intresting artical on T-99s gun

[darth sidious]

高膛压火炮实际都存在炮膛烧蚀严重的问题，只是程度不同。我国的坦克炮的巨大威力决定了它的烧 蚀问题很严重 ，说句不好听的，有点拿寿命换威力的意思。其实这也是没有办法的事情。我国的125实际发展了 三代，目前装 在99上的是第三代，其威力足以把这个星球上已经出现的和正在已知研制的坦克彻底打回老家，所 以，我国并不 急于把更大口径的家伙拿出来，但不是说没有。只是怕被人扣上“大规模杀伤性武器â€�的帽 子。呵呵 。
In fact ,high-pressure cannon can’t avoid the serious ablation of its core completely,more or less. The terrible power of our (meaning Chinese) cannon is destined to cause a serious problem of ablation.frankly speaking, just enhance the power of cannon at expense of its lifespan. After all ,no other choice is available. We have developed three generations of 125 MM cannon and that fixed on ZTZ99 is the third one, the power of which can blow all kinds of tankers existing or under development on the earth into pieces. So, we(Chinese engineers) have no anxiety to show up more powerful cannon with bigger cailiber ,which we have grasped long ago. we do so just to avoid the accusation of “WMD�

以下纯粹是鄙人信口开河，大家随便看看了事。
The following is just my blow, don’t be too serious about it.


我国当年得到125样炮，也就是出口型2A46后的情况，我们当时想当然的认为2A46的威力 比我们在研的 120大，心存敬畏，没办法，被老毛子的装甲力量吓怕了。结果炮一响，眼镜掉了一地，这个东西根本就 不是想 象的那样。一分析，2A46的内外弹道性能都有问题，而且很多东西不是用出口型可以解释的。再 加上性能低劣 的出口型弹药，威力低是肯定的。这一炮打掉了中国人的畏惧。我国在2A46的基础上，对身管进 行了一定的改 进，威力就有不小的提高。这就是第一代125，但是没有装备部队。随后的进一步改进型号（其实 这个时候的炮 和2A46已经差别很大了），装备了部队，就是96上的炮。第三代就不说了，99的重锤就是它 。这个时候的 125已经和2A46没有什么关系了，其威力打T80个对穿都可以
when we(Chinese engineers) got the first 125MM cannon ,Russian model 2A46 for exportion , we certainly took it granted that it surely had more power than the 120MM cannon we wer developing because all were awe of Russian bear, frankly speaking ,frightened by its armor force. But when we fired the Russian cannon in its power-test, all were surprisedat its poor performce that was completely unexpected. After analysis, we (Chinese engineers) found that its poor performce cound’t be simplely artrubited to the fact that it was just a model for exportion, because there were some wrongs on its ballistic trajectory. In addition of inferior ammunition for exportion, Russian 2A46 cannon is really a gabage. So, the poor shot of Russian cannon in the test drove up all Chinese fear. On the basis of Russian 2A46 cannon, we made some betterment and mend on its “pipe� and improved its power by a considerable margin . That is the first generation of our 125 MM cannon for tanker but it has never been equipped with our troop. The following upgraded 125 MM cannon (which is quiet different from Russian one) enters into service and fixed on T96 MBT. The third generation of our 125MM cannon is the "big hammer" of ZTZ99 MBT, which has nothing to do with Russian 2A46 cannon and can easily break a hole through Russian T80 MBT from the face to the ass.


here is a link http://www.cjdby.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=6&replyid=1032233&id=220803&pa ge=1&skin=0&Star=2

[MIGleader]

wow...a 2a46 can mission kill out an m1 from the side or rear. the article didnt even mention its bastion abilities. so if this chinese gun is an improved 2a46, it must pack a big punch. i wonder why the russians never thoguht of improving the 2a46...i mean its not really so hard to lenghten the barrel.

