SinoDefence Forum

challenge

中国军方自行研制的99式坦克，虽然是目前世界上较为先进的主战坦克，但是，对于中国军方来说依旧存在一些 不满足的缺陷，因此目中国军事科技机构，对此型坦克进行了改进。

改进型号称为：99改型。对外出口形式称：99B型坦克。这种坦克是一种安装有1门中国产140mm滑膛炮 的主战坦克。这种主炮也是同时采用了自动扬弹机系统。主炮的穿甲能力十分惊人。炮口动能能力达到了22兆焦 ，是M1A2坦克的120mm的11兆焦的2倍。1枚140mm主炮所发射"尾翼稳定脱壳穿甲弹"可以洞M 1A2穿前主装甲。

而自动操瞄机构也进行相关改进，随后又对他的战场环境主动作战系统，进行了改善。加大了激光眩目系统的作战 距离与能量输出的能力。改进了微光夜视系统。增加了至少200米的测距与发现距离，这使得99改型坦克，已 经可以成为对抗西方坦克的首要武器。

而在装甲方面，为了弥补前T72型坦克底盘部位的诸多不足，加大了前主装甲与炮塔装甲的动态厚度。在底盘下 部，增加了抗击反坦克地雷的洞穿能力。目前他的前主装甲已经完全可以超越M1A2的1080mm。在他的动 力系统方面，中国也做了很大的加强。换装了大功率发动机，可以达到1500 匹。

中国在早期就开始秘密研制超大口径坦克炮。这已经不是新闻的新闻了，但是，在那个时期，中国精密钢材锻造技 术，跟不能满足140mm坦克炮所需要的炮管电解渣的程度，因此，在多次试验中中国出现了2－3次"炸膛" 的严重失误。而且曾经一度导致中国大口径坦克炮研制终止。

但是，随着中国获得了来自海外的锻造精密钢材的整体锻造技术以后，情况得到了改善。而中国的所谓的"海外" 事实上是3名来自德国的中国籍回国人员。他们是原来原德国莱茵钢铁公司的雇员。他们在那里负责电解钢的锻造 与研制。在这样的人员协助下，中国的超口径火炮研制工作，终于在06年成功。

但是，目前99式改型坦克的自重由于改装了大批装备，而且换装了大口径火炮，加之引进了新型动力与新型扬弹 机的措施，导致了这种坦克自重严重攀升。目前已经达到了60吨级。这种重型坦克面对中国南方的水网大陆，是 难以承受这样的重量。但是，目前的南方部署地区，也是中国部署99式坦克的主要地区。面对台湾局势，中国部 署新型坦克是必须的选择。

面对如此局面，中国军方是不是在可能大规模去改进目前已经部署的700辆99式坦克。以及继续生产大约21 00辆99改式坦克，如果这样中国军方必须同时生产两种主战坦克，其中99式用于部署在中国南方。而99改 则可以用于部署在中国北方部分城市。但是多以大型城市为主。因为这里一些桥梁可以支撑这种"超重"坦克的能 力。

maozedong

source come from, please.

rhino123

A quick translation of the abovementioned passage was that China self developed Type 99 MBT was known as one of the most modern in the world. However the PLA are still not very please with the tank and so the Type 99G tank was being developed.

This new tank was armed with a 140mm smoothbore gun and this type of gun produce an energy that is 2 times that of the M1A1 120mm cannon. It could penetrate the front armour of the M1A1 MBT.

Other than that there are still a couple of innovation such as automated targeting system that are improved from the original one, etc, etc.

It also stated the developement progress of this tank and stuff like that.

The main problem with this new tank is that the weigh had increased to 60ton. and so it is quite impossible for the chinese to modify existing Type 99 tank to this standard. Instead new tank should be build. But in some of the area in China, a 60ton tank is not useful in its terrain and structures.

What I am interested in from the article was that China seemed to be using a huge 140mm cannon (not use by others). This prompt me to ask - how many rounds can this new tank carry. And from the passage, it seemed that this tank is already in production, even offer for export... so test should already had been completed.

