not against myself .. I do not remember. he was beaten by super Shermans and Centurions
        1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 14: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Are we talking about the dignity of a tank or about politicians, coupled with mediocre generals?
          Just clarifying.
          By the way
          https://topwar.ru/68995-stalnye-zveri-sirii-t-55.html
          The old men are fighting, and how! The T-34 is already overboard, but the T-55 will be in business for a very long time.
          1. mvg
            mvg 8 January 2020 15: 04 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            dignity tank

            What was worthy of it? gun so-so, visibility / optics, engine, mediocre rocking suspension, conditions for the crew, armor penetrated by all, microwave oven for the crew. maybe only the price .. I wonder if it includes fried crew members?
            these mediocre generals, advised by Soviet advisers.
            so where did the "legends" win
            1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 15: 24 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Armor pierced by what?
              Or a tank, or enough advanced anti-tank missiles?
              Everything else for the T-55 is not a threat at all
              And yes, about advisers - we have them. In Syria. And kakbe Syria is completely cleared for itself.
              1. mvg
                mvg 8 January 2020 15: 34 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Armor pierced by what

                the old German 75 mm l70 cannon from the panther in the French, then the new M-50 and M-51 on the Sherman, the English L-7 on the centurion.
                it turns out everything that was on the battlefield. Ala version of the second half of the Second World War.
                so that there is a legend, you need a highlight, where is it? mass coffins or trophies. more than t-54/55 nothing was thrown on the battlefield
                1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 15: 48 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: mvg
                  old german 75 mm l70 cannon from panther

                  I dare to ask, but didn’t anything that Poynter saw the real battle only in the 43rd, and the T-4F2 and higher, appeared even earlier, but with about the same result?
                  L7 Yes, for a long time it was considered the standard of tank guns. In the West. And she was sliced.
                  But then we got an IS-7 (yes, it didn’t go out of prototypes), but even the T-10 posed a very serious threat. And this ended the era of heavy tanks.
                  But in general, realize when the T-55 was made. And he still fights quite successfully.
                  And he will fight. After the Third World War (hot) there will be rats, cockroaches and T-55 (if only because everything is there on the mechanics).
                  1. mvg
                    mvg 8 January 2020 16: 26 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    L7 Yes, for a long time it was considered the standard of tank guns. In the West. And she was chopped

                    Well, the D-10 was also rifled, plus or minus. Simply, if you do not know how to do it, you can copy it ..
                    On booking, there are also questions .. You can peek at Centurion. He was better on the battlefield.
                    Well, the price tag .. so buy it (receive as a gift from the USSR and give it to the enemy) the tank should be appreciated by the crew, as the Germans have the Tiger, it saves your life, and you appreciate it. And here are some Lada. Mercedes drive nearby, and you’re on a “penny”
                    P.S. For me, the conclusion, I'm sorry, forge tank. Well, he is fighting, so the USSR in the amount of 25000 gave him around the world. It would be better, Mlyn, the same number of tractors in their agricultural did and gave, more sense. Than then forgive billion
        2. SARANCHA1976 9 January 2020 02: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          They beat themselves. Even good tanks do not take out tactical misses of commanders.
        3. carstorm 11 9 January 2020 03: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          technology never wins in conflicts. people who use it always win. the very presence of these machines at that time in our army was already doing so we won without fighting. strategic weapons were never used by us either and the war did not win. but it is precisely his presence that makes war no. an approach like yours has always been perplexing. comparing the capabilities of technology for victories in conflicts is strange

          .
      5. Graz 9 January 2020 00: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        T-34 and T-55 can not be compared, one tank of wartime, another tank of peacetime, in many ways different concepts and culture of the island
        1. Kuroneko 11 January 2020 16: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Graz
          T-34 and T-55 can not be compared, one tank of wartime, another tank of peacetime, in many ways different concepts and culture of the island

          In our country, even “peacetime” tanks were always made with an eye on mass production in the military and by un- or poorly trained personnel. Even at the design stage (and how could it be otherwise in a country where even cigarette factories could easily be redesigned to produce cartridges if necessary). And the concept has definitely not changed. At least in the second half of the twentieth century and before the USSR died.
  6. Mountain shooter 8 January 2020 10: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As a "mountain tank" can not the T-90 perform. Well, a little heavier, but not much ... And if it’s quite the edge, then Octopus ... This one even knows how to swim ... laughing
    1. Catfish 8 January 2020 10: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Is there a place to swim in the mountains?
      1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 10: 34 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Is there a place to swim in the mountains?

