New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Gollevainen]

Now the next person calling someone biased, arrogant or prejudice towards anyone better have some sort of engineering degree over ballistics, othervice he will learn the basics of ballistics while flying from the force of Golly kicking his ass

Keep the discussion civil and provide proofs, facts and figures if making bold comments and more importantly when making comments that are near of being personal insults.

I've have to close more threads of type 98/99's maingun than most of you have years lived, so keep on praying that I wont have to close this one as well.

Gollevainen

[Norfolk]

There is nothing ambiguous about the 25% accuracy increase figure of the ZPT-98 over 1,800 metres of the original 2A46M-1. It is plainly stated in both the original Chinese-language and the English-translations of the article on Tianren's Blog. As I stated in a previous post, if you have doubts about the figure, E-Mail Terry Lau himself, his link is provided near the end of the article.

Attentuation is the problem with the 125mm gun; perhaps it is from too powerful a a propellant charge, too fast burning propellant charge, or too short a barrel for the charge used - for that matter, the original 2A46M-1 had an insufficiently rigid barrel, which was corrected in later production batches. The derivatives of the 2A46M-1 seem to share this problem; both the 25% accuracy improvement of the ZPT-98 (which works out to 2,250 metres) on the 1,800 metres of the original 2A46M-1 and the 2,500 metres of the Ukrainian KA1/KBM1 accord with this.

Clearly, if a 125mm Soviet or derivative gun such as ZPT-98 on Type 99 MBT wants to reach the published 3,200 of German/US 120mm (or longer such as the 3 mile/4,800 metres range that M-1 A1 tanks of the US Army 24th Infantry Division [Mechanized] tanks engaged and destroyed Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks at as they headed north to the al-Hammar causeway west of Basra - see "The Generals' War" by Michael R. Gordon and LtGen. Bernard E. Trainor (USMC ret.); I have already cited this source in previous posts, and this source contains the references to the After Action Reports concerned, and once again, if you do not find these credible then PM Utelore on our forum and ask him - he was an M-1 tanker who fought in the 1991 Gulf War ), then tank gun launched ATGMs with 4,000 to 5,000 metres range are required. And that is just what 2A46M-1 and ZPT-98 use.

Here is another source about the 2A46M, which describes near the bottom on Page 135 the accurate range of the 125mm on the T-72; it is from the University of Military Intelligence, a private-think-tank that is connected with, and has direct access to, both the US Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona (USAIC) and its classified documents. To access the classified documents from the USAIC that the University of Military Intelligence has, you must have DoD security clearance. Here is an unclassified manual prepared by the University of Military Intelligence for the "Ariana Forces" formerly known as the US Army OPFOR at Fort Irwin, California, the National Training Center:

Quote:

96B1A06L-SHO2
13 5
T-72 Main Battle Tank
DESCRIPTION:
The T-72 medium tank is similar in general appearance to the T-64. The T-72
has six large, die-cast, rubber-coated road wheels and three track return rollers.
It has a 14-tooth drive sprocket and a single-pin track with rubber-bushed pins.
The gunner's IR searchlight is mounted to the right of the main gun. The 12.7-
mm NSV anti-aircraft machine gun has a rotating mount, and there is no
provision for firing it from within the tank. There are normally only a few small
stowage boxes on the outside of the turret, and a single short snorkel is stowed
on the left side of the turret. The T-72 has a larger engine compartment than the
T-64, and the radiator grill is near the rear of the hull. The T-72 has greater
mobility than the T-62. The V-12 diesel engine has an output of 780 hp. This
engine appears to be remarkably smoke-free and smooth-running, having
eliminated the excessive vibration which was said to cause high crew fatigue in
the T-62. Although the engine is larger than that of the T-64, the heavier (41 mt)
T-72 is believed to have approximately the same road speed as the T-64. The T-
72B1 is powered by a multi-fuel V-12 piston air-cooled 840 hp engine that will run
on three fuels: Diesel, Benzene or Kerosene. Two 200-liter auxiliary fuel drums
can be fitted on the rear of the hull. The T-72 can be fitted with a snorkel for deep
fording, and takes about 20 minutes to prepare for amphibious use. The T-72
has better armor protection than the T-62, due to the use of layered armor and
other features discussed above under T-64 capabilities. The advanced passive
armor package of the T-72M and T-72M1 can sustain direct hits from the 105mm
gun equipped M1 Abrams at up to 2,000 meter range. The later T-72Ms and T-
72M1s are equipped with laser rangefinders ensuring high hit probabilities at
ranges of 2,000 meters and below. The turret has conventional cast armor with a
maximum thickness of 280-mm, the nose is about 80-mm thick and the glacis is
200-mm thick laminate armor. Besides the PAZ radiation detection system, the

-Unquote

To verify this, go to Google.com, type in Ariana Threat Guide in the search box, and the first result should be the threat guide itself. Click on it (and once it loads - it is 6.92 MB, so it's BIG) and go to near the bottom of Page 135. There you will find the specification for the accurate range of the T-72 main gun - 2,000m. It lists the accurate range of the 125mm gun on the T-72 as being 2,000m - not far off from 1,800m that Global Security quotes. Even 25% improvement over 2,000m amounts to the same 2,500m of the Ukrainian 125mm.

