I know. The $75bil to $400bil+ comparison is valid. Pure and simple.
I know. The $75bil to $400bil+ comparison is valid. Pure and simple.
Not the exact same benefit, but also not 75 bil figure either...here is a even simpler example,Type 99 MBT is comparable to Abram MBT, but Type 99 MBT is a lot cheaper than the Abram MBT, so when the money is recorded, China seems to have spend far less than the US while still deploying an MBT that is just as effective as the US. Same thing about aircraft, J-10 and FC-1 are easily comparable to US fourth generation fighters, yet they are lot cheaper than the US fourth generation fighters. So when the money is recorded, it seems that China spent less money than the US while still having a US counterpart...the list can go on and on...but point is, spending a lot of money doesn't say much about US defense...it doesn't take efficiency and many other factors into account.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
the actual cost, if you ignore the money and currency conversions, and you go down to the fundamental of economics, would be still be about the same. Its just that in US, you earn more money, so things cost more; in China, you earn less money, so things cost less...the 75 bil figure only takes the cost into account, and it ignores the intake...Originally Posted by Bull
That is simply a whole bunch of hogwash. The Type-99 tank is extremely inferior in terms of armour, fire control, and C4ISR. They're not even in the same weight class. If this is your arguement, then it falls flat down. I rather than a battalion of M1A2SEPs over a division of Type-99 anyday.Originally Posted by ChinaWall65
First of all, we don't have any statistics about Type 99's fire control or C4ISR, so you arguement about Type 99's fire control and C4ISR is a blatant lie out of your ignorance...if you take Type 99's upgradable armour, add-on armour, and active defense into account, Type 99's is defensable against an Abram...if you still think that Type 99's defense is inferior than Abram's, then think about it this way, Type 99's gun is fully capable of penetrating Abram's frontal armor with latest tank round, and Abram is able to penetrate Type 99's defense (if you would like to think it that way) then they are still equal because both can kill each other with the same advantage. Abram is not that good of a tank...you are just under the impression of Abram's performances in Gulf War against Iraq's 20 year old T-72s armed with 20 year old tank rounds with absolutely no night or thermal vision...I would like to see Abram's armor against a modern tank operated by an army that actually knows how to fight an war.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Oh yea, if you are gonna take weight into account, then M1A2 can't operate anywhere other than the open desert or plain...and if you thinking about operating an M1A2 in China, then its extremely heavy weight will get it nowhere.
No, I'm not talking out of ignorance. I'm talking through the exercises we've observed in Mongolia with the 38 and 39 Group Armies. Nowhere near what we saw with 3-7Cav against the Medina Division. I'm talking about the Sino-Russian exercises. Best way to see capabilities, watch how they train and nowhere even close to the exercises I've been on during the Cold War.
I am a combat engineer by trade. I've spent 22+ years working for the army. And you know crap all about weights. You have no clue to the battle management systems in the ABRAMS and you definetely have no idea what I'm talking about when I speak of battalions and divisions.
Jeeze, where do these armchair privates come from?
Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 05-26-2006 at 03:31 AM.
I already proved my arguement and you already agreed with me. You stated again and again that PPP doesn't work, which is the same thing i been trying to say (the power of Chinese money should be higher). PPP is used to determine all money conversions. The $75 bil figure is in US currency converted from Chinese currency using PPP. You already said PPP doesn't work for China or US, therefore the $75 bil figure is flawed.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
That is funny, i don't remember Type 99 participating in the Sino-Russian exercises. But i do remember Type 96 participating in that exercises.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
You are dead wrong, best way to see capabilities is through performances on the actualy battlefield in a real war. If you think Sino-Russian is for training Chinese soldiers, then you are wrong again. The exercise is a political message to Taiwan since everything covered in the exercise just happens to be everything necessary for invasion of Taiwan. It is also an opportunity for Russia to demonstrate their weapons to China, who is a potential buyer.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Same thing can be said about you, you have absolutely no clue to the battle management systems in the Type 99 either. NO IN THIS OR ANY OTHER FORUM KNOWS.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
A Chinese tank division is composed of of three tank regiments, and each regiment contains three tank battallions plus an armoured infantry battalion, a self-propelled artillery battalion, AAA battalion, etc. A Chinese tank division also contains an armored infantry regiment plus an artillery regiment each with AAA, artillery, etc. In addition, a Chinese tank division contains an air defense battalion, engineer battalion, reconaissance battalion, and communications battalion, plus a bounch of other things that I can't remember of the top of my head...still think I have no idea about your ignorant comments?Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
How about come down and act professional and stop with these unecessary and irrelevent comments.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Yes it is, let me put it to you this way...see the "$"-dollar sign, that means US currency, but China doesn't use the US dollar; so where could this $ 75 bil figure come from...omfg, maybe it is converted to US currency from Chinese currency...and how do people determine conversion factors? by using PPP!!!Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
T-99 Has frontal armor is really good.
Future concept btw.
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Actually the highest estimate is $120billion.
That is either a type 96 or a type 98(prototype), there is no add-on armor in the picture so that is not a type 99Originally Posted by MOO
Register at china-defense.com, there is a thread about that $ 75 bil figure. People with a lot more knowledge in this field and with a better reputation also support my claim that it is from PPP...so if you support the $ 75 bil figure then you support PPP, but you can't support one and deny the other.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
The Soviets were suppose to have 3 T-72's or T-80's for every Abrham the Americans have. The build time and cost was low. But the T series weren't suppose to directly engage Abrhams. The Western tank is supierior in every freakin way possible! Same think with China. Soviets figured the best way to kill Abrhams was anti tank missiles and artillery.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)