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Mig re-read the last part.

can easily break a hole through Russian T80 MBT from the face to the ass.

now weather it can do that to a M1 is a different matter the T80 and M1 are different structures, also factor in sighting systems reload time and a number of other factors and of course the ultimate factor Reality and theory and it all come down to chance.;

[MIGleader]

i read through and clear. i was saying from other study that a 2a46 on a iraqi t-72 had once blown up the turret of a m1.

[slackpiv]

wow...a 2a46 can mission kill out an m1 from the side or rear.
A BMP's 30 MM can mission kill a M1 from the side to the rear. As with all tanks the M1 is reletively unprotected from the rear, side, and top. Higher calibre does not mean more power. The 120MM easily outguns the Russian 125MM. An m1s turret has never been "blown up" (my understanding of blown up would be seperated from the hull). the only way an Iraqi can be done is a hit from the air where the m1 is most vulnerable. The reason the t-72 turret "blows up" is because of the autoloader and the munitions from inside the tank. The M1 was designed for a head to head tank confrontation where its tungsten, chobam, and DU armor lies.

[TerraN_EmpirE]

A BMP's 30 MM can mission kill a M1 from the side to the rear. As with all tanks the M1 is reletively unprotected from the rear, side, and top. Higher calibre does not mean more power. The 120MM easily outguns the Russian 125MM. An m1s turret has never been "blown up" (my understanding of blown up would be separated from the hull). the only way an Iraqi can be done is a hit from the air where the m1 is most vulnerable. The reason the t-72 turret "blows up" is because of the autoloader and the munitions from inside the tank. The M1 was designed for a head to head tank confrontation where its tungsten, chobam, and DU armor lies.
the M1 separates it's ammo from the crew so unless you hit him just when the loader had his belly on the door button your not going to get an M1's turret to blow up like that. knocked out yes Blown up no.

[MIGleader]

A BMP's 30 MM can mission kill a M1 from the side to the rear. As with all tanks the M1 is reletively unprotected from the rear, side, and top. Higher calibre does not mean more power. The 120MM easily outguns the Russian 125MM. An m1s turret has never been "blown up" (my understanding of blown up would be seperated from the hull). the only way an Iraqi can be done is a hit from the air where the m1 is most vulnerable. The reason the t-72 turret "blows up" is because of the autoloader and the munitions from inside the tank. The M1 was designed for a head to head tank confrontation where its tungsten, chobam, and DU armor lies.

everyone knows a 120 is more powerful than a 125.i dont know where u got the idea that i thoght the 125 was more powerful. its the atgm ability that gives a 125 the advantage. my interpretation of blow up means the turret was hit and an explosion occured. no seperation.

[Aluka]

The terrible power of our (meaning Chinese) cannon is destined to cause a serious problem of ablation.frankly speaking, just enhance the power of cannon at expense of its lifespan.
Russian 2A46 lives about 700 shots, while it's export versions have lifespan of 200 shots. If to assume that chinese modern gun is a second upgrade of export version, then how many shots will it live, if it's lifespan was reduced even further :confused: ? Anyway this article's language doesn't seem much professional, can we even trust it?

the M1 separates it's ammo from the crew so unless you hit him just when the loader had his belly on the door button your not going to get an M1's turret to blow up like that. knocked out yes Blown up no.
For some reason M1 ammo doesn't blow up in a common manner. I've seen several videos, showing ammo burning with a high speed, like fireworks, undoubtably causing high temperatures, and i believe crew members have a fat chance to die in this case.

everyone knows a 120 is more powerful than a 125.i dont know where u got the idea that i thoght the 125 was more powerful.
In fact 125 is more powerfull. It is due to autoloader's structure russian-style guns can't use long APFSDS rounds. Comparing 120 to 125 rounds of similar length/subcaliber ratio 125 is always better. And to say frankly most russian ammunition doesn't even use all potential of it's ratio. Anyway most similar discussions do not make much sense, for gun's effectiveness depends much more on the shell, then on gun itself.