        In theory, there is. But not in China.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Титикака
        1. Catfish 8 January 2020 13: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Here I am about the same. smile
    2. K-50 8 January 2020 13: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      And if it’s a land, then "Octopus" ... This one even knows how to swim ..

      In the mountains? To swim? And then what not to rock? lol
    3. carstorm 11 8 January 2020 13: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      only now SPRUT is not a tank from the word at all) it is an anti-tank weapon) as if conceptually different directions)
  7. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 10: 19 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Beautiful tank.
    What does the Soviet school mean, hih.
    1. Vanches 8 January 2020 19: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What is there from the Soviet school?
  8. Vitaly Tsymbal 8 January 2020 10: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I’ve thought about it - does Russia need a Mining tank? I think it is not needed - we do not have such heights as in China. And I think it’s not economically profitable to make such a tank for India (there are no others like Tibet, highlands and “political nodes”), if only because recently Indians have become unstable partners in the development and acquisition markets of weapons. And another question - how will a mountain tank behave on the plain? It's not about armor and guns, it's about the engine.
  9. Paul Siebert 8 January 2020 10: 48 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In theory, Russia has its own version of the "lightweight" tank.
    Octopus C
    You can even drop it.
    And knows how to swim.
    And the gun’s caliber is one-on-one with our main combat vehicles.
    That’s what it gives way to the “Chinese” - it’s in security.
    1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 11: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      In theory, Russia has its own version of the "lightweight" tank.
      Octopus C

      It's all fun with Octopus.
      Official name - self-propelled anti-tank gun.
      Although the hedgehog understands that the Octopus is a light tank.
      Apparently, it was only with such sauce that they were able to shove it into the arsenal of the army. For our General Staff refers to light tanks, to put it mildly, niochin. Despite the fact that even the Americans realized that their super-duper TIGLY Abramka is not quite adequate for proxy wars (especially in the Middle East), and now they are developing light tanks with might and main. = _ =
      And this chinayosa is a tank of one theater of action, which was initially hid under it (here the Chinese are also expectedly not the first, the Israeli Merkavs were made with exactly the same aim ... although maybe the first, if you recall their version of the lightweight T-55. Type 62 (factory designation WZ-131)).
    2. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 12: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We don’t have a light or light tank :) Octopus-S is not a light tank or a light tank. This is a parachute-landing amphibious tank with heavy weapons. As a result, solutions with aluminum alloys for armor, individual titanium elements, a hydropneumatic suspension, a large displacement body (Octopus-C is longer in body than the T-72) as a result of the high price, considerable production complexity and maintenance problems (GPPs are not torsion bars )
      1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 14: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: 30hgsa
        We don’t have a light or light tank :)

        And what is a modern light tank? This is really just a nimble wagon for an amusing cannon that has sufficient armor to fight off any BMPShnoy seam (if there is a dynamic one - it can take a blow from a tank), but it can, if not destroy it, at least seriously damage any MBT.
        Octopus fully satisfies these conditions.
        And the fact that Octopus is landing is only a plus for him.
        That's just the normal number of army air carriers would be ... Everything that we have is completely insufficient (like at sea), and is the legacy of the USSR. Already frankly dilapidated.
        1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 19: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Parachute landing is not a plus, it is a fat minus for a light tank. For it is achieved by complex and expensive technical solutions. Like buoyancy. Therefore, we have an amphibious floating self-propelled gun, but there is no light tank. Although no one bothers to hammer nails with a microscope, yes.
        2. Saxahorse 9 January 2020 01: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kuroneko
          And what is a modern light tank? This is really just a nimble wagon for an amusing cannon, having enough armor to fight off any BMP

          About the fact that the Octopus is a purely self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor. In contrast to modern BMPs with 40 mm Bofosts, nothing shines on him. But the Chinese type 62 is a good example.

