New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Dongfeng]

This is how you get into the driver compartment of Type 99, not very easy:(

These photos also confirm that the Type 98/99 is now in service with Shenyang Military Region in Northeast China, possibly with 39th Group Army. It seems that the PLA is satisfied with the tank, so more units are likely to be delivered in the near future

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/99-thank-01.jpeg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/99-thank-02.jpeg

[Dongfeng]

A nice new large photo

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/T-99_crew.jpeg (http://www.theimagehosting.com)

[Dongfeng]

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/T-99_cctv4.jpg

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/T-99_cctv1.jpg

[ChinaWall]

The ERA blocks are different in the first two picture than the third one...they are arranged differently...I wounder if they are actually ERAs

[MIGleader]

The ERA blocks are different in the first two picture than the third one...they are arranged differently...I wounder if they are actually ERAs

the type 99s design was modular, so its supposed to be able to fit era. or composite modules, depending on the needs of the battle.

[Ender Wiggin]

Can i beat a Abrams, depending on the circumstances?
Don't need to bring Abrams in this, the thread is about Type 98/99 MBT..

[ahho]

you mean "it"


just wondering, are there any escape hole in the driver compartment??? if the turret is turned to the wrong way, would he be locked inside

[ChinaWall]

Can i beat a Abrams, depending on the circumstances?
Don't need to bring Abrams in this, the thread is about Type 98/99 MBT..

Of course...Abram is not as good as the U.S. advertises it. The muzzle velocity of Type 99 is around 1780m/s; with quality tank rounds, Type 99 can take out an Abram

[Aluka]

just wondering, are there any escape hole in the driver compartment??? if the turret is turned to the wrong way, would he be locked inside
General tank design is very similar to T-72, so there should be differenf way out. The only problem is that it wouldn't be easy - you'll find yourself clamped between autoloader's carousel, your seat, and gun's breech. So, if you need to get out fast - you're in trouble.
Of course...Abram is not as good as the U.S. advertises it. The muzzle velocity of Type 99 is around 1780m/s; with quality tank rounds, Type 99 can take out an Abram
In fact we can't know this for sure, since we are not aware neither of ZTZ-99 armor quality, nor of it's firepower (though this doesn't matter much - all modern guns have pretty similar performance). As for muzzle velocity - it is not the only factor that defines shell's effectiveness. The good example is american M829E3 - it's velocity is 1555m/s, but still it pierces 800mm at 2000m. But enough of this.

What i am really interested in is WD396 engine. Is there any confirmed info about it? Pictures? What is the engine's structure? Some sources say it's a copy of MTU881, is this true?

[adeptitus]

If I'm not mistaken, I think this is the first time we've seen photos of the interior of a T-98/T-99 MBT in operational status. All previous photos we've seen were pictures of various interior components. This one showed someone actually sitting there and operating it.

[Red Guard]

i believe it's the 3rd armoured division in the district. more and more 99s will be issued to the northen district while the south issued with 96. about the M1, if a T-72 could picked it out during golf war, we sure could make it into a pile of buring iron, just in what cost, today's tank warfare is stupid to compare 2 lone tanks.

[ArjunMk1]

The turret looks great, its larger and may be more spacious than the semi spherical T72 turrets . It directly shows western influence .
The chassis looks to be an identical to that of T72 .


Is the tank is larger than T72 ? Does it carriers greater no. of shells ?? Is the laser dazzler currently deployed with this tank ???

[Aluka]

O_O You sound like you see this tank for the first time. Try reading articles, this tank is known for already 6 years ;)

As for the first 2 pictures - do you have any coments? The difference is not only in ERA design, did you notice different commander's hatch? It's something M1A2-looking. And the way commander's sight fixed differs too. Heck, the whole turret seems to be new - it doesn't have this cast roof part, ZTZ-98 had.

[Vytautas]

Interesting.There really is no elevation on the top of the turret.I wonder which model this is.Also there is almost twice as much ERA on the front of the turret in the second picture.As far as im aware the first picture is ztz99 and the second one is 98g or other.Im thinking that the second one is 98g because its the same tank no. 301 that is on the picture at sinodefence.Take a look http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type984.asp

[MIGleader]

General tank design is very similar to T-72, so there should be differenf way out. The only problem is that it wouldn't be easy - you'll find yourself clamped between autoloader's carousel, your seat, and gun's breech. So, if you need to get out fast - you're in trouble.

In fact we can't know this for sure, since we are not aware neither of ZTZ-99 armor quality, nor of it's firepower (though this doesn't matter much - all modern guns have pretty similar performance). As for muzzle velocity - it is not the only factor that defines shell's effectiveness. The good example is american M829E3 - it's velocity is 1555m/s, but still it pierces 800mm at 2000m. But enough of this.

What i am really interested in is WD396 engine. Is there any confirmed info about it? Pictures? What is the engine's structure? Some sources say it's a copy of MTU881, is this true?

ok aluka. we got the last type 99 thread closed because u kept argueing it was t-72 copy. so lets avoid the t-72 entirely. the mtu881 ebngine is a really powerfu and reliable engine, quality ukrainian engineering. i wouldnt be surprised if it the wd396 was based off it, but copied?
no.

i though the type 98g was the type 99...

[ger_mark]

ok aluka. we got the last type 99 thread closed because u kept argueing it was t-72 copy. so lets avoid the t-72 entirely. the mtu881 ebngine is a really powerfu and reliable engine, quality ukrainian engineering. i wouldnt be surprised if it the wd396 was based off it, but copied?
no.

i though the type 98g was the type 99...


mtu is german, not ukrainian ;)

[MIGleader]

mtu is german, not ukrainian ;)
sry, iwas thinking of the GTD-1250.
if its a german engine...maybe so. but i highly doubt the chinese use gas turbine in 99. a diesel is more reliable, proven, easier to use, and fuel effecient.

[ger_mark]

the mtu 881 is no gas turbine but a diesel engine
same used in pzh 2000

[Aluka]

ok aluka. we got the last type 99 thread closed because u kept argueing it was t-72 copy. so lets avoid the t-72 entirely.
The thread in which i claimed ZTZ-99 to be based on T-72M was not closed, the old forum was. Anyway, it's obvious - the design is generally similar and it has the same kind of autoloader, so driver should feel pretty much similar.

As for the new type - i suspect that old-looking ZTZ-99 were actually upgraded ZTZ-98, and new ones were built recently. I've done some surfing through baidu and found couple more pictures:
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1947/ztz99103yb.th.jpg (http://img42.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ztz99103yb.jpg)
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9430/post1111316204023sr.th.jpg (http://img42.imageshack.us/my.php?image=post1111316204023sr.jpg)
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2667/post1111315728370um.th.jpg (http://img42.imageshack.us/my.php?image=post1111315728370um.jpg)
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3049/post1111316205177nf.th.jpg (http://img42.imageshack.us/my.php?image=post1111316205177nf.jpg)
The look of the turret's rear accidentally brought another idea - it doesn't seem to have case extraction hatch, so probably this new tank has T-80-style or even some new autoloader.


Oh, and yes, MTU881 is german.

[MIGleader]

the mtu 881 is no gas turbine but a diesel engine
same used in pzh 2000

im talking about the gtd-2500...for a certain someone who thinks everything in the type 99 is ripped off the t-72...

[Aluka]

There is no such thing as GTD-2500, the latest one is GTD-1500, and GTD-2000 is under development. Anyway, nobody produces GTD engines except Russia, not even Ukraine, so what was the point of it? WD396 is definitely a diesel engine.

[MIGleader]

There is no such thing as GTD-2500, the latest one is GTD-1500, and GTD-2000 is under development. Anyway, nobody produces GTD engines except Russia, not even Ukraine, so what was the point of it? WD396 is definitely a diesel engine.

sry, gtd-1250. i definitly believe ukrain greatly assisted the development of the engine.

[Aluka]

Nope. Not even a bit. The engine is 100% russian, furthermore, they tried to force Ukraine to produce it, but they didn't agree.

[swimmerXC]

ARE YOU GUYS TRYING TO GET MORE POSTS WITH ONELINERS?

[Aluka]

A theory...
http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/8189/atheory4ek.th.jpg (http://img489.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atheory4ek.jpg)

But why would they need to replace one welded turret construction with another, especially considering the fact that armor blocks remain same (judging by their size)? What if these ZTZ-99 tanks were simply produced at the other plant?

[MIGleader]

A theory...
http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/8189/atheory4ek.th.jpg (http://img489.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atheory4ek.jpg)

But why would they need to replace one welded turret construction with another, especially considering the fact that armor blocks remain same (judging by their size)? What if these ZTZ-99 tanks were simply produced at the other plant?

cause the arnmor on the original type 98 was not strong enough, it was merely a permanent block of composite armor on the turret, much like the type 96. when the type 99 came out in 02, it replaced the single composite block with several modules that could be either era or an improved composite, for greater flexibility and protection.

btw, does anyone know how many production lines there are for the type 99?

[Vytautas]

Im not sure that this turret is new.Apart from some minor changes everything is the same.As for the sloped front of the turret if you look closer then you will see that all that is different are some sloped armor blocks attached.(as on those modernised british centurion tanks in service with the idf)

[Aluka]

cause the arnmor on the original type 98 was not strong enough, it was merely a permanent block of composite armor on the turret, much like the type 96. when the type 99 came out in 02, it replaced the single composite block with several modules that could be either era or an improved composite, for greater flexibility and protection.

You didn't get my point. I didn't mention ERA blocks, and i did not compare ZTZ-98 to ZTZ-99, but oldZTZ-99 to newZTZ-99 instead (assuming that the main difference between 98 and 99 is ERA). The rear construction of the turret was changed to type90-style. Composite blocks most likely remained same. And by the way, physical thickness of type98 armor is somewhat 1.3*thickness of type96 armor.
As for the sloped front of the turret if you look closer then you will see that all that is different are some sloped armor blocks attached
Probably the've realised - the bigger ERA block is, the better it reacts against sabot.

