list of inaccuracy of Chinese ground vehicles

[Redmisty 828]

7 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Anyone feel like checking Baidu for some type 96 info? There's no way that BM42 Mango can penetrate the turret IRL, I seriously doubt our in game values

Forget Baidu please, that search engine sucks, nothing could trust on it.

[BadOpinionHaver 2,092]

44 minutes ago, Hinyanawi_Tenshi said:

Forget Baidu please, that search engine sucks, nothing could trust on it.

I've seen some gems on there, that's how we got the mantlet for the Type 96 isn't it?

[Loongsheep 5,339]

38 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

I've seen some gems on there, that's how we got the mantlet for the Type 96 isn't it?

The problem is that for 1 valid source, you will find 13 fake sources made either by content farm or fanboys. People there are used to photoshop very realistic sources, and that stands for vehicles of all countries (you will see tons of "leaked document" based on Steelbeast drawings for all tanks).

 

People who frequent Baidu will be able to spot out the real from the fakes, but they can be confusing to outsiders.

 

8 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Anyone feel like checking Baidu for some type 96 info? There's no way that BM42 Mango can penetrate the turret IRL, I seriously doubt our in game values

Which Type 96 are you speaking of?

 

The early "basic" ZTZ-96 that we have in game is really just a Type 80 with modern gun and armor slabs. It was a cheaper and lighter alternative to the ZTZ-99 for Southern area, which at only 40 tons isn't heavily armored and a BM42 will most certain go right through. Even the PLA experts call it a "sub gen-3 tank", not a real 3rd gen MBT like the Type 99.

 

The ZTZ-96A has significantly improved armor.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Loongsheep

[Redmisty 828]

32 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

I've seen some gems on there, that's how we got the mantlet for the Type 96 isn't it?

That's many photos of 96, but you could not tell the details of them, they have no location no time or other data about "what is it".

Type 96 has many modified version, not even 96A or 96B etc.

Baidu always provide some We Media contents since they could charge the money from them.

And most valid contents are still classified or not published on the net.

I recommend Bing, this is a better search engine for Chinese contents.

[Loongsheep 5,339]

2 minutes ago, Hinyanawi_Tenshi said:

Baidu always provide some We Media contents since they could charge the money from them.

And most valid contents are still classified or not published on the net.

I recommend Bing, this is a better search engine for Chinese contents.

I think Baidu Tieba (similar to forum/BBS) is where most good stuff comes from.

But you really need to be able to read Chinese and know the modern internet terms just to understand. They do not use official terms there.

[BadOpinionHaver 2,092]

6 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

Which Type 96 are you speaking of?

 

The early "basic" ZTZ-96 that we have in game is really just a Type 80 with modern gun and armor slabs. It was a cheaper and lighter alternative to the ZTZ-99 for Southern area, which at only 40 tons isn't heavily armored and a BM42 will most certain go right through. Even the PLA experts call it a "sub gen-3 tank", not a real 3rd gen MBT like the Type 99.

 

The ZTZ-96A has significantly improved armor.

In that case there's still some discrepancy, since BM42 will go through the turret composite of the ZTZ-96A if the ERA has already been detonated. Given the modular armor layout one would assume that the composite itself would have been improved between the major revisions.

 

That's just my 2¢ though, I'm purely basing my assumptions on the fact that the Chinese had access to the T-72A, so one would assume their unorthodox turret design would have to be better than that of the T-72A for them to even consider putting it into mass production.

[Loongsheep 5,339]

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

That's just my 2¢ though, I'm purely basing my assumptions on the fact that the Chinese had access to the T-72A, so one would assume their unorthodox turret design would have to be better than that of the T-72A for them to even consider putting it into mass production.

The ZTZ-99 sure. Claim protection matched M1A1HA/early M1A2 at 1999 debut.

It is basically a T-72 hull improved all-around with a Western turret (China has studied several Western MBTs during the 80s), plus some features of the T-80U.

 

The ZTZ-96 was however different. Two things weighted over the rest in its development - cost and weight.

Back in the 90s, highway network only covered a small part of China, medium tanks are bad on dirt roads and paddy fields. In fact even Type-59 was not even deployed widely in the South. So the ZTZ-96 had to stay under 40 tons which limited its protection.

 

With that budget (around 1/2 of ZTZ-99?) it also could not adopt the best composite array and electronics. The OG ZTZ-96 was a bit lackluster for its time, but at least the 125mm gun was good. Then came the ZTZ-96A which improved armor, covering small arc of the front. The ZTZ-96B became the definite version, it claims at least the same armor as the early ZTZ-99.

I think recent development has shifted to the Type 15 light tank instead.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Loongsheep

[BadOpinionHaver 2,092]

On 07/08/2020 at 08:57, Loongsheep said:

The ZTZ-96 was however different. Two things weighted over the rest in its development - cost and weight.

Back in the 90s, highway network only covered a small part of China, medium tanks are bad on dirt roads and paddy fields. In fact even Type-59 was not even deployed widely in the South. So the ZTZ-96 had to stay under 40 tons which limited its protection.

 

With that budget (around 1/2 of ZTZ-99?) it also could not adopt the best composite array and electronics. The OG ZTZ-96 was a bit lackluster for its time, but at least the 125mm gun was good. Then came the ZTZ-96A which improved armor, covering small arc of the front. The ZTZ-96B became the definite version, it claims at least the same armor as the early ZTZ-99.

