Pathfinder-X said:
The following is a paragraph from Sinodefence.com about Type-99
"The Type 98 is powered by a liquid cooled, turbocharged 1,200 hp diesel derived from Germany WD396 diesel technology. At its current battle weight of 52 tons, this gives a power-to-weight ratio of about 23 hp/tonne."
Except the part where they got the designation of Type 99 wrong, everything else is true. If you like to read the rest of the article here is the link:
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type98.asp
Hope that helps!
Just before confusion sets in. My comment was articulated around the fact that as soon as people take a contrarian view, then they dismiss the opinion as being valid.
I can show you Janes articles which were clearly wrong and deliberately misrepresented (by both the US and Russia) to gain some pyschological leverage. It's happened ever since the british were rumoured to be building the Super Ironclads, the precursors to the Dreadnoughts etc...
I have little faith in the blind acceptance of figures from public sources as invariably the operational data I have worked with is very different. Janes for example is used as a Guide - not as a bible. Certainly for naval references Bakers is seen as a superior reference work.
Anyone can get the length of a frigate down correctly, anyone can say how many missile mounts are on a CVN, but as an example - there is still huge differences in opinion on how the deadweight of a submarine is measured. Now in that example getting the displacement wrong will alter some of the targetting assumptions on building a defensive interdiction capability.
It's the same with tanks. Get the FCS wrong and what you have is either a 45 tonne, 53 tonne or 70 tonne armoured chariot that will fail in some tactical assumptions.
To even assume that the warfighting capability of an armoured platform will be articulated in a public environment is absolute nonsense. The M60-A3 data is
still classified. and that is an obsolete platform.
Thats why when people get excited at start drawing up tables of data to say why their preferred platform is better than another I just roll my eyes in frustration. The data you get on the net, from magazines is a generality - it's so broad and sometimes so far removed from the actual detail that it's almost hysterically funny to watch people get so excited. People throw data like engagement times, speed, offsight specs as though they were completely accurate.
Give me strength!
Then to top it off, you get some people in here who do have actual warfighting, combat, tactical, development and management skills in military projects and with some credible know how being challenged about their answers and credibility by (usually) enthusiastic armchair generals.
Thats why I make sometimes dismissive and frustrated comments. Some people in here
really need to get a grip on reality.
Not one piece of specific data that I have ever seen on the net or in a magazine about technical issues on a platform has
ever been used as a reference point on any project I have been involved with -
not one!