[MIGleader]

some updates.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type98.asp
read aluka!!! is it still a t-72 copy?

dongfeng, can u clarify:
what are the exact systems of the type-99s new BMS(battle management system), and how do they work and perform? there was a discussion about this, and I didnt know the type 99 didnt have a BMS til now.

theres also a claim that the type 99 has improved firepower over the type 98, how? i thought they used the same gun.

[Bohemond]

I know some were arguing that the Abrams is not as good as the Americans say it is, but I am not to sure, it can be knocked out, yes, but it is easily repaired and back in action, and crew survivability is fantastic(The abrams knocked out in desert storm was shot from a short distance and in the side and the round didnt penetrate completely, and the crew survived...) . Dont forget also that the LeClerc, Leopard, and the Challenger are all similarly as good...Im not sure if this tank compares to any of those.

Also it probably has an autoloader, which is a bad idea, a average Abrams crew can get off a shot every 4 seconds, some even at 2 seconds apart. Average autoloader is 8 seconds.

Also you must not forget that no matter how good the equipment...how good are the people using it, how experienced and well trained are the commanders ect...

Any army that is lesser in equipment quality and greater in skill and morale will win, look at history, especially Israel. ;)

[vincelee]

Andrei on CDF said that the frontal composite blocks cannot be space armor because of dimentional constraints, but I think you can solve that by changing the thickness of the plates

[ChinaWall]

I know some were arguing that the Abrams is not as good as the Americans say it is, but I am not to sure, it can be knocked out, yes, but it is easily repaired and back in action, and crew survivability is fantastic(The abrams knocked out in desert storm was shot from a short distance and in the side and the round didnt penetrate completely, and the crew survived...) . Dont forget also that the LeClerc, Leopard, and the Challenger are all similarly as good...Im not sure if this tank compares to any of those.

Also it probably has an autoloader, which is a bad idea, a average Abrams crew can get off a shot every 4 seconds, some even at 2 seconds apart. Average autoloader is 8 seconds.

Also you must not forget that no matter how good the equipment...how good are the people using it, how experienced and well trained are the commanders ect...

Any army that is lesser in equipment quality and greater in skill and morale will win, look at history, especially Israel. ;)


If the Abrams in Gulf War fought T-72 with Optics such as night vision or thermal vision, a whole lot more Abrams would be knocked out. You can't see what you can't hit. The T-72s Iraqis used were poorly maintained and they were used as pillboxes, instead of vehicles, which destroys the purpose of a tank. The T-72s that shoot Abrams from the side did fully penetrate its armour, but most T-72s were destroyed by the air force. Tanks wasn't much of a factor during the Gulf War...

[Aluka]

read aluka!!! is it still a t-72 copy?

First. Generally i did not need to read this, i knew most of those facts for pretty long time. Second. Did i say copy? Please read carefully, i said exactly "based on T-72", you're confronting imaginary person:
The other side supported a less radical design based on the Soviet T-72 hull, with a 125mm main gun and Western-designed diesel engine.


Also i have some objections to the article:
featuring a Leopard 2 A6-style additional reinforcement to the turret frontal armour
This can't be true, no sir, at no account. Leo has armor blocks spaced from the main armor:
http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/6619/modules017ea3oe.th.jpg (http://img350.imageshack.us/my.php?image=modules017ea3oe.jpg)
The blocks of ZTZ-99 are definitely not hollow, it IS ERA, not just by the size of reinforcement, but by their look as well. It may look like Leo-style armor, but it is different, Andrei is conpletely right (by the way he is quite knowledgable man, and he was never wrong). Furthermore article confronts itself here:
The Type 99 is fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA).

Also it probably has an autoloader, which is a bad idea, a average Abrams crew can get off a shot every 4 seconds, some even at 2 seconds apart. Average autoloader is 8 seconds.
Autoloader is not a bad idea, at least it's perfornamce. I remember some guy on the old board (who was M1 tanker) said that their average performance was 5 shots per minute.
If the Abrams in Gulf War fought T-72 with Optics such as night vision or thermal vision, a whole lot more Abrams would be knocked out. You can't see what you can't hit. The T-72s Iraqis used were poorly maintained and they were used as pillboxes, instead of vehicles, which destroys the purpose of a tank. The T-72s that shoot Abrams from the side did fully penetrate its armour, but most T-72s were destroyed by the air force. Tanks wasn't much of a factor during the Gulf War...
Can't help but agree to this. Also people, who judge any soviet-design modern vehicle by iraqi T-72M experience often fail to understand that T-72M had significantly less armor then any modern tank, based on T-72 design. Even assuming that ZTZ-98/99 has composite armor from T-80 - fronatl arc protection should be about 750mm/sabot (since it's physical thickness is 750mm, and T-80style armor multiplyer against sabot is about 1). T-72M for example had 250mm/sabot armor.

[adeptitus]

What happens to an M1, or any other tank today, when hit by a good DU round:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/fig22.htm

As for the T-98 vs. T-72 debate, I'd like to point out that in both Russia and China, when new tanks are built, often the designer would re-use components from older models. This reduces the number of "new" component production requirements and helps in cost savings.

One example is the T-72M using turbocharged vairant (780 hp) of the 500-hp V-12 diesel engine, originally designed for the T-34 tank. There are other T-34 designed components that could be found on the T-72M, but few people today would claim that the T-72 is based on the T-34.

It's very likely that the T-98 use some components originally designed for earlier tanks. But at what point do you stop claiming that the whole tank is "based on" some other tank, and start referring to it as a "new" tank?

It's like, why do people still refer to the Q-5 as "based on" the MiG-19 when the Q-5 has been so extensively re-designed? The J-8's design takes many elements from the MiG-21, yet nobody refers to the J-8 as a MiG-21 variant.

[Gollevainen]

M1s, iraqians...even Q-5 ATTACK AIRCRAFTS....
:off :off :off :off

I've had to close THREE threads concerning Type 98 in this forum sofar and I seriously don't want to do it fourth time...got it? So cut out the M1 talks, don't even think of posting anything about planes in landforce forum anymore and most of all, keep cool, this topic seems to be as flamable as the good ol India-china comparison...

[Red not Dead]

About the BMS story...No satellite ring no BMS period. I said it the Chinese had merely a Theater Awarennes System (wich is quite good since mot all M1's have BMS) but not a proper BMS.

[jackbh]

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/99-thank-01.jpeg
http://images5.theimagehosting.com/99-thank-02.jpeg

The tank in above picture is not ZTZ-99 or Type-99. It has different shapes of armor. I belief it's Type- 96 with add on armor.

[MIGleader]

About the BMS story...No satellite ring no BMS period. I said it the Chinese had merely a Theater Awarennes System (wich is quite good since mot all M1's have BMS) but not a proper BMS.

interesting. sinodefence claims that the vehicle is equipped with a device for gps navigation. in peacetime, thats probably not a problem. the gps will probably be replaced by galileo in the near future.

but your right. the tank has a battlefeild information display and onboard inofrmation processor, but no bms yet.

that is defintley a 98. you can tell by the turret design and the t-72 style front. many different armors have been seen equipping the type 99, not just one pattern. different patterns probably signify a different armor. onep attern may be era, while this could be add on composite armor blocks

[jackbh]

Do you notice a ridge in the front of the plate, that is evident in all type-96 tanks. Also the hole on the left side of the turret is smaller than Type-98.

[jackbh]

After taking a further look, I think that this is still probably Type-98, but with new armor modules.

[AssassinsMace]

I read somewhere, it could've been an article posted here, that the T-99 is on its third upgrade. So you may be seeing the variation of upgrades. Remember the T-98/99 has the self-defence laser module while the T-96 does not.

[crobato]

It's very likely that the T-98 use some components originally designed for earlier tanks. But at what point do you stop claiming that the whole tank is "based on" some other tank, and start referring to it as a "new" tank?


What you can be sure of is that the T-98/99 does not use any component from T-72s, given that China does not manufacture any T-72 at all. At best, some T-80/85/88 series components are used, and neither does the T-8X series had any descent from any other Russian tank except for the T-54.

************************************
Mod edit: If you want discuss about chinese aircrafts and their orgins, do it in the proper forum!!

[Gollevainen]

This is unbelivable!!! I said month ago that NO AIRCRAFT TALKING IN THIS THREAD!!!!....and people listened...now someone digs this thread up and start doing it again...

Man, it makes me feel that many of you don't give a shit about moderators and their guidance...it seems that only thing that turns your head around is banning. But we all don't want to end up that situation? Right?

[Aluka]

What you can be sure of is that the T-98/99 does not use any component from T-72s, given that China does not manufacture any T-72 at all. At best, some T-80/85/88 series components are used, and neither does the T-8X series had any descent from any other Russian tank except for the T-54.

Whoever writes something like this just lies to himself. Chinese specialists did study some T-72M and T-80 tanks, that is a fact, and there was already a clue on the main gun (see some threads below). Apart of this you may notice that 99's chassis and suspention are 100% copy of T-72M. Front hull part was taken as well (however it was modified).

Anyway. The tank on pictures is definitely type99, but the new one seems to have smaller turret from type90-II.

[Su-34]

Will China make any tank that is better than the Type99 in the future? China should make a new tank with a low turret but good armor like the Merkava 4 to improve combat survivability. In other words, in the future, China should develop a tank that is similar to Merkava 4, but lighter. Chinese tank similar to M4 design should weigh about 55 tons instead of M4's 65 tons, right?

[Red not Dead]

Will China make any tank that is better than the Type99 in the future? China should make a new tank with a low turret but good armor like the Merkava 4 to improve combat survivability. In other words, in the future, China should develop a tank that is similar to Merkava 4, but lighter. Chinese tank similar to M4 design should weigh about 55 tons instead of M4's 65 tons, right?


Hum given the peculiarities of the Chinese army...I bet on a limit 50 ton + autolader tank. Leclerc is the best alternative to chinese needs. Good protection, without overweight (saved for future modular retrofitting), with the russian suite of war assets.