[Gollevainen]

The only interesting part of this article is that it states that the Chinese gun in Type 98/99 is not based on the 120mm chinese gun, but as I and few others have said all along, it's offspring of the russian gun. Those claims that it would been far more superior to the orginal 2M46 are just nationalistic poasting and the designers high belives on their own product. To determ which gun is better, we have to wait more spesific and trustable data...

[Aluka]

Chinese gun uses DU APFSDS shells, so this alone is an advantage of a sort.
By the way, russians did make attempts to improve 2A46. Original concept of T-90 (obiekt 187) had improved 2A66 maingun. Late T-90 was switched to obiekt 188 due to insufficient founds.

[darth sidious]

the article's language is beacause of the translation

and yes the 125 round is more powerful then the 120 by ratio but russian guns cant fire them thanks to the autoloader

PS even in WWII the russian amno is more prown to explosion then american as proven by the M-4 and t-34

[darth sidious]

update intervew with tank designer

王哲荣　坦克设计专家，
我军新型主战坦克副总设计师，他先后主持两种新型坦克的研制工作并获得成功。曾荣获国防科技一 等奖、兵器工 业科技一等奖等多项奖励。2001年当选为中国工程院院士。
记者：请您谈谈ZTZ99式主战坦克的基本情况。
MR. Wang Zherong, tanker- designing expert .the vice general engineer of Chinese new ZTZ99 MBT and therefore is honored for member of Chinese National Academy of Engine in 2001. The following is a interview between MR. Wang (“W� for short) and a journalist(“J� for short).
记者：请您谈谈ZTZ99式主战坦克的基本情况。
J: could you please introduce some information about ZTZ99 MBT?
　　王哲荣：由于涉及军事机密的原因，这个问题我不可能谈得太多。但有一点我可以很自豪地说， ZTZ99式 主战坦克完全是由我们中国人自己研制出来的。就坦克的火力而言，125毫米高膛压滑膛坦克炮使 用钨合金尾翼 稳定脱壳穿甲弹时，可在2000米距离上击穿850毫米的均质装甲，而使用特种合金穿甲弹时， 同距离穿甲能 力达960毫米以上；就坦克防护水平而言，炮塔正面的防护达700毫米，车体防护能力相当于5 00～600 毫米厚的均质钢装甲，如果在炮塔和车体上加装新型双防反应装甲后，抗装甲和破甲弹的能力可达1 000～12 00毫米；就坦克的火控系统而言，采用了国际上先进而流行的猎-歼式火控系统(也称双指挥仪式)，其最显著的特点是，车长可以对火控系统进行超越(炮长的)控 制，包括射击 、跟踪目标和指示目标等；就坦克的动力系统而言，采用了883千瓦(1200马力)的涡轮增压 中冷式大功率 柴油机，最大公路时速达70公里/小时，0～32公里加速时间为12秒。ZTZ99式主战坦克的主要技术指标大致如上所述。
W: for the reason of military secret ,I can’t reveal it too further. But I can be proud to assert that ZTZ99 MBT is developed completely by Chinese ourselves. When it comes to power, 125MM smooth core cannon can hole through 850 mm ERA armor 2000 meter away with Tungstenic Armour-piercing Shell(TAS),and hole through over 960 mm EAR armor at same distance with a “special alloy armour-piecing shell�. When it comes to its armor, the armor in the frontispiece of its barbette is equal to 700 mm EAR armor and that in its side and rear is equal to 500-600 mm EAR. Of course ,if fixed with new additional armor, the standard can be improved to 1000-1200 mm EAR armor. When it comes to “Fire Control System�, the advanced system of “Auto Trail &Destroy� prevailing now is adopted, and the tanker commander can directly operate cannon independently without the help of the gunner . When it comes to propelling system,1200 HP diesel engine is adopted with a fastest speed of 70 KM/H on highroad, and 12 seconds are taken to accelerate from 0 KM/H to 32 KM/H. That is the main capability of ZTZ 99.
