This is a discussion on New Type98/99 MBT thread within the Army forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; I think it is a type 96 base variant with no armoured blocks added and possible carried empty. (no ammo ...
I think it is a type 96 base variant with no armoured blocks added and possible carried empty. (no ammo and little fuel to get on and off truck). So about 40 tonnes max.
according to kanwa,newer version of type-99 (or type-99G) will uses Chinese 1500 hp engine, the 125mm gun tube alse been lengthen.it can fire gun launched anti tank missile.the missile is very similiar to Russia AT-10 "bastion" except the range was increases from 7km to 11km.
according to the magazine, the pakistan army are not satified with the ukrainian GTD engine,the problem is that the engine was not design for hot tropical climate,other was her automatic transmission, Pakistan army is negotiating with south korean firm to produce automatic gearbox .
july 2012 issue of kanwa,feature photo of MBT-3000.externally MBT-3000 and MBT-2000 are same except MBT-3000 uses 1500 chinese make disel engine.
according to kanwa, NORINCO hinted a possibility of installing ADS.
Finally... new tank crew helmets.
most of wedge shape modular armour seen type-99 and type-96 B appear to be 60 degree slope,which is insufficient to stop long rod penetrator like M-829.
according to mathematic calculation make by P. lakowski, wedge shape armour plating needed 70 degree to repel the penetration.if you look at wedge shape armour in leo-2 and merkava tank most modular armour slope at 70 degree.
60 degree slope armour found in type-99 and type-96b more likely design for ERA attachment.
I think the current type 99 cannot have a modular armour attachment of more slope than what it currently has because it will block the front driver's hatch.
Last edited by no_name; 09-11-2012 at 04:02 PM.
The 70 degrees was also calculated based on standard steel armour instead of ERA. Normal ERA works either by using the explosive force to shatter the penetrator or via a 'guillotine' principle whereby the explosives forces two metal plates to move rapidly enough to cut the tip off of a penetrator, thereby massively reducing it's armour piercing capabilities.
I can see no fundamental technical difficulty in designing ERA specifically designed work with sloped armour so that instead of cutting the tip or trying to shatter the penetrator, the explosive force of the ERA is channeled so that it forces the penetrator to angle away from the armour such that when it connects with the sloped armour below the ERA, its angle of incident is greater than 70 degrees.
Now I am merely suggesting that such ERA is perfectly feasible, but whether anyone has bothered to develop it is another matter. But regardless, the point is that a) you do not need a 70 degree slope to stop a penetrator, and b) it is possible to achieve the required angling to defect a penetrator with specially developed ERA even if the hull is below 70 degrees of slope.
I'm pretty sure Paul calculated the angle at which a modern long-rod penetrator ricochets is actually closer to vertical than not (mid-80's IIRC).
I think the 70 degree figure is to attempt to introduce a large yaw force to the penetrator to force it to break/shatter. Don't think you can deflect a kinetic penetrator.
slope armour plating likely has attachment point for ERA,around late 80's PLA conducted a test on T-59 tank,in a live firing test the ERA protected tank were able resist 6 105mm apdsfs round and other 6 round fired from T-72.
NORINCO produced several type ERA,like FY-3 with her 35mm thick plate was design to defeat APDSFS round.
Looks like a lot of eletronics are installed, hope it is not going to be too expensive.