The combat survivability of the MK4 comes at the price of the mobility. A shot will simply knock down the MK4 while exposing the large crew to ennemy fire. China doesn't need that. China needs more At assets (ammo+Gun) and a better and larger fast mover park.

[Superior China]

How much armor does it have? In "mm" this time please!

[darth sidious]

How much armor does it have? In "mm" this time please!

:nono: dont even think about it this time :nono:
you screw up two threads already

minium of about 700mm vs sabot

about100mm vs heat

[MIGleader]

Will China make any tank that is better than the Type99 in the future? China should make a new tank with a low turret but good armor like the Merkava 4 to improve combat survivability. In other words, in the future, China should develop a tank that is similar to Merkava 4, but lighter. Chinese tank similar to M4 design should weigh about 55 tons instead of M4's 65 tons, right?

given the path land warefare is taking now, the type 99 should be chinas LAST main battle tank. upgrades can continue, for im certian chiense engineers are developing new comnposit armors as we speak. but as ive asserted many times before, the tank is not the future.

some upgrades:
a complete battle mangement system
some blow out panels and armored compartments for crew safety
improvements to the jd-3
better armor is fairly obvious

btw, how many type 99s does china have now? i heard 40 at last count, but it should have grown since

[Kampfwagen]

Some improved armor would be excelent, seeing as how these are probably the most expensive tank in the PLA.

And from a post waaaayyyyy back when, yeah I agree that the U.S trumps up the abrams considerably, but this is expected of any tank or weapon for that matter proposed by any government.

And personaly, I find it a bit sad that tanks have to go. It's nice that any weapon of war is no longer used, but there is a certian nostalgia to using tanks. The sights of them rocking as their cannons are fired, watching as other tanks explode in a collum of fire. The sound of the treads squeaking and the engine grumbling as it crosses through an area totaly unobstructed by natural or artifical barriers...

Reminds me of the old battleships and their eventual replacement by carriers.

But so far, yeah. This tank looks like it could certantly tangle with almost any other tank the western world can throw at it. :china: I hate hearing 'abrams can do this and T-96/8/9 cant and how China is a bunch of communist bla-de-bla-de-bla'. The worst thing you can do is underestimate your enemy, and these tanks sure do look like they will B!tchslap westerners, god forbid we ever enter armed conflict. Though from what Dongfeng posted, rather uncomftorable to get into and might be especialy problematic if they get into the tank in an emergency.

By the way, sorry to leap off topic like that. But I just had to get in my two cents.

[Aluka]

given the path land warefare is taking now, the type 99 should be chinas LAST main battle tank. upgrades can continue, for im certian chiense engineers are developing new comnposit armors as we speak. but as ive asserted many times before, the tank is not the future.

Please, don't make these pointless posts anymore. We have already seen like for 10 times, that such kind of conversation drives thread to nowhere.

minium of about 700mm vs sabot

about100mm vs heat
It's not minimum vs sabot. It's average (This is exact number that was specified by Zherong). According to gspo type98 has 640mm against sabot and 750mm against HEAT. Thanks to ERA type99 should have aditional 100-150mm against sabot and about 300mm against HEAT.

[vincelee]

ZTZ-99's Chassis is definitely NOT a copy of T-72M's. It's bigger. As for suspension, last time I checked, T-72 wasn't the only tank using torsion bar type suspensions.

[MadMax]

dose anyone know wich style auto loader the type 99 uses since its bigger then the the T72 it should use the T64 style auto loader because it is a superior design to the T72s. the only reson it wasnt used in the T72 is because it wouldnt fit so a new one was designed. the T64s auto loader is also slighly faster because the ammo storage is different. or dose it use an indigonusly designed model

[Aluka]

ZTZ-99's Chassis is definitely NOT a copy of T-72M's. It's bigger. As for suspension, last time I checked, T-72 wasn't the only tank using torsion bar type suspensions.
No, it's tot bigger, it's the same size. By Chassis i mean chassi elements, not the hull, or the way elements are placed. Tracks are almost identical, wheels are a copy (up to a mm, i've checked), and torsion bar is not the only element both type99 and T-72 use. If you look at first 2 pairs, and the last pair of wheels, you'll notice that they are reinforced by another type of shockabsorbers (we call them lever-blade type, but ofcourse real translation differs. i just don't know the word). You see, not many tanks use this thing, and the last time i've checked type99 and T-72 were the only ones. The way torsions are fixed to the hull is also the same. About the hull - glacis has the same 67degree angle, as of T-72. Hardly a coincidence.

dose anyone know wich style auto loader the type 99 uses since its bigger then the the T72 it should use the T64 style auto loader because it is a superior design to the T72s. the only reson it wasnt used in the T72 is because it wouldnt fit so a new one was designed. the T64s auto loader is also slighly faster because the ammo storage is different. or dose it use an indigonusly designed model
The last time i've read about type99 autoloader it was a T-72type. I could explain why somebody could prefer this to T-64 style. First - In fact T-72style AL is superior to T-64style. T-64 had superior FCS, more armor, but chassis and autoloader were a crap, fixing of these two points along with cost reduction were the main principles behind T-72. T-64style AL is maybe 1 second faster (or so), but compared to T-72style one it a)has a fat fat chance of blowing up the tank in case of hull peneteration, b)is far but relyable.

[sumdud]

We said T-72, never got down to the M. The ZTZ-98/9's hull is a copy, but not a full copy. It has gotten longer as shown by the space between wheels. But the top surface is practically identical.

The T-72 autoloader...............
Can anyone got PDF emoticons? I am crashing my head against the wall.
My god, why in the world is it and 96 using it?!!!!!
I don't know about accident, but that thing certainly can't shoot long shots.

The armor blocks on front is much of a headache to me. I hate it when ERA are used. I think China should develop some kind of cardboard armor. You can surround the tank with it and it will weight less. I also prefer steel reinforced concrete over DU or metal armor. Concrete is anti-radiation, heat resistent, hard, and lighter than steel.

I also wonder about the driver. But heck, don't all tank drivers have trouble trying to get in these days?

[Aluka]

We said T-72, never got down to the M. The ZTZ-98/9's hull is a copy, but not a full copy. It has gotten longer as shown by the space between wheels. But the top surface is practically identical.

In fact there is another little difference. Driver's place is deeped further into the hull, which slightly reduces the weak spot at the top of a glacis. This surely gives some credit to chinese engineers.
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9349/ztz98232gi.th.gif (http://img29.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ztz98232gi.gif)

And autoloader.. I think they have modified it as well. Russian engineers somehow were able to fit long shells into T-90A/M's autoloader, so it proves that it is possible, and claimed 99's firepower surely can be achieved only with long shells.

[MaxTesla]

Someone way back when said a manual loader is better then an auto loader.

I disagree.

The main reason is that an auto loader can realod when going over bumpy ground at high speed. A manual loader needs the tank to be still or moveing slowly over even ground.

A human will get tired. A machine does not get tired.

And with new increasments in gun sizes it will no longer be possible with a manual loaders because the projectiles will be to heavy for a human to lift.

What about the Russian T-80 and T-90 and Black Eagle tank And T-95 ?

How do these tanks compare with the Chinese type 99?:china:

[Aluka]

Don't forget that latest autoloaders significantly surpass any human loader in terms of speed. T-90A/M can perform 13 shots per minute, japanese type90, french Leklerk, and some prototypes (like XK2 or Black Eagle) shoot 15 shells per minute. Chinese tank industry is undoubtably on the right way.
As for russian tanks - it wasn't clever question imo. T-80U is undoubtably less capable then 99, you can just compare chars, they are official. Anyway, tank is 17 years old. There was a thread "T-90vsType99" (i think it was deleted) in which we tried to compare those tanks, but it end up with flaming. Personally i think those tanks are close, but Type99 seems to have more firepower at the moment.
According to latest info from GSPO Blak Eagle will probably be fielded as a simplified version in 2008/2009. The name will be T-80AT, and the main difference will be in manned turret. And for Obiekt195... Nobody actually knows a thing, but this is not the only 5th generation MBT under development in Russia. Spetsmash has some "VZT2" thing, but i assume it is far from being made "in metal":
http://btvt.narod.ru/3/spetsmash.htm
Probably works will be resumed after T-80AT production.

And back on topic - what's the situation with 99's 1500hp engine? Some sources say it is already fielded, others claim that it's under development.

[crobato]

The 1500hp engine should be fielded already as part of the T-99 package. The ERA and revised turret would have added weight to the base T-98 and thus requires a bit more power to compensate.

I don't know if this story was true. When China was planning its next generation of tank after the T-80 (China not Russian), they were looking at two different configurations. The first configuration was based on the Merkava, with the front engine. Understand that China had Israeli advisors at that time, and you can see Israeli style influences on Chinese tanks like in the use of storage rails around the tank turrets. The second configuration follows the T-72. In the end, the second configuration was chosen.

[jackbh]

Does any one know if China is going to build a next generation tank after the ZTZ-99 for a even bigger tank. I read from the net a few years ago that China was planning a supper tank, anyone has any news regarding that?

[vincelee]

that article originated either from bill gertz or strategy page, my impression is that it's the latter. Do you want to know what I call strategy page? Sh*t Hole.

[Red not Dead]

that article originated either from bill gertz or strategy page, my impression is that it's the latter. Do you want to know what I call strategy page? Sh*t Hole.


OMG I agree with you. I call it Redneck Sh*thole.

[tphuang]

well, on Type 98/99 from Kanwa
http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/8489/8138560425ls.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/371/8138571432ch.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[stonewind]

Does any one know if China is going to build a next generation tank after the ZTZ-99 for a even bigger tank. I read from the net a few years ago that China was planning a supper tank, anyone has any news regarding that? Remember that game command and conquer generals?

