ZTZ-100 with 125mm gun seen for the first time ever, unlike the two previously known ZTZ-100 variants this one has visibly more armor at the front, a longer hull, seven roadwheels and double pin tracks
>>65204861was any of this chinese tech ever battle tested?
>>65204861IMPLEASSIVE
>>65204904No. Like their cars, Chinese military equipment sucks...at first iteration. Once they do have actual combat data, the Chinks will brute force iterate their design and it will get better over time. Right now, they are in a chicken and egg situation where they don't want to lose face over the initial failings of their products but need the real world data to improve it.
Why are you so butthurt, chinkshill?
>>65204924So never?
>>65204904Thailand used VT4 and VN1 against Cambodia and reported great satisfaction. In fact they just signed a contract to buy more.
>>65205007That's the coastguard ship. The armored military vessel it crashed into was fine.
>>65205208>In fact they just signed a contract to buy moreReally? Last I heard, start of this year, they were investigating why there were so many failures with the VT-4 including catastrophic barrel issues.
>>65204861What is even the point of a gun based tank anymore, besides that shells are cheaper and you can carry more?
This isn't a ZTZ-100 variant.It's the Type 101, a replacement to the Type 99.
>>65204904Yes. No, I am not going to elaborate.
>>65205385Well, seems like that investigation exonerated it, then.
>>65204924China is the largest car exporter in the world
>>65205398>whats the point of X anymore>lists the main points of why X is still around
>>65204904yesthey got absolutely raped by ISIS
>>65205421Is it possible you're not an honest fellow?
>>65206284It was Boko Haram with sudanese VT-4s.Yes they're a chinese export tank, but there is no direct equivalent in chinese service.
>>65206389>the monkey model argumentAnd I'm sure the Iraqi T-72s had no equivalents in (very recently) Soviet service.
Usually China threads on this board devolve faster into cringe competing circle jerks with little to no middle ground being found.
>>65206451I'm just saying, none of the chinese tanks in service are directly equivalent to the VT-4.It's basically a Type 96 mixed with some tech of type 98The VT-4 is better than the Type 96, which makes up the bulk of china's tank reserves. But the VT-4 is worse than the Type 99, Type 15, and Type 100 which are all newer and more capable.
>>65206389>>65206451Not Boko Haram Not sudanese Nice try
>>65206499Oh sorry, Nigerian, not Sudanese; my mistakehttps://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2025/04/28/boko-haram-destroyed-chinese-made-vt-4-tanks-in-nigeria-using-rpg/
>>65206389since when is sudan in west africa?also why would a JAS victory get broadcast via Islamic State media channels?You're a fucking retard that doesn't know shit
>>65206520the article is fucking wrong and the writer is a retard that shouldn't be writing articles on west african conflicts if he can't even recognize the logo of the islamic state west africa province looking him directly in the eye
>>65204938????
>>65204861If it has a 125mm gun, a larger more armored hull and whole extra road wheel, is it even a ZTZ100. It's basically a whole different design at that point.
>>65205208They said the tech was good but the physical durable was poor and ended up using M60s after too many VT4 were out for repairs. That said, like others have mentioned ITT, it will likely get much better.
implessive japanese grandfather
>>65205364>China fell for the armor meme