While all this is true we still know that the Type 96 is missing like 150mm of CHA in the turret from Merzhi's bug report:

I won't make you read everything in the post (though you should, these pixel measurements are the closest anyone in the west has to an actual armor profile for the tank), instead you can just consider the following:

Green is the armor that's actually modelled in game. Red is the armor that isn't. What Gaijin have done is model the removable modular armor, without modelling the base armor underneath!

 

The rabbit hole goes much deeper, (missing hull armor, a 300mm gun shroud being modelled as 50mm, etc) but you'll have to look at Merzhi's report for all that.

 

Oh, and the funniest part? That whole report was thrown away by Gaijin because it doesnt have enough primary sources. Apparently real life footage from the inside of the turret doesn't count as a primary source, lol.

 

I'd like to see what "primary sources" Gaijin used for the BS model we have in game though.

[GoddePro 1,147]

8 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

While all this is true we still know that the Type 96 is missing like 150mm of CHA in the turret from Merzhi's bug report:

I won't make you read everything in the post (though you should, these pixel measurements are the closest anyone in the west has to an actual armor profile for the tank), instead you can just consider the following:

Green is the armor that's actually modelled in game. Red is the armor that isn't. What Gaijin have done is model the removable modular armor, without modelling the base armor underneath!

 

The rabbit hole goes much deeper, (missing hull armor, a 300mm gun shroud being modelled as 50mm, etc) but you'll have to look at Merzhi's report for all that.

 

Oh, and the funniest part? That whole report was thrown away by Gaijin because it doesnt have enough primary sources. Apparently real life footage from the inside of the turret doesn't count as a primary source, lol.

 

I'd like to see what "primary sources" Gaijin used for the BS model we have in game though.

They can disapprove posts for not having enough primary sources, but in the event they reject everyone else's information, they can make up whatever BS they want

 

at this point, I reckon they should make an allowance for vehicles they don't have enough information for. Any vehicle that has no primary sources on armour should be able to use videos/ secondary sources to supplement them until actual primary sources can be found. 

[BadOpinionHaver 2,092]

37 minutes ago, GoddePro said:

They can disapprove posts for not having enough primary sources, but in the event they reject everyone else's information, they can make up whatever BS they want

 

at this point, I reckon they should make an allowance for vehicles they don't have enough information for. Any vehicle that has no primary sources on armour should be able to use videos/ secondary sources to supplement them until actual primary sources can be found. 

Absolutely. 

 

Gaijin is so bureaucratic with their bug reports, you could fly to a museum with a ruler, measure an armor plate yourself, send back a picture, and you'd still get the copypaste message telling you to add a .clog file and attach primary sources.

 

The tech mods themselves are all good people, it's just the rules they have to enforce are practically designed to discourage players from making reports in the first place.

[GoddePro 1,147]

3 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Absolutely. 

 

Gaijin is so bureaucratic with their bug reports, you could fly to a museum with a ruler, measure an armor plate yourself, send back a picture, and you'd still get the copypaste message telling you to add a .clog file and attach primary sources.

 

The tech mods themselves are all good people, it's just the rules they have to enforce are practically designed to discourage players from making reports in the first place.

IMO I feel like gaijin should send out a request for more information in this case

they need to get their heads out of their a$$es and ask for help on this one, and on the many other cases where the same thing is happening 

[Laurelix 5,474]

Lol these are very fubar innacuracies and errors compared to other tech trees 

[Doctor_Doom 22]

On 14/12/2019 at 22:48, Miki_Hoshii said:

 

Just a update on this; the additional .30 cal coaxial mount seems to be a modification done in later service. Meaning that our current model is technically not incorrect, that said it'd be nice to have the .30 cal to make it a little different from the US M18's.

 

Below is a National Day parade from 1953:

You can see the M18's in this video, as well as the M4A1 75mm gun's with the 76mm gun turrets. 

 

Something interesting that could replace the T-34 (1943) can also be seen; a pair of standard M4A1's can been seen as well.

 

WOW! Thank you for the video. I always thought that M4A1 (75)W displayed at Chengkungling is only a modern "restoration" and in real life it had 76 mm. 

[DMYEugen 688]

On 14/12/2019 at 12:48, Miki_Hoshii said:

Below is a National Day parade from 1953:

 

Just wanna point this out since no one has seemed to notice:

Spoiler

I am almost certain that this is an early M4A4. That coax machinegun cutout is a dead giveaway. It is unique to the "mantletless" gun mount found on early Shermans, which can be seen in-game on the M4A1 and Sherman II. The bolted collar around the gun assembly is also visible. These early M4A4s appeared to have existed in decent numbers before the standard gun mount changed to the "mantleted" one most people recognize. I guess the ROC somehow received at least one early M4A4s in their M4A4 batch.

 

Just did a bit more digging and found an image of several early M4A4s in ROC service. They were apparently received from the British so these would technically be called Sherman V.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by DMYEugen

[DMYEugen 688]

On 14/12/2019 at 12:48, Miki_Hoshii said:

Something interesting that could replace the T-34 (1943) can also be seen; a pair of standard M4A1's can been seen as well.

 

Better image of those M4A1s:

Spoiler

I believe these would technically be called Sherman II since they were apparently received from the British.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by DMYEugen

[hypilot 123]

CM25 missing TOW-2A