This is about the best UNCLASSIFIED material you are going to get about the REAL performance of the 2A46M-1. And it is upon this performance that the 25% increase in accuracy of the ZPT-98 is based, and it readily accords with the performance of a fellow 2A46M-1 derivative, the Ukrainian KA1/KBM1.

[Nethappy]

Everyone clam down... it took some time cos these thing are sensitive.
I have verify the reason for the guided missile round.

Actually the chinese has realized that the Type99 surivability is lower then most western tank and that the west have been developing extend range round for that own tank. Therefore without a round that can out-range most western tank round, provide a high probability frist round hit and penertation, the chinese tank are in real trouble. The russian main gun guided missile provide a minimum risk platform to work on.

This is one of the main reason they the russian missile in the frist place it save alot of time and money on development.

gun launhced anti tank missiles are very expensive,according to steven zaloga, cost for 10 rd. of AT-10 "bastion" is equally one t-72 tank!

The chinese can built anything much cheaper then anyone else in the world and most military manufaturers are state owned.

[nemo]

Norfolk:
You are confusing *system* level accuracy with *gun* level accuracy. From the angular error/deviation, even T-72 *gun* are accurate enough. If there is a limitation in effective range, the additional error come from somewhere else. The accuracy of the gun itself is not the primary error, so it make no sense extrapolate the system accuracy from gun accuracy.

And you seems to be fixated on extrapolation of the capability of type-98/99 from T-72. This will only work if type-98/99 is a clone of T-72 with same manufacturing standard. There are enough difference both in design and manufacturing standard (monkey model vs. a much newer, top of the line) that make this assumption questionable.

[Norfolk]

Norfolk:
You are confusing *system* level accuracy with *gun* level accuracy. From the angular error/deviation, even T-72 *gun* are accurate enough. If there is a limitation in effective range, the additional error come from somewhere else. The accuracy of the gun itself is not the primary error, so it make no sense extrapolate the system accuracy from gun accuracy.

And you seems to be fixated on extrapolation of the capability of type-98/99 from T-72. This will only work if type-98/99 is a clone of T-72 with same manufacturing standard. There are enough difference both in design and manufacturing standard (monkey model vs. a much newer, top of the line) that make this assumption questionable.

No-one has provided a clear, unambiguous,and verifiable specification to the contrary; moreover, when an article states that there is a 25% increase in accuracy of one gun over another of which it is itself a development, then it is clear that that means a 25% increase in its accurate range, not 50%, not 100%, - 25%, no more, no less. A an assertion otherwise has no foundation in logic, it is a mere obfuscation, an analytical dead-end. Do not deny the specifications that you have been provided with unless you can reciprocate.

Provide clear, unambiguous facts to support your argument. Otherwise, no analysis is possible, and only groundless assertions are left. I have provided several sources for what I have presented, with clear facts, and ways to readily access those sources for verification. So far none have been provided to the contrary. The ZPT-98 is stated to have an accuracy 25% greater than that of the original 2A46M-1 in the article on Tianren's Blog (and as I have repeated before, if you doubt the veracity of the specifications in that article, you can E-Mail its author Terry Liau on the link provided near the bottom of the article itself; if you have questions about the article, then ask its author personally), and that works out to either 2,250 m or 2,500 m depending on either of two the sources that I have provided.

I have provided two separate sources, one that derives from US Army intelligence information (which also has access to T-72s that belonged to East Germany and other former Warsaw Pact countries after the fall of the Iron Curtain in the late 1980's and early 1990's; some of those T-72s are in the US now, including Fort Irwin, California), and one that draws its information from the Ukrainian manufacturer of the T-72 (including the original and subsequent improved models). I have provided similar sources for other facts that I have provided.

You can even go to our own China Defence.com site which will tell you that the Type 99MBT's 125mm gun is accurate to 2,000m - and that is posted by our Administrator, DongFeng. PM him to verify this. And if there is doubt about the sources I gave for the 1991performance in Iraq/Kuwait with the US(/German) 120mm, then PM Utelore on our forum and ask him - he was in an M-1 and fought in that war.

Only unsupported claims and assertions have been provided to counter what I have provided. There has been no meaningful reciprocation, and thus, no effective counter to what I have provided. Do some research of your own, and provide clear facts and specifications that can be easily verified and subsequently discussed. If you need some help to locate sources, ask me, but don't go on interminably that you disagree with what I have provided without providing reciprocal yet contrary specifications. Try Global Security or Jane's Defence; even the US Army and DoD provide electronic access to unclassified sources. Otherwise all that is left is rhetoric, not analysis. Dig deep, find hard facts, post them with references that can be easily accessed and verified, and present your argument. Then you will have a solid case and a clear analysis.

[nemo]

Norfolk:
Have you actually read the article, in Chinese? The context clearly state the 25% accuracy figure refer to the barrel/gun, not the whole system.