Well anyways type 98/99 is 12 tons lighter than the M1a2 and on other websites they say that its armor might be influenced by type 80uMBT. Like its cavities in the turret's frontal armor which are covered by plates, placed flush and bolted to the turret's roof. So could this mean that type 98/99 could be immune from most NATO atgm's (HEAT) on its front arc? I'd like to believe so. + that picture SwimmerX posted where the type 98 took a hit from an ATGM.:china:

[xihaoli]

In response to many people's request for actual numbers on type 99's armor ratings, you can actually do a fair estimate on combat data gathered from it's predecessors, the t-80 and its lesser cousin the t-72. (Note that they are vastly different tanks build for different grades of troups and vary sharply in capabilities.) t-55 -> t-64 -> t-72 -> t-90 ||| t-55 -> t-62 -> t-80 -> black eagle? Strangely the 115mm rifled of the t-62 is often regarded as superior to the L7.... (This was in an era where sabot was in its infance and heat seemed the way to go)

----------------

Fact: The Chineses L7 t-59D (80's tech) can achieve 590mm with du sabot.

Fact: The Type 89 120mm smoothbore can achieve roughly the same amount. Though it should be noted that such tests were done in the early 1990's and there fore were using tungsten sabot rounds.
Fact: The type 89's gun is often regarded by both the west and chinese as a copy of the m249 gun.

Deduction: The armor penetration ability of the type 99's gun, although varying as stated by many sources, is probrably higher then the ability of the improved L7, therefore 600+. The reports of 900-960mm penetration may be the rumors stured up by over-nationalistic fans. However, with the new generation guns (L55) just coming into play, it would not surpise me that china, with the technological knowhow to create something similar to the L44, and by taking full advantage of the 125 bore dimater of the standarized rounds, could perfectly be able to create something in the 900+ range within a short time.

-----------

Fact: T-72 have been hit by 10+ rpgs from all sides in Chechenia with our suffering penetration. Due to the fact that they were still limping, it would be safe to assume that they were hit mainly in the turret. Also taking effec the close proximity of city warfare, it woudl be safe to assume that they were hit in the back as well.

Fact: Chechenian rebels had rpg-29s

Fact: After the Orange Revolutions in former USSR, Ukranian "T-84s" were used as test subjects for 105 and 120mm sabot. It was reported that the T-84s, "Russian T-80s) were able to sustain 105mm tungesten sabot at a range of 1500m when armed with era, although i have not had any info on the 120mm tests.

Fact: During the Iraqi-Iranian war, non-era T-72s were often hit with At-3's and were still able to limp home.

Fact: Era-equipt T-80's were destroyed quite easily from the front by improved At-4's (Some say that they were Hj-8s? Can anyone confirm?).

Fact: Soviet 90's tech Kontakt-5 persumably is the equivalent of 200mm of rha to sabot and 600mm of sabot to heat.

Deduction:
Sabot-
Front Turret: ~ 700mm (German 105mm tungesten round, 500mm) + (200mm, era; china supposively got 16 fully armed T-80u's in 1993)

Side Turret: Unknown.

Front Glacius: 600mm+ ? (Im just gonna take the T-80's figure on this.)

Turret Side and back: Unknown.

Turret Top: <70mm The T-72's were penetrated by Gau-8 fire from 3000+m. The Gau-8 has a penetration of ~70mm at 2000m, you do the math. Although im not saying thatt the t-99 is based on the t-72, there seems to be little evidence of the Pla considering top armor, notable examples being the Korean K-2 featuing top era blocks.

Chassis back and sides: <500mm Seeing as how the front armor is almost always the thickest, and that no era is fitted, the figure seems fairly accurate.

-------

Heat:

Turret Front: 1100mm+ Seeing the seemingly huge resistence of Kontakt Era, and the fact that even t-72s were able to stand up to 500mm+ of rpg-29, the figure would come as a moderate estimate. (500mm + 600m+) And of couse the Type 99 would have better armor then the T-72.

Glacius Front: 1000mm+? Again, same evidence with the turret front, there are no actual figures, but we do know that there was no penetration.

The rest: There is very little info to base the rest of the arguement, however we do know that in Chechnia, the Type 64+ series of tanks were hit at almost all sides from rpg-29's proving their resistence to Heat projectiles. This should come as no surprise as the T-72 and T-80's were designed during an era stressing the dangers of Heat based weapons.


Note: Does anyone know why the east dosent just create a 65+ ton tank to match their western counterparts? The have the engine, and if we consider mobility, both sides would be at an equal disadvantage.

[vincelee]

supposedly most bridges only support up to 55 tons, so you run into a logistical deadlock.

[FSMonster]

20.10.1999 T-80U and T-90 Protection Trials

On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.

One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

The following weapons were used:

* Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
o RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
o RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
o RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
* ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
o Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
o Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
o Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
o Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
* APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.

The trials yielded the following outcome:

* ATGLs
o T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
o T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
* ATGMs
o T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
o T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.
* APFSDS
o T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
o T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/

[tphuang]

alright, I think the images could be a little big for this one,
This is some really large images, if you want to see the text more clearly, click to enlarge it and then move cursor over image and click and see it magnify
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9940/chinambt10rr.jpg
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1070/chinambt26mn.jpg
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7706/chinambt36os.jpg
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9569/chinambt45gk.jpg
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/329/chinambt51le.jpg

[tphuang]

from JDW
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jaau/jaau060324_1_n.shtml
Chinese tank gun developments

The latest main battle tank (MBT) to enter service with the PLA is the Type 98, which uses a chassis very similar to that of the Russian T-72 series. On this is mounted a new locally-developed two-person turret, armed with a 125 mm smoothbore gun fed by an automatic loader. The latter is mounted below the turret and first loads the projectile, and then the charge. The weapon system is based on Russian technology.

The Type 98 is in service with the PLA in limited numbers and was followed by the Type 99. This is almost identical to the Type 98, except that the turret has an arrow-head design similar to that of the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6.

More recently it has been revealed that China is developing a new MBT, which is understood to be armed with a 152 mm gun fed by an automatic loader. The weapon would be coupled to an advanced day/thermal sighting system that will allow moving targets to be engaged with a high first-round hit probability while the vehicle is stationary or moving.

At least one source has indicated that Russia has supplied some of the technology for the new Chinese MBT project, in order to earn valuable foreign currency to fund some of its own tank development programmes. This is understood to apply mainly to the main armament and the diesel power pack.

[Red not Dead]

from JDW
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jaau/jaau060324_1_n.shtml
Chinese tank gun developments

The latest main battle tank (MBT) to enter service with the PLA is the Type 98, which uses a chassis very similar to that of the Russian T-72 series. On this is mounted a new locally-developed two-person turret, armed with a 125 mm smoothbore gun fed by an automatic loader. The latter is mounted below the turret and first loads the projectile, and then the charge. The weapon system is based on Russian technology.

The Type 98 is in service with the PLA in limited numbers and was followed by the Type 99. This is almost identical to the Type 98, except that the turret has an arrow-head design similar to that of the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6.

More recently it has been revealed that China is developing a new MBT, which is understood to be armed with a 152 mm gun fed by an automatic loader. The weapon would be coupled to an advanced day/thermal sighting system that will allow moving targets to be engaged with a high first-round hit probability while the vehicle is stationary or moving.

At least one source has indicated that Russia has supplied some of the technology for the new Chinese MBT project, in order to earn valuable foreign currency to fund some of its own tank development programmes. This is understood to apply mainly to the main armament and the diesel power pack.


Me says bollocks no need for a behemot.

[sino52C]

I've heard rumors of the 152 mm Behemoth tank, and I doubt it too. There is simply no reason to develope a bigger gun.

[vincelee]

I found the picture again, it indeed says 60 tons, I was mistaken.

[adeptitus]

Fact: The Chineses L7 t-59D (80's tech) can achieve 590mm with du sabot.
<snip>
Note: Does anyone know why the east dosent just create a 65+ ton tank to match their western counterparts? The have the engine, and if we consider mobility, both sides would be at an equal disadvantage.

Your estimate on the 105mm DU is very similiar to Jake's wargaming page estimates:
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

Jake estimates the Chinese 105mm DU penatration value as follows:
Chinese Type-86 105mm DU 460mm(from "short" 105)/480mm(from "long" 105) at 2km
Chinese Type-93 105mm DU 510mm("short")/540mm("long") at 2km
Chinese Type-95 105mm DU 580mm at 2km (from "long" Type-83A 105mm)

I'm curiuos as to where you got the 590mm figure?

=========

As for your question on heavier tanks, I think the "Eastern Block" was dependent on Russian/Soviet designs/exports, and their MBT's are in 40-45 ton rage. Why not something heavier? Perhaps the infrastructure (roads, rail carts, bridges) had its limitations, resource cosntraints, or maybe they wanted to use higher % of common components and manufacturing equipment from previous generation MBT's?

Also, technically, Israel qualifies as an "Eastern" nation. :rofl:
The Merkava MBT is 63-70 tons.

[MIGleader]

Pardon my ignorance, but Im a little confused with the 99 armor. Sinodefence says that the tanks has a layer or composite armor(which i assumed to be the "bricks" i see. But the page also says the tank is protected by ERA. Wheres the ERA?

[ChinaWall65]

quote from that website: "(please be aware there is a good margin of error around any of these figures)"

"Israeli/Chinese (new) 125mm 640mm at 2km"---I think that quote applies to this figure...

[AssassinsMace]

Pardon my ignorance, but Im a little confused with the 99 armor. Sinodefence says that the tanks has a layer or composite armor(which i assumed to be the "bricks" i see. But the page also says the tank is protected by ERA. Wheres the ERA?

Composite armor is what modern MBTs are made of today. It's basically the metal alloy melted with ceramic or other material to give the armor strength against heat damage. The bricks are the reactive armor not the overall composite armor of the tank itself. Take the original T-98 design and when you have those bricks added to the turret, you have a T-99. I know this is probably too simple of explanation since the turret design has gone through changes for the latest upgrade but that's basically it. So when the reactive armor does its job, basically you just have to replace the bricks with new ones. Simple maintenance.