者：您能就ZTZ99式主战坦克与西方先进主战坦克相比较，作一总体评价吗？
J: could you please compare ZTZ99 MBT with advanced MBT of West countries.
　　王哲荣：先说坦克火炮威力：美国M1A2主战坦克在2000米距离上的穿甲能力为810毫 米，德国的豹 2A6主战坦克约为900毫米，日本的90式主战坦克为650毫米，这一项技术指标无疑是我们居于领 先地位 ；再来看另一项重要技术指标——防护能力：美国的M1A2车体和炮塔的装甲厚度相当于600毫米和 700毫 米的均质装甲，德国的豹2A6车体和炮塔的装甲厚度相当于580毫米和700毫米的均质装甲， 日本的90式 车体和炮塔的装甲厚度相当于500毫米和560毫米的均质装甲，由此看来，我们的ZTZ99主 战坦克与西方 坦克的防护水平基本上在同一层次上；再来看机动能力：西方国家工业基础雄厚，发动机水平高、动 力传动系统的 可靠性好，我们的坦克无论与M1A2、豹2A6或者90式相比，还有一定的差距。不过随着我国 新一代大功率 1103千瓦(1500马力)发动机的研制成功，这种差距将进一步缩小。
W: When it comes to power first, American M1A2 can hole through 810 mm ERA armor 2000 meter away, German leopard 2A6 equal to about 900mm EAR and Japanese T90’s barbette equal to 700mm EAR with a body equal to 580 mm EAR. So ,undoubtly , we hold the lead in the field.
Second, when it comes to its armor, the armor in the frontispiece of American M1A2’s barbette is equal to 700 mm EAR armor and that in its side and rear is equal to 600 mm EAR; the armor in the frontispiece of Japanese T90’s barbette is equal to 560 mm EAR armor and that in its side and rear is equal to 500 mm EAR; the armor in the frontispiece of German Leopard’s barbette is equal to 700 mm EAR armor and that in its side and rear is equal to 580 mm EAR. So, we run neck and neck with west countries in the field .
Finally, when it comes to maneuverability, the west countries has quite rich industrial experience and their engine is really rather good. The propelling system is also more reliable. A certain gap really exists in the field between our ZTZ99 MBT and M1A2,Leopard2A6 and T90. Of course, with our new 1500HP engine developed successfully, such a gap is being shortened further
　　记者：王院士，如果ZTZ99式主战坦克如外界所猜测的那样，配备有炮射导弹系统(射程达 5000米) 和激光观瞄压制系统(最大作用距离4000米)，可不可以说，我们坦克的火力在世界三代主战坦 克中独占鳌头 呢？
J: MR. Wang, if ZTZ99 is equipped with cannon-launched missile system (with a reach of 5 KM) and laser lock-resisting system.(with a reach of 4 KM) as supposed, could we assert that our ZTZ99 MBT is best one in the world?
王哲荣：就目前坦克火炮的威力而言，我们的水平肯定是最强的。但不可忽视的问题是，国外对坦克 火炮的研究， 不论是火炮的口径，还是弹药的穿透力，技术上进展得很快。就拿英国和德国来说，据说他们已研制 开发了140 毫米口径的坦克炮，一旦列装，其火力当刮目相看了。
W: Just when the power of current cannon is concerned, ours is the best. But the case we can’t neglect is that the other countries have made considerable progress in the research for the cannon for tanker , whether on its caliber or on the piercing capability of its shell. E.g., Britishers and German is reported to have developed a type of cannon for tanker with a caliber of 140 mm . If such a cannon enters into service, it will be fairly noteworthy!

