Talk:Type 96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

Updated page with development info on PLA second-generation MBT's, along with its versions. -- Adeptitus 07:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved Tienmen "Tank Man" photo from T-59 page to here. IMO the T-80/88 had limited production and wasn't exported, so we can prolly just leave it here under the Type 96 page. They belong to the same family/development tree anyway. -- Adeptitus 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you move it? The tanks in that photo have slack track, large road wheels, and the old highly-sloped glacis plate. They are clearly Type 59 or 69, as attested by many sources (I can only think of Patrick Wright (2001), Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine at the moment). Please stop putting it back here. —Michael Z. 2006-10-04 02:47 Z

[edit] Split article

Does it make sense to split this article into one on the Type 80/88, entitled Type 88, and another on the Type 85/90/96, entitled Type 96, since these models appear to be based on two separate lines of research? —Michael Z. 2006-10-04 04:07 Z

Personally, I think so. There's no reason that many models of tank should redirect to the same current model. Not to mention that article is getting ridiculously long in lists.3R1C 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now splitted the article in accordance to the suggestion.--MoRsE 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Range 700 km, 900 km with external fuel???? IMO, the range of type 96 is more likely to be around 450km, 600km with external fuel.--Master fx 02:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sinodefense.com gives a range of 400km[1]. Raoulduke47 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

either way 700 km is pure bullshit. btw i changed the weight to 46 tons instead of 48 --Master fx 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanna say that the picture of type-90 is actually the Al-Khalid, which has some cosmetic differences.

[edit] Soft soil in southern China?

Besides the cost, another reason is that the latter(the type 99) was too heavy for the soft soil in southern China whereas the lighter Type 96 is better suited for these conditions.

It seems unlikely that the whole of southern china would too soft-soiled to be used by heavy tanks(its a big country!). Besides the type 99 is only 6 tonnes heavier than the Type 96 so the difference isn't all that great. Also, at 54 tonnes the type 99 is still much lighter than the M1A1 Abrams and i've never heard of any restrictions on the use of an Abrams. It seems likely that more tank units were stationed in the north because:

1: Traditionally, the greatest threat of land invasion came from the Soviet union.
2: The desertic areas of northern China are better suited for large-scale maneuvers than the densely populated coastal regions.

So i've added a {{Fact}} tag. Raoulduke47 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing family tree

The intro states that the Type 80 led to both the Type 88 and Type 96, implying that the Type 80 may be descended from the Type 79. The versions section states that the Type 85 "was further developed" into the Type 90, but there's no clue where the Tye 85 came from. The Type 96 section states that the Type 85-III (were there an 85-I and 85-II?) led to the Type 96, and then Type 88 production stopped.

So did the Type 85 come from the Type 80? This is pretty confusing. We need a family tree to help sort out the article and make the relationships clear. It's also not completely clear which tanks were just prototypes and test models, and which were actually production models. —Michael Z. 2007-06-26 03:51 Z