[darth sidious]

chek this out

chinese APFSDS production facility although this may not be the round used on the T-98 they will give an idea

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/bbs/11018441/20060403/13214489.html

[MIGleader]

Composite armor is what modern MBTs are made of today. It's basically the metal alloy melted with ceramic or other material to give the armor strength against heat damage. The bricks are the reactive armor not the overall composite armor of the tank itself. Take the original T-98 design and when you have those bricks added to the turret, you have a T-99. I know this is probably too simple of explanation since the turret design has gone through changes for the latest upgrade but that's basically it. So when the reactive armor does its job, basically you just have to replace the bricks with new ones. Simple maintenance.

Err...Thats not quite what i was asking. I know what compsotie and armor and ERA is. but sinodefence says the tank is equiipped with both types of armor, but i only see one type in pics.

[AssassinsMace]

Err...Thats not quite what i was asking. I know what compsotie and armor and ERA is. but sinodefence says the tank is equiipped with both types of armor, but i only see one type in pics.

Really? I see both. The difference of what you see on the T-99 that you don't see on the original T-98 is the reactive armor bricks. Again too simple an explanation but that's basically it.

[vincelee]

Composite is sandwiched between the steel plates and is covered by the ERA bricks.

[MIGleader]

Thanks, now I understand it. kinda like chobaum i see. I guess this is how this
is how it works for the 96 as well, except that theirs no ERA.

Why are their no armoured compartments or blow-out panels?

[vincelee]

Chobbham has nothing to do with this.

the composite is placed between the steel plates, and ERA covers the surface of the steel plate. Nothing complicated. Imagine your chocolate covered icecream. Chocolate being ERA and the vannilla (everything else sucks) being the passive armor.

[MIGleader]

I know how Choubham works, im just making a relation. In choubham(Very basic, it gets a little more complicated), you have the DU plates sandwhiching the ceramics, just like how you said the composite was sandwhiched between two plates on the 99.

i didnt mean to imply this WAS some form of choubham

[vincelee]

Chobbham contains no depleted uranium.

you're thinking of the M1A2 SEP's armor package, which has Chobbham covering a "fail safe" layer of DU.

[darth sidious]

I know how Choubham works, im just making a relation. In choubham(Very basic, it gets a little more complicated), you have the DU plates sandwhiching the ceramics, just like how you said the composite was sandwhiched between two plates on the 99.

i didnt mean to imply this WAS some form of choubham

Choubham is a type of composite armour its basicaly ceramic meshed on a titanium wire frame and support by steel nothing special just very tightly packed good aginst heat round but no so good against sabot

[MIGleader]

Chobbham contains no depleted uranium.

you're thinking of the M1A2 SEP's armor package, which has Chobbham covering a "fail safe" layer of DU.

Oh right, it was steel sandwhiching the the ceramic composites.

Now, can anyone answer my second question? dont blow-out panels and armored compartments increase battlefield survivability for the crew? so why doesn the 99 have any of these features?

[darth sidious]

Oh right, it was steel sandwhiching the the ceramic composites.

Now, can anyone answer my second question? dont blow-out panels and armored compartments increase battlefield survivability for the crew? so why doesn the 99 have any of these features?

armoured compartment alone are of limited value if the main amno storge cooks off nothing can save the tank. this feture is also not promient among tanks these days why would china want them anyways.

as for blow out panels the simple answers its it cant. like the T-72/8-/90 etc the t-98 stores its rounds in a auto loader located in the tanks main hull a blow out panel is impossible to arrange. on the abrms the amno are located inthe back of the turtet and sealed off from the crew that way if the amno explodes the blast will be deflected out wards.

it importent to know even if teh blow out panel works the tank will be mission killed. such crew safty fetures are waste ful and use less only delaying up mass production in war time. like the t-34 the T-98 is ment to be mass produced, equal in armour and gunpower to the enemy's main MBT but can be chuked out at a superior rate to overwhelm teh enemy.

a goood tank should be simple to used require minial time for training e.g hours . Robust and affordable in large number and off course have adquiemt perfomance

[MIGleader]

Thats funny. i never felt the type 99 was ever meant to be mass produced. It's rather expensive. The type 96 is the one the PLA has set for mass production, while the type 99 is produced in limited amounts for elite units. Since these units contain china's best tankers, why not protect them?

[RedMercury]

Well, that's more a high-level question of doctrine. One of small, professional force (where survivability of crew is important) versus the "people's war" doctrine of mass production and easy-to-use equipment to be used by conscripted force. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The Soviet experience in WW2 left a legacy in favor of the latter, while Americans preferred the former. It's also a function of politics. How able is your society to contribute to war and bear losses? What kinds of conflicts (offensive in other people's soil or defensive on your own soil) do you envision your future conflicts to be? America, with its set of circumstances, finds the doctrine of small, professional force that emphasizes few human losses to be politically expedient. Other countries with other needs will find their own way to balance their requirements with their resources. Comparing military equipment in a one-size-fits-all, which is "better", kind of way is an over-simplification. Each user has its own set of goals, requirements, resources, and limitations. One model may be "better" for one country while another is "better" for a different country. It all depends.

[RedMercury]

Thats funny. i never felt the type 99 was ever meant to be mass produced. It's rather expensive. The type 96 is the one the PLA has set for mass production, while the type 99 is produced in limited amounts for elite units. Since these units contain china's best tankers, why not protect them?
The design decision was probably weighed carefully. I could think of a few arguments for each side:

More crew protection side:
More survivability, leading to more experienced crews, lower replacement cost for training new crews.
Better morale.
Less expense repairing vehicle.
and more I can't think of...

Less crew protection side:
Stay with proven, mature design, and not risk a new design.
Less development costs.
The crew are pretty much goners anyway if tank is penetrated by APFSDS anyway (but not necessairly small HEAT rounds, but then, perhaps HEAT are less likely to penetrate into the hull where the rounds are stored).
May be easier to adapt current autoloader with more protections (like armor protecting the rounds? who knows).
A bustle autoloader may be a difficult problem in the engineering sense.
and more I can't think of...

I'm sure the designers weighed the pros and cons and this is the decision they chose. If you want to get inside their head, you'll have to ask them...

Oh, a side note. There's been speculation about what exactly that "box" at the back of the Type 99 and Type 96 turret does. I don't think there's ever been a photo released of the actual autoloader, leading some to speculate that it may indeed already have a bustle-mounted autoloader.
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=type98mbttopview2mn.jpg

[ChinaWall65]

i don't understand how the bustle mounted autoloader work...can someone explain it to me.

[darth sidious]

Thats funny. i never felt the type 99 was ever meant to be mass produced. It's rather expensive. The type 96 is the one the PLA has set for mass production, while the type 99 is produced in limited amounts for elite units. Since these units contain china's best tankers, why not protect them?

teh basic structure of the T-72 means they T-99 can be easily mass produced in terms of the labour requireed and general structure the T-99 is far more easy to produce then a Abrams. the structure difference bewten a T-96 and T-99 is very little. china because of her location can never afford to let her army down a soviet style conscript army is far more sutable to china then a western army.

the crew are gonners any ways if a APFSDS round pentrate the amrour why bother to add extra protection if they will only delay production. with a simplifyed tank more can be produced for less.

[Gollevainen]

i don't understand how the bustle mounted autoloader work...can someone explain it to me.

It means that the autoloader is in the turret bustle (in the rearside overhang of the turret) and not in the turret root like in soviet and chinese tanks. Bustle autoloaders are fitted in Japanese type-90 and French Lecler. Also Ukrainian modernised version of T-80 called T-84, have a version called T-84-120 or oblot which have western 120mm cannon and bustle autoloader.

[jackbh]

the crew are gonners any ways if a APFSDS round pentrate the amrour why bother to add extra protection if they will only delay production

That is why you want that extra protection and extra levels of armor so your tank won't be penetrated easily. And to say that the T-99 and Type 96 different in limited area is just not very accurate. In fact, the chasis of type 99 is quite different from type 96 I think.

[MIGleader]

The 99 has ERA, the 96 does not. The 99 has an laser jamming deivce, the 96 does not. The 99 has n uprated engine compared to the 96. Even the gun is different. The 99's chassis is derived from the t-72, the 96's is from the 85 programm. Quite similar, huh?

[darth sidious]

The 99 has ERA, the 96 does not. The 99 has an laser jamming deivce, the 96 does not. The 99 has n uprated engine compared to the 96. Even the gun is different. The 99's chassis is derived from the t-72, the 96's is from the 85 programm. Quite similar, huh?

whats your point !look at some pic then talk ERA can be easily sdded on the any tank engine can be chnaged so can the guns especialy if they are both 125mm guns

so your point is moot

[MIGleader]

But the pla decided not to put all these extra features on 96 to cut down on cost. So if tis going to make the 99 the "Best", it might aswell give it all good features of a tank, not just some.

[darth sidious]

But the pla decided not to put all these extra features on 96 to cut down on cost. So if tis going to make the 99 the "Best", it might aswell give it all good features of a tank, not just some.

you cant add blast panels because of the structure apart from that I dont see what else they can add

[King_Comm]

The 99's chassis is derived from the t-72, the 96's is from the 85 programm. Quite similar, huh?

==Type 99's chasis is not derived from T-72, Type-99's is longitudinally placed while T-72 has a latitudinally placed engine, and the chasis of Type 99 is one meter longer.

[Gollevainen]

The placement of the engine doesen't tell wheter some hull is derivated form another nor does the fact that its' 1 meter longer. It indicates that it's not direct copy, but doesen't rule out derivation. In fact the different engine placement is just tells that chinese have envolved the design.

[King_Comm]

Different engine arrangement would inevitably lead to different transmission and fuel tank arrangement, and enlongated chasis which inturn will lead to different road wheel arrangements, a new engine arrangement would require a redesign of the chasis.

So contrary to what MIGleader suggested, type 96 which was derived from type 85, would be closer to T-72 as they both come from the T-55 root.

[Gollevainen]

yeas, redesing of the existing T-72 desing, not making it out from the scratch that would be required if one wants to call Type 99 as totally indegenious tank..... as someones wants to see it.

[ChinaWall65]

yeas, redesing of the existing T-72 desing, not making it out from the scratch that would be required if one wants to call Type 99 as totally indegenious tank..... as someones wants to see it.

so where does it say Type 99 is totally indegenious...all tank designs are somewhat influencedby other designs...