[Aluka]

Im wondering, where did this text come from.
First - what is EAR?
Second - officially M1A2 pierces 700-750mm on 2000m with M829A2, and 800-850mm with M829E3.
Speaking of armor - article wasn't translated correctly - M1A2 doesn't have 700mm front and 600mm side and rear armor. Wang Zherong was obviously reffering to 700mm turret and 600mm glacis frontal armor, no tank has side and rear armor (i think the only exception is Merkava4). By the way according to BTVT M1A2 has 870mm turret and 600mm glacis. Their analysis on other western tanks are as well more optimistic, then specified here.
700mm on ZTZ-99 is exactly what BTVT guys were saying all along. I guess this kinda proves their professionalism :).
As for the declared piercing capability of ZTZ-99 gun - i have some doubts about it. Earlier claims had that it's DU shell pierces 850mm, not the tungsten one. ZTZ-99 still uses T-72 autoloader, and therefore is still limited on length/subcaliber ratio. I do not intend to argue with this article, but i simply cannot believe that chinese DU shell greatly outperforms US one of higher ratio. Probably chinese standart target is made of something different?

[Ender Wiggin]

The engineer looks optimistic but not cocky, which is good. It speaks for his professionalism. The journalist however...

[RedMercury]

ZTZ-99 still uses T-72 autoloader, and therefore is still limited on length/subcaliber ratio.
It is true the autoloader is based on the T-72 autoloader. I highly doubt it is identical. Afterall, the engineers didn't just copy the 2A46 exactly. There has been speculation on how different it is, and the implications, specifically reguarding limitation of projectile length... But since those were mere speculation, no point repeating them.
IF the autoloader could handle longer projectiles, would it be surprising if a Chinese 125mm projectile performed around the level of a Western 120mm? I think that should be plausible.

[Vlad Plasmius]

First - what is EAR?

Probably means ERA.

I must say that all sounds quite impressive. With its laser self-defense system it truly is one of the best tanks in the world.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The only interesting part of this article is that it states that the Chinese gun in Type 98/99 is not based on the 120mm chinese gun, but as I and few others have said all along, it's offspring of the russian gun. Those claims that it would been far more superior to the orginal 2M46 are just nationalistic poasting and the designers high belives on their own product. To determ which gun is better, we have to wait more spesific and trustable data...

Um I thought the following:
The third generation of our 125MM cannon is the "big hammer" of ZTZ99 MBT, which has nothing to do with Russian 2A46 cannon
Implied that the Type 98/99 Gun is clearly not an offspring of the 2A46.

[Gollevainen]

Well we been chewing this subject several times but perhaps a little recap...

...the article proofs the thing what i'm saying all along: The chinese 125 tank gun is BASED on the orginal russian design. It says the first copy wasen't used but seccond was (added with bit nationalistic boasting about it's capapilityes) used in T96. Now the statement that the "big Hammer" has nothing to do wiht 2A46 is rather silly becouse do they expect us to imagine that all a suddenly the designers made a completely new gun with same calibre and strikinly similar breech out of blue? That it wouldn't have nothing to do wiht the first gun?? Comon, it's like saying that the new Type 95 Assault rifle has nothing to do wiht Kalashnikovik "becouse if it's ofspring of something, it's ofspring of the type 83...." (...and before jumping on to this, go and see the interional pics of the type 95...then you know what i'm talking about)

Pictures tells us that the gunbreech (the heart of every gun) is clearly derivated from the russian gun so it's rather lame state that "it got nothing to do..." when saying at the same time that chinese have made actually copy of the 2A46.

Now i not however denying that the Chinese gun wouldn't be superior to the russian gun...evolution usually makes things go better...Like the T-55 is countinious development chain from old american Cristie tank, we all agree that the previous is rarther superior? But what i've been saying (and same goes with the Chinese tanks in general), their roots goes back to russian plains....

[Dongfeng]

I agree with Gollevainen on this one.

In many examples where people are trying to hide the origin of a Chinese system if it is developed from a foreign system. J-10 is a perfect example, Type 98/99 is another.

There have been many attemps in China to develop a high-performance fighter or tank, but only those with foreign links (J-10 and Type 98/99) survived. Why? It is easy to design a spare part or a subsystem, but when it comes to a large sophisticated system, not everyone can does it.