However if the rounds are huge and they could only carry a few of these rounds, is it really effective? And with the increase in weigh, will it also affect the tank's flexibility and speed in the battlefield? Its engine now produce 1500bhp... but I thought standard Type 99 is also having an engine that produce 1500bhp?

challenge

2002 issue of IDR, reported tyhat Kharkov tank plant of ukraine is offering 140mm SB tank gun to retrofit the T-84 tank and even T-72 tank.
aside from 140mm tank gun, ukraine also offering compact bustle Auto loader
for T-55/54,T-62 and T-72 tank,

rhino123

Yes, but the basic question still remains, having a more powerful cannon... would definitely reduces the number of ammunition the MBT could carry. Also the increase in the calibre of the cannon, it would increase the weigh of the tank, and I would think that flexibility, agility and speed will be reduces, so... is it worth the trouble?

challenge

answer is definetly ,yes, 140mm tank gun reduce the amount of ammo a tank can carry.

HKSDU

Depends on the PLA doctrine on tank warfare. If the tanks main objective is too defend position then being less mobile but more potent is acceptable, though if it was to shoot and evade then the lighter upgraded 96 will be better. Flexibility isn't sacrificed. It really depends, if you want to carry more rounds you can even go in hypothetically go with 30mm cannons it will carry more rounds, but then you sacrifice the firepower. Its really the tank warfare doctrine they are following that matters, not what other nations have and want.

TerraN_EmpirE

the heaver the tank the more restricted it becomes in terms of terrain. every thing is a compromise The heaver the gun the more room it's ammo needs and the heaver it's ammo when combined with the the weight of it's armor and it's own engine it all places a strain on it's chassis all factor into the power needs from it's engine and decrease it's ability too preform some missions. A 68 ton Abrams MBT can survive multiple hits from most enemy and friendly rounds but for that it has too be specially transported usually by ship, it Would sink too the bottom of any body of water with out even hope of floating and would crush any light bridge like a beer can. the Question is then where does china want too be in terms of it's fight? in a defensive role a super heavy tank is great. but on an Offensive fight away from home it leaves much.

plawolf

Considering the PLA has always had a defensive mission, some offensive limitations could easily be acceptable. Besides, it won't just be the chinese tank that suffers from weight issues, enemy tanks will as well. Thus, if the PLA does field a new 60ton 140mm armed tank, it will have something to match western 60 ton tanks but still have a major armour advantage in areas a 60 ton tank can't operate in with the 96c and 99Gs. It will fill a current gap in PLA armour structure, not replace the entire PLA current tank force so all this talk of weight issues is really moot imo.

RedMercury

Flip side is that Chinese infrastructure has gotten better, so in a defensive role it is not as restricted as in the past. In operations in softer ground, I think ground pressure is more important of a metric than total mass.

I'm still skeptical of this rumor though. It may have true parts, but there has been no real evidence of a 140mm gun.

As to the magazine capacity, in the 96 and 99 the autoloader limits about 20 ish rounds ready to fire, out of just shy of 40 ish total carried. So unless the total carriage for 140mm shells is less than 20 ish, battlefield performance isn't hurt; though logistics is more complicated (need more frequent reloads).

challenge

more likely,only a fraction will be built,the rest for export.

bladerunner

In this situation the doctrine of using tanks in a defensive manner, runs counter for what a tank was designed for.

The Germans, one of the greatest exponents of tank warfare, were beaten decisively when they resorted to using tanks in a defensive manner on the Russian front.


Yeh yeh you might be thinking, thats the Russian Steppes and this is China etc etc but then again IMO using trained tank men as artillery is a misuse of resources. At the very least perhaps tanks could be kept as reserve to head a counter attack.

IMO the recent film release of Chinese forces during the military exercises indicates the possibility that the PLA have yet to understand the proper use of the tank and its deployment. Digging in them so they become static targets, traversing a hillside against a setting sun would have made them perfect targets for any opponents, to name a couple of examples.

montyp165

Considering American night fighting capabilities which are quite well known in military circles, those images are more along the line of propaganda films than actual military maneuvers.

Engineer

140mm tank round sounds like it is going to be a logistic burden.

plawolf

I think you need to brush up on history a little. The Germans were beaten because they were overwhelmed by superior numbers and also because Hitler foolishly ordered 'no retreat' when the smart thing to do would have been to pull back and wait for the Russian attacks to loose momentum before counter attacking.

Suggesting that the Germans lost because they used their tanks defensively is pretty misleading and far from the truth.

And you know better then all the Generals in the PLA?

Do you know what context those films were taken in? What was the mission and what were the opfor and ROE? Were these action shots or publicity shots? Etc.

Its hard to see how anyone can form any rational assessment based on some footage alone without knowing the answers to questions like the above.