From your reasoning, you can say that because the M1 Abram uses Leopard's 120mm main gun, then it must be based on the Leopard...but we all know that is not true.

[vincelee]

stop pissing off the mod.

Some people here, including me at some point (I was talking about the gun though), were saying that the ZTZ-99 and T-72 were parallel developments.

[MIGleader]

==Type 99's chasis is not derived from T-72, Type-99's is longitudinally placed while T-72 has a latitudinally placed engine, and the chasis of Type 99 is one meter longer.

the new an-70 joint project between ukraine and china has a 5 meter enlarge body from the origianal an-70. does that make it a new design? Do the new engines make it a new design? Absolutely not. (sorry for being off-topic, but i thougt it was a nice example)

Its no doubt the 99 is somehow derived from the t-72, mainly in the hull. and theres nothing wrong with that. Evne early russian tanks in the 20s/30s were based off of american designs. A certian mr. aluka will gladly point out all the hull similarities there are, especially the V thing(in lack of a better term) at the front.

[ahho]

It means that the autoloader is in the turret bustle (in the rearside overhang of the turret) and not in the turret root like in soviet and chinese tanks. Bustle autoloaders are fitted in Japanese type-90 and French Lecler. Also Ukrainian modernised version of T-80 called T-84, have a version called T-84-120 or oblot which have western 120mm cannon and bustle autoloader.

just wondering, does chines tank such as type-96 and 99 have such autoloader, and what benefit does this bring????

[vincelee]

we don't know for sure. As for autoloaders, well, the tank has to accommodate one less person.

[ChinaWall65]

the new an-70 joint project between ukraine and china has a 5 meter enlarge body from the origianal an-70. does that make it a new design? Do the new engines make it a new design? Absolutely not. (sorry for being off-topic, but i thougt it was a nice example)

Its no doubt the 99 is somehow derived from the t-72, mainly in the hull. and theres nothing wrong with that. Evne early russian tanks in the 20s/30s were based off of american designs. A certian mr. aluka will gladly point out all the hull similarities there are, especially the V thing(in lack of a better term) at the front.

Of course part of Type 99 might be derived from T-72, like the V-shaped thing of the hull you pointed out...but first of all the entire hull is not derived from the T-72...to make the hull one meter longer and change the placement of the engine, there must be many many innovations made to the internal of the hull...
the only major feature in common between T-72 and Type 99 is that the hull looks a like on the outside...but having few things in common doesn't mean they're derivatives of eachother...for example, the Abram has a Leopard's main gun, but that doesn't mean Abram is based on Leopard; india's Arjun's turret looks like Leopard's turret, but that doesn't make Arjun Leopard's derivative; the Japanese Type 90 also looks like Leopard, but that still doesn't make Type 90 Leopard's derivative...oh wait, type 99 has add-on armour similar to the Leopard's style, that must mean that type 99 must be based on the Leopard? of course not...you gotta draw the line somewhere.
having one feature in common doesn't mean the entire tank, type 99, is based on T-72. The external looks of the hull is nothing compared to the rest of the features of type 99. When it comes to the tank, Type 99, it is an indigenous design...

[Gollevainen]

just wondering, does chines tank such as type-96 and 99 have such autoloader, and what benefit does this bring????

no they doesen't. All chinese tanks which has an autoloader has the russian type carusel autoloader placed in the turret root.

Of course part of Type 99 might be derived from T-72, like the V-shaped thing of the hull you pointed out...but first of all the entire hull is not derived from the T-72...to make the hull one meter longer and change the placement of the engine, there must be many many innovations made to the internal of the hull...
the only major feature in common between T-72 and Type 99 is that the hull looks a like on the outside...but having few things in common doesn't mean they're derivatives of eachother...for example, the Abram has a Leopard's main gun, but that doesn't mean Abram is based on Leopard; india's Arjun's turret looks like Leopard's turret, but that doesn't make Arjun Leopard's derivative; the Japanese Type 90 also looks like Leopard, but that still doesn't make Type 90 Leopard's derivative...oh wait, type 99 has add-on armour similar to the Leopard's style, that must mean that type 99 must be based on the Leopard? of course not...you gotta draw the line somewhere.
having one feature in common doesn't mean the entire tank, type 99, is based on T-72. The external looks of the hull is nothing compared to the rest of the features of type 99. When it comes to the tank, Type 99, it is an indigenous design...

That's just living in denyal. T-72 and Type 99 does share very similar hull, and it's said in various sources that the chinese tank hull is derivated from the russian tank. It's 1 meter longer, but that doesen't mean anyhting. It's propaply due the fact that the engine is placed differently, thus requiring longer hull. But if you look the most important features, like the suspension and wheels, you cannot avoid the fact that the two tanks share a relationship. Stating what you said about leopards type of armour and so on is just childish.

What is it with you and others? Some inferior complex? Overboosted nationlaistic pride thing? Chinese tanks are not 100% indegenious, not single one of them entering serial production. All first generation tanks are based in T-54 and the seccond generation incorporates T-72 weapon system and layout. The third generation was the first effort to get some indegenious tank, tough still fielding the T-72s concept. The first version, which had an indegenious hull, failed (type 90). But the seccond (Type 98) returned to just derivating the russian hull adding some lenght and other improvements. Is it direct copy of T-72? No, but it's still derivated from it. Why it is so hard to you to get it?

[King_Comm]

What is it with you and others? Some inferior complex? Overboosted nationlaistic pride thing? Chinese tanks are not 100% indegenious, not single one of them entering serial production. All first generation tanks are based in T-54 and the seccond generation incorporates T-72 weapon system and layout. The third generation was the first effort to get some indegenious tank, tough still fielding the T-72s concept. The first version, which had an indegenious hull, failed (type 90). But the seccond (Type 98) returned to just derivating the russian hull adding some lenght and other improvements. Is it direct copy of T-72? No, but it's still derivated from it. Why it is so hard to you to get it?

==Of course Type 99's hull is not 100% indigineous, but the engine lay out is quite similar to western designs in order to accomodate German style 1200hp and 1500hp diesel engines, and it is impossible for the Type 99's or any other Chinese tanks' general arrangement to be too different from the T-72 because they are products from the same school of thoughts, i.e. deep battle, tanks are required to have high strategic and operational mobility, and relatively small reliance on logistical support, and used for depth strike, thus the large road wheels, 3 crew, 50 tonne weight limit, carousel auto-loader, low height etc.

==By thew way, China's second generation tanks did not incorporate T-72 weapon system and layout, they were still based on the T-54, with indigenous and western weapon systems.

[Gollevainen]

By thew way, China's second generation tanks did not incorporate T-72 weapon system and layout, they were still based on the T-54, with indigenous and western weapon systems.

Well i was refering to the Type 88C/Type 96 which is seccond generation tank with the T-72 type of weapon arragment.

[vincelee]

is the T-72 style autoloader confirmed on ZTZ-99? I don't think a picture has been released.

[ChinaWall65]

no they doesen't. All chinese tanks which has an autoloader has the russian type carusel autoloader placed in the turret root.



That's just living in denyal. T-72 and Type 99 does share very similar hull, and it's said in various sources that the chinese tank hull is derivated from the russian tank. It's 1 meter longer, but that doesen't mean anyhting. It's propaply due the fact that the engine is placed differently, thus requiring longer hull. But if you look the most important features, like the suspension and wheels, you cannot avoid the fact that the two tanks share a relationship. Stating what you said about leopards type of armour and so on is just childish.

What is it with you and others? Some inferior complex? Overboosted nationlaistic pride thing? Chinese tanks are not 100% indegenious, not single one of them entering serial production. All first generation tanks are based in T-54 and the seccond generation incorporates T-72 weapon system and layout. The third generation was the first effort to get some indegenious tank, tough still fielding the T-72s concept. The first version, which had an indegenious hull, failed (type 90). But the seccond (Type 98) returned to just derivating the russian hull adding some lenght and other improvements. Is it direct copy of T-72? No, but it's still derivated from it. Why it is so hard to you to get it?

I never said Chinese tanks are 100% indigenous, and non of the modern tanks today are 100% indigenous. Even the T-72 is based off of early Soviet Tanks, which are based off of WWII tanks, which are based off of WWI tanks.
Comparing the Leopard's style armour and all other examples of similarities between modern tanks from my previous are legitimate analogies that fits under your logic, because what you are saying is that because there are few features on the Type 99's hull that are similar to the T-72's hull, Type 99 could not possibly be an indigenous design, but really a derivative of the T-72. This isn't logical, you are comparing few aspects of the Type 99 to the T-72, however you are concluding the entire tank, Type 99, as a derivative of the entire tank, T-72. You just can't do that, its like surveying Moms Against Drunk Driving about "drinking and drive" to represent the opinion of the entire nation. Having the similarity based on the looks of Type 99 and T-72 that you concluded doesn't mean the entire design of Type 99 is not indigenous...lastly, do you realize that over 96% percent of Human DNA and Chimpanzees DNA are similar; but the difference between Humans and Chimpanzees is that Humans are hundreds of times more advanced than Chimpanzees...I'm not advocating for China, if you checked my profile, you will see that i'm in North Carolina; i'm simply pointing out your flawed logic saying that Type 99 isn't indigeous because certain parts of its hull looks like certain parts of T-72's hull.

[jackbh]

But the seccond (Type 98) returned to just derivating the russian hull adding some lenght and other improvements. Is it direct copy of T-72? No, but it's still derivated from it.

To say something like this is to over simplify things. Unless you are an engineer doing actual work on the Type 98, you won't know what exactly the design is. Just by looking at the physical difference or similarity is just not very accurate.
Sure, I agree that there are probably some design cues on the Type 98 that are from T-72, but there are probably more things that are very different than the T-72. Looks can really be decieving. Thing could be more complex than they look.

[Gollevainen]

To say something like this is to over simplify things. Unless you are an engineer doing actual work on the Type 98, you won't know what exactly the design is. Just by looking at the physical difference or similarity is just not very accurate.
Sure, I agree that there are probably some design cues on the Type 98 that are from T-72, but there are probably more things that are very different than the T-72. Looks can really be decieving. Thing could be more complex than they look.