The final product may look quite different to the foreign origin, but you cannot simply deny this link

[Gollevainen]

Well said...

And this thing isen't solely chinese issue, many other military equipment have quite similar development pattern in different countryes. Actually it's more of an rule that the most innovative and "original" ideas in all productions tend to remain only in prototype scale. It's much less riskier to make improvments over exissting models than to start producing something completely new. Ofcourse there are exeptions, but generally everything roots to something allready existing.

[Vytautas]

An m1s turret has never been "blown up"
Ok i dont want to drift off topic,but im really tired of this indestructable M1 myth.
http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/7780/abrams081ch.jpg
http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8210/abrams039pa.jpg
This was done by a roadside bomb or an IED as some people call it.

[vincelee]

that doesn't look like IED. It seems like someone took the field destruction of unrecoverable (mission killed) materials a bit too seriously.

Where the hell is Utelore when you need him?

[Kampfwagen]

A friend of mine told me that the only things, so far, that have MK'ed (Mission Killed) M1 Tanks were mines and IED's. This seems to be because the M1 has never really faced anything outside of an outdated and ill-equiped T-72 tank. Thus, the myth of M1 invinicbility is a little ridiculous. It's sort of like saying you are the king of Karate when you only fight the kindergardners.

[Vlad Plasmius]

And this thing isen't solely chinese issue, many other military equipment have quite similar development pattern in different countryes.

Yes, in fact, our Abrams uses a german cannon, I think the one used on the Leopard 2.

I think there is one account of a projectile killing an Abrams. Some speculated it was an advanced Russian RPG.

[vincelee]

A friend of mine told me that the only things, so far, that have MK'ed (Mission Killed) M1 Tanks were mines and IED's. This seems to be because the M1 has never really faced anything outside of an outdated and ill-equiped T-72 tank. Thus, the myth of M1 invinicbility is a little ridiculous. It's sort of like saying you are the king of Karate when you only fight the kindergardners.


completely wrong. BMP2s have missioned killed quite a few M1s when they destroyed the optics.

As for US foreign contents... M1 uses a RheinMetal gun and the TUSK upgrade uses Israeli ERA.

[crobato]

I agree with Gollevainen on this one.

In many examples where people are trying to hide the origin of a Chinese system if it is developed from a foreign system. J-10 is a perfect example, Type 98/99 is another.

There have been many attemps in China to develop a high-performance fighter or tank, but only those with foreign links (J-10 and Type 98/99) survived. Why? It is easy to design a spare part or a subsystem, but when it comes to a large sophisticated system, not everyone can does it.

The final product may look quite different to the foreign origin, but you cannot simply deny this link

And so, is the 052C developed from AEGIS? If not, what then?

[Vytautas]

It seems like someone took the field destruction of unrecoverable (mission killed) materials a bit too seriously.
Agreed

[Kampfwagen]

[QUOTE=vincelee]completely wrong. BMP2s have missioned killed quite a few M1s when they destroyed the optics. [QUOTE]

It dosent suprise me. However, I should rephrase what I said. When I meant MK'ed, I was infering it to be a total write-off like the one in the above picture.

[utelore]

Nothing is invincible the only tank in OIF which was not mission killed or Killed by Iraqi fire was the Challenger. The M1A1 with the turret separation was caused by the gunner spinning his turret to many times. This is the super secret self destruction ability the M1A1 has……..now that your all done laughing…it was caused by a really big IED…..cheers ute....sorry for going off topic....if you guys wish I can reopen the M1A1 Q&A

[Gollevainen]

It would be good to reopen the thread, i was actually about to set up a thread to ask few questions myself. So concerate all M1 discussion there...and let this be for Type 99...

[Vytautas]

it was caused by a really big IED
6 anti tank mines lined up in a row.Now lets end the off topic stuff
if you guys wish I can reopen the M1A1 Q&A
Yes,of course!