New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Red not Dead]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Superior China

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

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

minium of about 700mm vs sabot

about100mm vs heat

[MIGleader]

Originally Posted by 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?

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. 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.


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?

[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?