I never said it's simply just down to the looks. And i think we all agree that the Tank is not direct copy of anything, just continious development of existing tanks having imput from T-72. The physical evidence is undenyable. It may sound simplify but it realy isen't. The biggest definition features of any tank is in it's automotive parts, turret and the gun. And from Type 98 we can clearly see the automotive parts and state their undenyable similarityes to T-72. It's simple and it's true. The engine as we known is quite differnece than the one in T-72. And so is the turret, but the gun and the autoloader are based to the ones in russian tanks. We have seen pictures of it (posted in threads that were closed becouse of flaming battles...) and I've been inside T-72 and I even first tough those pics were taken inside of T-72 so...

is the T-72 style autoloader confirmed on ZTZ-99? I don't think a picture has been released

Well like i said we have seen the pics of the gun, and the turret isen't big enough to field Bustle autoloader so it have to be the carusel type.

do you realize that over 96% percent of Human DNA and Chimpanzees DNA are similar; but the difference between Humans and Chimpanzees is that Humans are hundreds of times more advanced than Chimpanzees...

You hit the nail there...Thats what i have said all the time, the 'chimp' and 'humans' are basicly the same...only when other 'humans' looks the thing from behind 'human' eyeclasses, they tend to see only the differences, not the similarityes....but when a Pig looks both of them, he sees how stricingly similar they are...guess im the piggy...and no one have ever denied that the 'human' is equally dum as the 'chimp';) :p

[ChinaWall65]

Well like i said we have seen the pics of the gun, and the turret isen't big enough to field Bustle autoloader so it have to be the carusel type.
no, you saw pics of parts of the gun and very limited parts of the inside of the turret...PLA wouldn't release photos as sensitive like the entire inside of the turret, or majority of the inside...so your statement about the turret isn't big enough is just pure speculation.

the 'chimp' and 'humans' are basicly the same...
think about what you are saying...just because human's DNA and chimp's DNA are the same doesn't mean humans and chimps are the same

[Gollevainen]

no, you saw pics of parts of the gun and very limited parts of the inside of the turret...PLA wouldn't release photos as sensitive like the entire inside of the turret, or majority of the inside...so your statement about the turret isn't big enough is just pure speculation.

I have seen pics of the gun, and the turret is just too small its not a speculation, its plain physical fact...no way there can be any other means of autoloader, than caruzel one....again you just want to see the differences, and live in denial over the crucial similarityes.

think about what you are saying...just because human's DNA and chimp's DNA are the same doesn't mean humans and chimps are the same

chimp and humans are basicly same...humans tend to be bit clewer and have managed to greate huge illusion that sometimes fools somebody to think humans are somewhat special...but enough whit this topic, you clearly must have noticed my story as metaphorical

[Fabrice]

Hello

My first post on this forum I apologize for my English. I have new data on ZTZ-96LO experimental type main battle tank of people’s liberation army of 2005. A low observable main battle tanks has sloping sides and rubber skirts to evade radar and laser.
http://i3.tinypic.com/vq73ac.gif

[Gollevainen]

ÖRHM...hate to brake it to you but that's CGI, actually not even very good CGI....

[ChinaWall65]

I have seen pics of the gun, and the turret is just too small its not a speculation, its plain physical fact...no way there can be any other means of autoloader, than caruzel one....again you just want to see the differences, and live in denial over the crucial similarityes.

do you have any evidence to back up your claim, like blueprints of the turret, official reports, etc? if not, then you can't simply make an absolute statement that it is impossible to fit a bustle mounted autoloader...i don't think you design tank turrets or autoloaders, so if i were you, i wouldn't make any assumptions. making conclusions based on pictures of turret taken by photographers about that the turret is not big enough is speculation, its not fact yet unless you have some evidence you are not sharing; you can look up the definition of speculation on Black's Law dictionary, if you still won't change your mind...

stop saying i'm in denial, first of all, i'm not and second of all, how is it related to the dicussion of type 99? you have misunderstood my point...there are few features on the type 99 that is similar to the t-72, but that doesn't make the entire design of type 99 not indigenous. like i said before, abram's gun and leopard's gun are copies of each other, but that doesn't mean abram isn't an indigenous design...this is the same thing with type 99 and t-72, there hull looks similar; other than the fact that type 99's hull is one meter's longer and that everything INSIDE the hull is obviously different from the t-72's...

chimp and humans are basicly same...

you are right, i don't need to say anything more to demonstrate the flaws in your thinking.

[planeman]

Hello

My first post on this forum I apologize for my English. I have new data on ZTZ-96LO experimental type main battle tank of people’s liberation army of 2005. A low observable main battle tanks has sloping sides and rubber skirts to evade radar and laser.
http://i3.tinypic.com/vq73ac.gif

Looks like it applies similar principles to the AMX-30 stealth tank:
http://i3.tinypic.com/vqodua.jpg
I can see why it might look like a CGI even if it's real. Do you have the picture in a better resolution?

[MIGleader]

I thinks its a CGI. The resolution of the tank is not consistant with the background.

besides, why would the PLA leave their newest tank lying ina road somewhere? if this is really a test, the vehicle should be moving.

[Fabrice]

Thank you for reply me. I have the picture in jpeg type also but it is smaller I think.
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/3263/ztz96lo13yo.jpg
I know not a lot about this type.

[planeman]

Thanks for the clearer pic. I'm not going to vote either way on this but I will say that if someone tried modifying a basic tank to reduce it's susceptibility to millimetric wave radar and possibly laser designators/range finders, it'd probably look something like that.

[RedMercury]

I could see how reducing radar/laser reflection would be useful, but I have the iimpression that thermal/IR-based sensors are the dominant method for detecting tanks nowadays. I remember reading a snippet out of some Chinese news outlet about body paint that reduces thermal signiture, but I wonder how is China on R&D of thermal signature reduction coatings in general.

[planeman]

I could see how reducing radar/laser reflection would be useful, but I have the iimpression that thermal/IR-based sensors are the dominant method for detecting tanks nowadays. I remember reading a snippet out of some Chinese news outlet about body paint that reduces thermal signiture, but I wonder how is China on R&D of thermal signature reduction coatings in general.
True, but it's very hard to do range finding with IR.

[King_Comm]

I could see how reducing radar/laser reflection would be useful, but I have the iimpression that thermal/IR-based sensors are the dominant method for detecting tanks nowadays. I remember reading a snippet out of some Chinese news outlet about body paint that reduces thermal signiture, but I wonder how is China on R&D of thermal signature reduction coatings in general.

==I knew a guy who proposed the concept of modulised plant holding rack, the plant will either be grown in soil or gel, the racks will be attached onto the tanks, when on operation, the plant pots will be placed on to racks, it will significantly reduce thermal signiture, it will also improve conditions inside the vehicle in summer, and it will also serve as protection against HEAT munition.

[sino52C]

Not to mention that the plants would also serve as camouflage.

However, I believe that idea is very impractical.

[RedMercury]

"That? Naw, that's just an overgrown shrub, sector clear."

I have a feeling the poor plants would lose their leaves after the main gun fires. And who would want to water their tanks? Keke. Yes, impractical, but not terribly so. Who knows.;)

[Red-Star]

So is that a real tank or CGI, the 1st picture looks real but the 2nd one looks odd.

[planeman]

That's the crux of it, it's impossible to say. I'd suggest that a stealth tank is going to look a bit box like anyway and the paint/materials is likely to be flatter and more even than normal tanks.

Are there any runours that china is developing this technology? The 22xx stealth boats came without much warning though...

[King_Comm]

However, I believe that idea is very impractical.

==I don't think so, the plants will only be mounted onto the tanks when required, they will just be part of the barrack/depot/base most of the time.

I have a feeling the poor plants would lose their leaves after the main gun fires.

==Leaves will grow back, but experienced crews will not when they get killed.

And who would want to water their tanks?

==Gardening is a relaxing and en-nobling hobby.

[xihaoli]

Do you really need an assembly line to produce such an armor? Wouldn't use 4 four guys, fifty pounds of chicken wire, some shovels, and an afternoon? Seem inpractical for anything except for field. (Kinda like Era)

[King_Comm]

Do you really need an assembly line to produce such an armor? Wouldn't use 4 four guys, fifty pounds of chicken wire, some shovels, and an afternoon? Seem inpractical for anything except for field. (Kinda like Era)

==We have to make it of reasonable strength so the plants won't be blown away when the main gun fires, and the pots have to be tightly secured so they won't fall off when on a bumpy ride. most parts on tanks are impratical except for on operations, including armour, weapon, fire control ets.

[Lee Delbert]

wether yes or no for me the most important was China should start decomissioning old tanks like type 59's and replace it with new ones like type 98 to make its army totaly modern and powerful.

[MIGleader]

lee, the PLA is doing that slowly. By the end of this year, China may have well over 2000 type 96's in service. Yet even that quantity is unable to replace the estimated 5,500 type 59s. The PLA may consider replacing the 59s with IFVs, but they are expensive too.

[Lee Delbert]

Yes I know that that's why I will be totaly glad to see a faster phase of replacing, I believe spending a few Billion dollars more for the army will not be hard for China's economic position currently.

[Nethappy]

Yes I know that that's why I will be totaly glad to see a faster phase of replacing, I believe spending a few Billion dollars more for the army will not be hard for China's economic position currently.

Yes, but are there such need, 2000 type 96's, let PLA receive 40 Type 99 per year since 2001: 200 type 99, 1,000 Type 79s, and 3,000 Type 69s is already a formidable Tank force.

The money is better spend on training, State of the Art C3IR which the PLA lack, to modernize other PLA element.

MBT are good they a powerful babies but they need a lot of support from other element of the Army to make them work poperly, it not like C&C that u built 5000 tank and they can take over the world.

[MIGleader]

Yes, but are there such need, 2000 type 96's, let PLA receive 40 Type 99 per year since 2001: 200 type 99, 1,000 Type 79s, and 3,000 Type 69s is already a formidable Tank force.