If you believe the effective range of the Type 98/99 is only 2300m, so be it. I am not conviced, certainly not by your argument, which I think is logically deficient because you have not established why T-72's deficiency will be present in Type 98/99.

The truth is that it's hard to find true specification of ANY military hardware, and PLA never publish any on their equipment currently in service. Internet sources are notoriously unreliable, including ones you used. Hence you have to use your own judgement to decide whether the source is plausible or not.

[RedMercury]

25% increase in accuracy does not mean 25% increase in effective range. The two things are different. You will need a model of how accuracy relates to range. It is not obvious that it is a simple linear relationship. So far you have not provided that, instead, you have provided pages upon pages of obfuscation.

I am not claiming anything here. I don't know what the effective range of the ZPT-98 is. I could be 2250 meters, but I'm not claiming that. You are the one who did the original claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on you. I'm just here to make sure you don't throw stuff out and get away with it without having a base in reality.

[challenge]

4KM effective range still beats 3.1ish range. Also, perhaps the ATGM offers better penetration vs ERA due to tandem warhead. Llaser-beam riding would make it more accurate. Finally ATGM's can be used to engage attack helicopters. Thats clearly a capability of the Type 99 based on the elavation capabilities of the laser-blinder thing. Just because the missle is powerful does not imply the gun is weak.

Russian admit that there gun launhced ATGM such as AT-11 and AT-10 can not engage helos.it lack the speed.

[Chengdu J-10]

Precision must also be taken into account, along with accuracy. The T-99 MBT is already a sufficient platform with superb performance, protection and firepower. It has good defense system against enemy MBT, but its offense seems to lag upon the rest of the tank capability. Its range in which its rounds can hit are about 30% less than most new Western MBT, its system accuracy also isnt up to par with the tank. Its gun accuracy is fairly good buts its the system accuracy they are having trouble to fix.

Protection can be solved quickly with add on armour but system accuracy takes abit of tweaking to solve. Though the new T-99 MBT seems to have fixed this issue attaining higher system accuracy and improved crew protection reinforcing the area in which its tank rounds are stored.

[dollarman]

Russian admit that there gun launhced ATGM such as AT-11 and AT-10 can not engage helos.it lack the speed.

The PLA does not field either. It uses an indigenous ATGM basedoff of the AT-10. Thus we cannot exclude the possibility any Chinese upgrades, including the addition of the ability to engage helicopters.

[Pointblank]

The PLA does not field either. It uses an indigenous ATGM basedoff of the AT-10. Thus we cannot exclude the possibility any Chinese upgrades, including the addition of the ability to engage helicopters.

That would require a significant upgrade in the engine and aerodynamics department, and by then, it would be a new missile with a old guidance package.

[Nethappy]

Protection can be solved quickly with add on armour but system accuracy takes abit of tweaking to solve. Though the new T-99 MBT seems to have fixed this issue attaining higher system accuracy and improved crew protection reinforcing the area in which its tank rounds are stored.

Add on armour has it limited due to weight, however the Type 99 modular armour design does allow it to upgrade it armour easier then most tank. thus the surviliablity is probly still lower then most advance western tank does to the absent of certain surviliablity feature such as blow out panel and many others.

The PLA does not field either. It uses an indigenous ATGM basedoff of the AT-10. Thus we cannot exclude the possibility any Chinese upgrades, including the addition of the ability to engage helicopters.

China has been producing the AT-11 under license since the mid-1990s.

hat would require a significant upgrade in the engine and aerodynamics department, and by then, it would be a new missile with a old guidance package.

Accounding to what I have hear, the upgrade of the engine and aerdynamics is not the most troubling issue. But the designing an guidance package that can surive the shock of the inital shot out of the barrel is the hardest thing.

One more thing i was actually told that the so call laser dazzler is actually use d to improve the guidance of the misslie, the defence feature is actually a secoundary roll

[challenge]

ZPT-98 125mm gun first introduced in the late 90's,surely decade later improve version may already exist.

[challenge]

That would require a significant upgrade in the engine and aerodynamics department, and by then, it would be a new missile with a old guidance package.

there's a picture in Chinese magazine showing up graded T-69 with 105mm tank gun firing AT-10 clone engaging "helos"
the picture was very blurr.it is not known if the target was a drone or simple deocy hanging from a wire(simulating stationary helos).
to engage helos one needed much higher velocity.

[adeptitus]

To verify this, go to Google.com, type in Ariana Threat Guide in the search box, and the first result should be the threat guide itself. Click on it (and once it loads - it is 6.92 MB, so it's BIG) and go to near the bottom of Page 135. There you will find the specification for the accurate range of the T-72 main gun - 2,000m. It lists the accurate range of the 125mm gun on the T-72 as being 2,000m - not far off from 1,800m that Global Security quotes. Even 25% improvement over 2,000m amounts to the same 2,500m of the Ukrainian 125mm.

Could someone give me the link to the Ariana Threat Guide?

I searched for it in google and this thread came up on top O_O