引用:

原帖由 barbara 於 2008-5-1 01:27 發表
北方公司在阿布扎比展出的新型穿甲彈，就能在2000米距離處洞穿600毫米厚的均質鋼裝甲板。國內的刊物也報道過相同威力的穿甲彈。所以日本人所做的評估可以說是與事實脫節。另外，在數年前的國防科技展覽上，曾經展出過國產100毫米反坦克炮上使用的特種穿甲彈，可見我國已經掌握了相關的研制和制造技術。目前，特種穿甲彈在穿甲威力上要比普通的鎢合金穿甲彈強約15%。所以筆者相信，99式主戰坦克主炮的威力至少也能到700毫米的水平。雖然跟“豹”2A6和M1A2相比，依然存在不小差距，但也已經屬於世界先進水平。

中國呢架所謂99式MBT係抄足T80
可由其大量表面active armour看出

而家仲邊有人用彈頭動能穿甲
你以為仲係二次大戰
而家北約主要係用高温氣体 (3000C) 燒穿裝甲
而中國又無法生產出西方陶瓷夾心之合成裝甲


從海灣實戰中
呢架中國貨在戰場上應該生存不到10分鐘

不過亦要�O諒中國
中國有史以來從未打過坦克戰
正式使用坦克亦衹係六四對付自己友
所以係全無交手經驗

[ 本帖最後由 BenChek 於 2008-5-5 14:23 編輯 ]

我�p是指HEAT

我所知非由書本所知
我在英國TA親身指揮過4架Challenger2

而家D彈吾係炮彈, 似導彈多, 內有guidance system 所以基本上一定中目標
彈頭分3次爆
第1次裝甲外作環形爆炸, 主要破壞複合裝甲及active armour
第2次係shock explosive移開外層裝甲, 及將主彈頭推入裝甲深層中
笫3次係彈頭hot jet, 以3000C高温燒入車內
呢D書中吾會知亦吾會講
個彈頭在裝甲外2至3呎已經引爆, 根本不用動能

HEAT 及 SABOT 已經係ニ＋年前之物

呢D所謂中國貨在實戰生存不到10分鍾

[ 本帖最後由 BenChek 於 2008-5-6 17:29 編輯 ]

如果要同美英法德打又如何? 你小心又有八國聯軍

我相信在Sandhurst學的確是全面, 不但是純技術, 更有政冶文化甚至宗教背景
中國軍隊最大毛病是chain of command, 因為它絕不主張自發性, 發出tactical command 權只有指揮部,
破壞CCC (或C3) 全軍一定散, 亦冇人在校級或以下肯take command, 因為黨不容許
外國 (Sandhurst 或 West Point) 都主張initiative, 主張個別command用自已個腦,
偏偏中国軍隊不主張亦不容許軍官用腦, 它主張「軍隊用血, 黨才是腦」之做法去打扙, 死未

仲有, 外国軍隊軍官個個要求大學畢業, 出到同市價一樣幾萬一個月去吸引D高學歴人仕
解放軍中尉亦只得千元, 呀茂去做? 所以都係D農民子弟去做
中国D大學生睬你都傻, 只去外資企業打工或去炒股票, D質數會好到邊?

這�堣@開始是純技術討論吹水, 如果要拉入其他因素,1000版都講吾完
如果你又要拉到去講air-to-ground suppression, 咁中國軍隊更大鑊,
因為如果開戰, 中國空軍打不到72小時, 制空權一定在對方手中
到時真係可以乜坦克都冇用, 對方用Apache當你係靶

你對住D書, 但係真實世界係要死人架
在戰場上要殺人, 吾係為做英雄, 係因為吾想死, 你吾想辦法先殺死對方, 死既就係你
當然對方亦是同一想法及同一做法

不過我非踩中國軍隊, 只是要面對現實

以前清庭亦有類似之流提此想法, 應為對付周邊及對內就足够, 所以不須北洋水師, 不須洋槍洋炮
其實軍事力量亦是外交手段之一, Sandhurst 亦有教如何利用 Strategic Power Projection, 如何建造Finlandization利用等
你中國關上門吾同人比, 輸既一定係自己, 所以吾同意話只比週邊強就可以
千祈吾好信話自已愛和平就冇人搞你咁天真, 自古弱国無外交
而家中国外交處處比人玩, 因為佢冇能力在談判時好以美国咁停兩隻母艦起對方門口

PS. 我在TA一般都�p坐MBT, 太大目標, 通常只坐IFV, 安全得多

[ 本帖最後由 BenChek 於 2008-5-17 08:17 編輯 ]

Dont want to talk too much any more.
Too many "left" people here.

If you have a chance to sit inside various MBT, you will tell immediately the different.
The Challenger2 is more like an electronic game cantre, with target accusition and ID devices, tracking and firing resolution consoles etc.  I had a look into T80, and they are way behind, and I believe this 99 is also the same.  This is why M1A1/A2 or Challenger2 can always find the target first and shoot first, and sure to hit you first.  C2 and all M1 all have aircon, and T-80 doesnt. The aircon is mainly for nuclear.

Why NATO changed to 120mm smooth-bore is the re-design of all ammo into missile like.  As I said before these ammo are more like missile now, not bomb shell anymore.  I could lock on the target using any of the: passive thermo imaging, active thermo (ie light them up), lazer ranging, 2nd lazer ranging (eg from foot soldier), or even GPS.  The shell being fired could have around +/-20 degree flight path to find its target, ie it has its guiding system and being "smart".  I believe those T80 would never stand a chance, same as the chinese 99.

Again, dont want to talk too much any more.
Too many "left" people here.

[ 本帖最後由 BenChek 於 2008-6-1 16:50 編輯 ]

For NATO's comment, they arent too concern on the MBT.
Russian never made any good MBT for a 1-to-1 battle basis.
Their MBT design is still mainly supporting infantry and operate in large formation.
Actually Russian IFVs are more theatening than their MBT, eg BDRM and BMP-2.  They can move a large amount of troops very fast.

Also NATO best tank killer is not the Challenger2 nor the M1A1, but the Apache.

NATO's main concern is to maintain sufficient logistic support to delay the Russian.
It is not about who has the best equipment, but who can last longer in the battle field.