          The Chinese only need a tank that does not break bridges in the countryside. And here we are building a whole theory. :)
    3. carstorm 11 8 January 2020 13: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Octopus is not a tank, and I never thought about it in this form), otherwise, by this logic, a carnation can also be called a tank)))
      1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 14: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Who is he then? No, I'm really interested in hearing your opinion.
        And as for Carnations ... well, yes, sometimes in the Second World War Katyusha was dragged into the hastily dug caponiers to hit direct fire. Any weapon can be adapted to kill the adversary, even if this weapon was not intended for this. But Carnation is a "tank" much less than an Octopus.
        1. carstorm 11 8 January 2020 14: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Airborne self-propelled anti-tank gun. this is not my opinion but the developers and customers of this machine)
  10. Fishery 8 January 2020 11: 35 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    here the principle of such a tank in the mountains is better than a jeep) no more
    1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 12: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Here the principle is that China has never fought in the mountains. The USSR / RF fought in the mountains for a very long time. According to the experience of Afghanistan, a triad has appeared.
      1. Kuroneko 8 January 2020 14: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: 30hgsa
        Here the principle is that China has never fought in the mountains. The USSR / RF fought in the mountains for a very long time. According to the experience of Afghanistan, a triad has appeared.

        Do you think the Chinese have not adopted our experience? In addition, during Brezhnev’s time, relations with narrow-eyed relations more or less improved.
        1. Sergej1972 8 January 2020 18: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But Damansky was not under Brezhnev? Or Sino-Vietnamese war? Although in the field of trade, relations became a little better in the 70s. However, in general, relations began to improve under Andropov and Chernenko. Although in the early 60's. it was Andropov who, more often than not, of all Soviet leaders, criticized Maoism.
        2. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 19: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Awesome under Brezhnev they improved, so they managed to fight already. And so if they had adopted it, they would have made a light tank according to the BMP-3 concept, because without a landing in the mountains the tank is a grave.
  11. Tu-16 8 January 2020 11: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What is the peculiarity of this tank that it is assigned the status of "mountain"? The ability of the engine to work in the conditions of low-altitude air? Large gun angles? Or something else?
  12. 75 Sergey 8 January 2020 12: 25 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    A kind of mountain near China on the border with Russia
    1. Sergej1972 8 January 2020 18: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Mostly on the border with India.
  13. Mentat 8 January 2020 12: 28 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: 30hgsa
    Um .. Hindu PTs can penetrate into the forehead a packet of passive combined armor of the forehead of the tower and the T-90MS case behind the Relic? :)
    Where does the information come from? Voices in my head? :)

    The voices of Chinese marketers at the VO forum. You still do not understand who donavi49 is?
    1. 30hgsa 8 January 2020 13: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      "best commentator", yellow nickname same :)
  14. Victor March 47 8 January 2020 20: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Thrifty
    Everything, as always, is a bunch of minuses, and not one argument, why exactly! !! fool fool The minusers liberals have bitten, or the minusers themselves are totally liberals !!! negative fool

    From me there are cons and explanations of my opinion.
    To tear off part of the market from the Chinese is to get part of the market in Pakistan. At the same time, be able to sell them a couple of hundred, not more.
    But for this, start a bodyaga with design, pilot production and proof of its superiority. Who needs a nedotank that does not, by definition, compete with potential, existing in many already old pieces of iron? Why is he so good? Super network capabilities? But this is not a property of iron, it is a property of the organization of the army, the possibilities of electronics. Of course, the Papuans have this in plenty. Super network weapon capabilities? But these are completely gray samples. Super capabilities of defense? But.....

    Now, weapons need not only to be retracted, given (as was done during the Soviet era), but also to prove the advantages, first of all, by using our own examples. Do a dozen and a half pieces and play demonstrations in the name of selling several hundred? Compete with yourself, score well-developed T-90s? Yes, you're just crazy.