I have commented on the tanks shown to be in Tibet.
I have used sources to indicate the status as to what they are, to include the Chinese source that Xihuahua runs, that being the closest to the official view, since Xihuahua claims to be close to the PLA or so it is said by a Chinese Colonel on WAB.
Wdf is Xihuahua? And what source?
The only one you have used are wiki and sino defence on type 96/99 MBT. It got nothing to do with the new tank or whatever it is.
I have not given any personal opinion since I have not seen the Chinese tank and so I have had to go with what is available on the net,
This fact and because of the fact that in the modern battlefield, which is getting progressively lethal, it is well nigh impossible for a light tank to survive, China would not use Light tanks in Tibet (unless it is for secondary roles like quelling riots).
China has produced a large number of Light tanks and so it would be unwise and not good economics to mothball them and so they are still in service.
Now that you agree there is a term such as light tank, then we can finally move on.
This topic is covered extensively in wab btw. I quote:
A light tank or a wheeled AFV with a 120mm gun even a low pressure model offers a much better anti-armor platform for light and cavalry formations than a missile platform.
An otherwise light unit in a restricted terrain setting with an infantry tank with MBT type sensing and direct fire using good tactics with sound leadership will dominate an opposing force that lacks this capability. It would also be extremely useful in a COIN mission. Contrary to popular myth, tanks were vital piece sof equipment in Vietnam. No they cannot go everywhere, but where they are, they dominate.
So with an eye on Indian army forces in the region and Tibetan nationalist it appears the concept of infantry tank may have been reborn. Chinese AFV update. - Page 9
However, I am open to being informed from OFFICIAL Chinese Govt source since you all do not believe any other source and so you can feel satisfied by giving authentic Chinese Govt sources. I say this since you even debunk Sinodefence, the closest one can get regarding China military and they claim that they have teh ear of the Chinese military and have done extensive research!
In my personal opinion wab and CDF are alot better than sinodefence.
Since you don't even believe that, your Xixhuahau is exposed as another charlatan masquerading as a China defence expert!
Once again, I have no idea who this xihuahua is.
As I sad before it is better to be Salim than the donkey of Sancho Panza. No offence meant!
None taken. People in a glass house shouldnt throw stones at others though.
BTW, Wiki is not all that bad. It has reference to the original documents. And therefore, to a great degree, authentic!
Agree, however those you mentioned isnt a good exemple though.
It is the lazy who when the lose whine and it also show that they are superficial in that they don't even check the references before comment like a crazed toad in monsoon or as Mao had said of the Chinese - frogs in the well!
Agree, you may take a closer look at your sources. Yes, I like Mao in some respect as I do Sun Tsu too!