The money is better spend on training, State of the Art C3IR which the PLA lack, to modernize other PLA element.

MBT are good they a powerful babies but they need a lot of support from other element of the Army to make them work poperly, it not like C&C that u built 5000 tank and they can take over the world.

type 69s and 88's are outdated too. for its ground forces, Chiense PLA C3i isnt as lacking as it is in the PLAN and PLAAF. there are plenty of communications and command vehicles out there.

[Lee Delbert]

Nethappy, I agree with MIGleader type 69's and type 79's are already old also building more new ones and replace them in a faster phase like type 98, etc. would be nice and make China having a formidable tank force.

[Nethappy]

type 69s and 88's are outdated too. for its ground forces, Chiense PLA C3i isnt as lacking as it is in the PLAN and PLAAF. there are plenty of communications and command vehicles out there.


The amount of C3I the PLA has it not the problem but the overall capability is.

Nethappy, I agree with MIGleader type 69's and type 79's are already old also building more new ones and replace them in a faster phase like type 98, etc. would be nice and make China having a formidable tank force.

Well have you forgot about cost here.

[planeman]

PLA has several thousand more MBTs than it needs. It does not need to replace its obscelete Type-59s etc. If anything a better amphibious tank would be a strategic move.

[Gollevainen]

NO oneliners!! Im serious, tomnorrow, some heads begun to fall, if this thing continues:nono: :mad: :nono: :mad: :nono:

[MIGleader]

The amount of C3I the PLA has it not the problem but the overall capability is.
The PLA has been operating with C3i equipment since the early 90s. In general, if the PLA continues to rely on smaller SOF's and rapid reaction units to do the dirty work, coordination is not such a bad problem.

Well have you forgot about cost here.
The type 96 is not very expensive hence the reason it has been one of the few PLA weapons in mass production over recent years.

[Nethappy]

The PLA has been operating with C3i equipment since the early 90s. In general, if the PLA continues to rely on smaller SOF's and rapid reaction units to do the dirty work, coordination is not such a bad problem.

Yes, but SOF and rapid reaction force is 2 very different thing and both of them need a good C3ISR to do their work properly.

SOF C3ISR is very important because Information is one of there most important asset, bad intelligence can get your SOF wipe out. While good intelligence can allow them to deal some heavy damage.

Rapid reaction need a good C3ISR better then anything, coordination and supprise is one of there most important asset. Raoud reaction units are use to launch a precise, fast, coordinated attack at any weak point in the enemy offence or defence.

The type 96 is not very expensive hence the reason it has been one of the few PLA weapons in mass production over recent years

Yes they type 96 is not very expensive and it been mass producted. Nevertheless it doesn't mean it cheap enough to fully replace the type69's and type 79's.

It a better use of asset to upgrade the type69's and type 79's, however they will not be use as a MBT like in modern term. But more of a direct fire support for mechanised units.

[jackbh]

I know the engine output for the new ZTZ-99 is 1500hp, but what about the torque output of the engine? Is it around 2000-2500 lbft of torque, or is that too high? How many litters is the engine displacement? From the sources it seemed to be a flat engine.

[Nethappy]

Hihi .. back. been very busy lately.

Anyway, after working intensively with the type 99 during the past week. I found out the type 99 is actually much more modular that you would believe. in In certain area of the tank there are extra room left out for futher upgrade and some old stop-gap part has been use so the type 99 can enter service much early. There is currenty 4 different upgraded version of the type 99.

[MIGleader]

Could you specify with each of the four upgraded models, telling us where and how the tank had been upgraded in each model? Im interested in seeing the changes that have been made since 2002.

[Nethappy]

As far as I know there been at lease one major armor upgrade and reconfiguration, then the rest are just mimor modification and exchange of part with improve design. The infomation i been given has been limited, it just what I need to know to do my job. But I'll try dig more info up.

Nevetheless the PLA seem to be very fuss up about this tank, they done over 400 test with differnet part of the type 99 packaged in different way with differnet level and/or version of intercept technology material, they done over 270 salt fog test alone. I can tell u these testes are expensive to conduct.

[Anonymous]

some old stop-gap part has been use so the type 99 can enter service much early. There is currenty 4 different upgraded version of the type 99.

wait, why would they do that? do you mean type 98 entered service early and that type 99 is one of the upgraded version of type 98; or do you actually mean what you just said?

[Nethappy]

wait, why would they do that? do you mean type 98 entered service early and that type 99 is one of the upgraded version of type 98; or do you actually mean what you just said?

I mean what i mean.. the type 99 is not an upgraded type 98 it a whole new tank in some way. As over 70% of the part different from older tank and i believe or 90% after they fully developed it. Dispite some older part were use in some of the earlier type 99 but where soon refited, nevertheless newer part are still develop of the old ones but with bit and piece of new tech but it still improve over all performance. But the question is how much? that i am not dun know.

The Type 99 was developed to be very modular and to be contiuously upgrade or something, and it sure have more bit and peice then any tank the PLA have. The type 99 deal cost more the 3X then any other contact the PLA have had with us so far and it sure have a lot of part then any other tank they have. One good thing is the part from some of the older tank can be use on the type 99 but with a reduce of performance, but this can be a good thing in someway during war or battle.

Bit of information on the Composite armour: The basic of they type 99 composite armour is muti layer of some form of speical rubber sandwiched in between metal plates and reinforced by some kind a ceramic composite or something. Been told by these chinese engineers that it very effective vrs heat and some even claim it immume to it. But am not sure how effect it is.

[MIGleader]

Do you know how well this composite armor would fare against HESH or Sabot rounds?

Is the floor of the tank reinforced? that would help against mines.

[Nethappy]

Update on answer from PLA ppl!!!
According to a PLA engineer the Type 99 Composite armour are extremely effective vrs HEAT and sabot round due to the muti layer of speical rubber sandwiched inside the armor. The rubber is design to expand when it been strike by heat or sabot round therefore force the metal plating to continuously change shape as it pentrate each layer and greatly increase the thickness of the armor the round have to penetrate, the continously change in shape armour shape could sometime snap the sabot penterater rod too.

I am a infantry therfore not an expert in tank. Can any of the tank expert verify the possibility of this!!!

I was told the floor has been reinforced and during the last 2 reconfiguration there has been major change to it armor in an effort to increase the tank survivability. There is a very high chance if futher test meet PLA requirement that composite armour will be fitted all around the tank and a reinforcement of armour over vital area inside the tank over in future tank, this test reconfiguration came out early this year.

[MIGleader]

Thank you VERY much Nethappy. You are an invaluable asset to our knowledge of this field. but my questions continue.

I hear that the type-99 does not have armored compartments or blow-out panels. As shown in the gulf war, these features greatly improve survivability. This is especially important for the 99 since it has a vulnerable carousel autoloader. any explanation why these features are missing?

[Nethappy]

From what I seen there a limited armored compartments within the tank and critical area such as ammo storage, fuel tank, engine has protection from extra armor which has been reinforced.

I been told it they had study US style blow-out panels but found it impossible to fit them on the type 99 due to some techincal reason related to the autoloader. It was to techincal and I didn't really understand it. Sorry But he actually said it was more dangerous if they had them.

[Nethappy]

Just to let people know.. I am been working exclusively on the Type 99 with the PLA lately. Our company is providing the Storage media for it whole system as most of you should know. Therefore I got the change to talk to lot of the engineer who been working on the whole system for a lot time. If there anything you wanna know, I can try ask. Nevertheless, try not to get to techical cos getting the basic info is easy but anything to detail can get me in to trouble.

[Gollevainen]

Well I'm mostly interessed about the gun, it's orgins and type, but I guess that falls in to that troupled cathegory so don't get yourself into trouple for my account...

[jackbh]

Hi,
I'm interested in the power pack. What is the engine configuration, the size of the engine. I know horse power is 1500 what about the torque? How many km can the tank go on a full load of fuel?

[Nethappy]

Golly, there always wayz around thing. Anyway I try asking for ya.
Well I told the guy I seen a lot of report online stating that the Type 99 was a copy of the Russian 125mm. Well, he told me it was developed of the russian gun, with the assistance of some western aid with the design and western technology. He said the cannon was superior to the original Russian design.
That all I can get for you mate.

[Gollevainen]

yeah thats the overal consensus that we have about the gun, the rivaling beeing that it got something to do whit the 120mm gun used in chinses self propelled anti-tank guns...I would just like to know someday, that what modification exactly it does have and how the claimed improvements have been achieved and what they actually are...

[Nethappy]

yeah I know what u mean.. I try work on it.. no promiss. But I'll do what I can.

[Aluka]

Haven't posted in quite a while :)
Well, i am glad that our theory on 99's maingun has some grounding behind it now. If we could only get a picture of actual 99's gunbreech it would be the "limit of my dreams".

Also i would like to comment on 99's armour:
According to a PLA engineer the Type 99 Composite armour are extremely effective vrs HEAT and sabot round due to the muti layer of speical rubber sandwiched inside the armor. The rubber is design to expand when it been strike by heat or sabot round therefore force the metal plating to continuously change shape as it pentrate each layer and greatly increase the thickness of the armor the round have to penetrate, the continously change in shape armour shape could sometime snap the sabot penterater rod too.
This information was available on gspo for 2 years or so. (Also they concluded gun's origin already back then) I wonder why people do not listen to them and think them to be just some fans. Anyway, according to gspo 99's armour was developed with use of russian experience in developing armour blocks for T-80U, and basically resembles it's structure. Again according to gspo T-80U armour consists of sandwiched plates of steel, rubber, and corundum (some say it may bereplaced by other material), spaced from each other and filled with pressurised polystyrol. Plates are angled 54-55 degrees from the axis of maingun, to optimise effectiveness against directly incoming shells.

[Nethappy]

Hiya.... it been a while since I post.. been buzy with work and world cup.
Anyway I asked about the type 99 developing of the russian experience from T-80U armor over lunch. The guy said it was de