Talk:Type 96 tank

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

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.

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)

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

Chinese tanks

Possible equivalent article similar to Tanks in the Spanish Army?

Why is this tank considered a second-generation?

Is it simply because of its Type 80 lineage? Or are they trying to say that the basic tank is considered second generation, while the upgraded version is 3rd generation? The wording is very confusing here. 184.64.72.53 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The logic behind having the Type 90 picture on this page

The article being labeled as Type 96, it seems to make little sense to put a Type 90 picture next to the title. It may be related, sure, but then again, so is the Type 59. 68.145.212.169 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Renaming the page

Hi all

I'm proposing renaming the page as the Type 96 tank. Reasons as follows:

1) Removal of disambiguation. There are many things called the Type 96. 2) Precedence in both the Chinese and Japanese (probably more) wikipedias 3) Unlike western tanks with names, they are designated by numbers and it would make more sense to add the tank suffix I would like to extend this to the other chinese tank pages too.

-RedArrowSG (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - English WP articles aren't generally pre-disambiguated, so as long as there's no other article on English WP about another Type 96, this title is correct. What other language WPs title their articles is irrelevant to English WP's naming conventions. If you want to propose a broad renaming of Chinese tank articles, it's probably best raise the topic at WT:MILHIST. - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support - Actually, Type 96 (disambiguation) lists several other Type 96s, and the tank doesn't really look like the primary topic. As such, this page should probably be moved to Type 96 tank. However, my objection to mass movings of Chinese tank articles that are the Primary Topic, or for which they are the only articles with that title, still stands. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I'm fine with moving it for this page only. I will wait a while more to see if there are any more valid objections. Are there only administrative tasks to carry out before hand, such as fixing links to this page? Or can I just move it accordingly? RedArrowSG (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move Type 90 sections

Hi all,

The Type 90 does not actually belong on the Type 96 page.

The chassis is entirely different. The Type 90 chassis has the driver position in the center ala the Type 98/99. It is actually the prototype (no serial production) of the Type 98/99. The type 96 on the other hand, has its driver position on the left side, continuing on the design of the Type 59/69/88 series.

The Type 90-II is also actually the MBT-2000 as offered by Pakistan. Source of this nomenclature is the Worldwide Equipment Guide for the US Army's use. Page 5-40. The same document also lists the Type 88C as the early version of the Type 96 (and I've inserted the info as such on the Type 88 page) PDF link Dennis J Blasko also corroborates this nomenclature.

The thing I'm not so sure about is this: should we consolidate all Al-khalid/MBT2000/Type90 information in one page, or to separate them by nationality. While information on the Type 90 is lacking, it is a true indigenous Chinese prototype AFV.

I propose that one of the following 3 actions could be carried out:

1. Have a small article/stub on a Type 90/VT-1 page
2. Merge Type 90 sections into MBT-2000/Al Khalid page
3. Merge Type 90 sections into Type 99 page

1) would probably be the best recognition of the Type 90/VT-1 as Chinese designations and the Al-Khalid/MBT2000 as a mainly Pakistani tank. It will also remove the seemingly orphan information about the MBT-2000/Al Khalid and its operators on the Type 96 page. Lastly as a result of the above, it will help keep the page brief and concise. 2) would probably muddle things up even more. 3) is acceptable as well but I would prefer only mentioning the Type 90 as a prototype. RedArrowSG (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

提供一些参考：

• 一般认为Type 90-II是用于外贸出口的型号，与中国军队的Type 99平行发展的，据推测，两者源自同样的概念样车。
• 90-II是原型车，发展成为中国与巴基斯坦合作的项目MBT2000，巴基斯坦称为Al-Khalid，中国称为VT-1/1A，两者外观差别不大。
• Type 96属于Type 80—88B/A—85-I/II—85-IIAP—85-IIM—96 (88C)这个系列。

--颐园新居 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Type 96 tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)