New Type98/99 MBT thread

[no_name]

M1A2 is a bad example in this matter...

Actually I'm just throwing my own ideas around, I don't have basis for what I just said. So maybe the green vehicle part will take damage (I was hoping it wouldn't)

[no_name]

I thought when rounds hit a surface that is very very flat, like the Merkava, it would just rub against the surface until it completely passing it. Especially that majority of the RPGs I have seen being fired were fired when the gunner is half kneeling on the ground, this makes the round almost parallel to the armour.

The best example would be that famous movie, U-571. There was a scene when a torpedo hit their submarine, it did not explode, but rather kept sliding against the surface.

It depends on how the rounds are designed. Projectiles are less likely to slide if they are fast and rigid enough. Also the APFSD are usually thin but long. This reduces it's tendency to twist sideways when hitting a surface.

The advantage of a sloped armour is that from head on, it looks thicker than straight plate:

[pugachev_diver]

It depends on how the rounds are designed. Projectiles are less likely to slide if they are fast and rigid enough. Also the APFSD are usually thin but long. This reduces it's tendency to twist sideways when hitting a surface.

The advantage of a sloped armour is that from head on, it looks thicker than straight plate.

Oh, I get it now. There will be more mass in its route, although the overall thickness remains the same.

[no_name]

Yes and it also reduces weight compared to having a whole straight block of armour.

I wonder if they can say fill the gap in the type 99 with resin or some high viscosity but relatively low weight/density material, maybe it will stop kinetic rounds better?

[Red___Sword]

Yes and it also reduces weight compared to having a whole straight block of armour.

I wonder if they can say fill the gap in the type 99 with resin or some high viscosity but relatively low weight/density material, maybe it will stop kinetic rounds better?

I thought this before, and proposed simply - sand, to be filled in, and being politly laughed about the idea by some respectble person I know from Chinese fourm.

Simply put, whatever filling inside, have too little consequences to the warhead itself. "A thick barrier of XXX" kind of sandbag filling to better protect agains warhead - that time has long gone. Modern anti-tank round's RHA is too potent to be affected by mere stuffing like that.

"Armour design, complex armour design of modern day, is a hard, cold, science." I was told.

And, pugachev_diver, I have nothing against you personnaly. I just have the urge of telling, that 跳弹 (shoot from another tank gun), has long gone in modern potent anti-tank science - like I was told by others.

I have no idea what and how RPG (esp. OUTDATED RPG used by insurgents) will react toward modern tank front armour, whether it will "slid" or "slip". But as long as the warhead is shooting from a decent tank gun, 锲形装甲 is not able to "deflect" the round alone.

I empahsis on OUTDATED RPG, is because check out the modern russian army's grenadier, their RPG have 700mm+ RHA!

[no_name]

Some people have complained about the existence of shot trap on the type 99, namely the concaved lower part of the turret, but if like people said the round is still going to hit anways regardless of the slope then this is a non-issue (for fast kinetic rounds).

and i think since the front is already an extension rather than an integral part of the tank, they have to be a bit concave otherwise the tank front hatch may be blocked.

The fact that designer of Type 99 may just used an existing vehicle chassis rather than design a new one, may have added further to the constraint.

[IronsightSniper]

It depends on how the rounds are designed. Projectiles are less likely to slide if they are fast and rigid enough. Also the APFSD are usually thin but long. This reduces it's tendency to twist sideways when hitting a surface.

The advantage of a sloped armour is that from head on, it looks thicker than straight plate:

Wrong. Sloped armor will usually have about the same "protection" as it's vertical, thickness equivalent. This is because even though it looks "thicker" it can't offer more protection without actually having more armor than the vertical one.

M1A2 is a bad example in this matter, because it dose not have that "slopped, rigid, hollowed" accessory ceramic plate, outside its main armour. LeoIIA6, Merkava IV, all good example. The 锲形装甲　what we are talking about. Type 99 learn from them.

The main purpose for those goodlooking 锲形装甲, as the design of LeoIIA6, Merkava IV alike... is to absorb certain impact energy from APFSDS round, leave the main armour to deal the rest; or, disorientate a huge amount of energy from HEAT round, leave the main armour to deal the rest. The point is THE MAIN ARMOUR ALWAYS NEED TO DEAL WITH "THE REST" OF WARHEAD ENERGY.

You are correct. The Type 99 (along with pretty much all "modernized" Russian derived tanks) don't have sufficient "Standard" armor to be protected from modern weapons. They must then, use add-on armors, such as ERA, or in the Type 99's case, Ceramic plates. Western Tanks put our Ceramic plates inside our tanks, in the overall armor array, so that all the materials we have layered together works in tandem to defeat whatever is trying to penetrate the tank, while, the Type 99, only has a comparably small armor array, which they fill with high Mass-efficiency materials, but the small array, even though the materials used are very good pound for pound, is not enough in itself, to stop modern weapons.

I believe M1A2s have been penetrated in both Afghanistan and Iraq early on in their invasions. Both were done by unknown weapons, but definitely not heavy weapons. Only portable weapons were possible at that stage of war.

This is correct. Several M1A2s were penetrated on it's rear and side armors. Heavy weapons were indeed used, but I'm referring to heavy infantry ones.

I thought this before, and proposed simply - sand, to be filled in, and being politly laughed about the idea by some respectble person I know from Chinese fourm.

Simply put, whatever filling inside, have too little consequences to the warhead itself. "A thick barrier of XXX" kind of sandbag filling to better protect agains warhead - that time has long gone. Modern anti-tank round's RHA is too potent to be affected by mere stuffing like that.

"Armour design, complex armour design of modern day, is a hard, cold, science." I was told.

And, pugachev_diver, I have nothing against you personnaly. I just have the urge of telling, that 跳弹 (shoot from another tank gun), has long gone in modern potent anti-tank science - like I was told by others.

I have no idea what and how RPG (esp. OUTDATED RPG used by insurgents) will react toward modern tank front armour, whether it will "slid" or "slip". But as long as the warhead is shooting from a decent tank gun, 锲形装甲 is not able to "deflect" the round alone.

I empahsis on OUTDATED RPG, is because check out the modern russian army's grenadier, their RPG have 700mm+ RHA!

If you're really interested in modern armor designs you should read Paul Lacowskis's paper called Armor basics, he covers the types of materials used in modern armor and how they're configured. Like I've said, you'd need truly, insanely, sloped armor to make a round slip (ricochet). Talking 85+ degrees here, a mere 5 degrees from true horizontal, which no tank has. Modern armor, like that of the Merkava 4 or Leopard 2A6, does not depend solely on that. The Leopard 2A6 for example, has a huge turret, 800 mm thick on it's smallest point and over 2m thick in it's largest. There is no AT HEAT round in existence that can penetrate the Leopard 2A6's front turret.

[Red___Sword]

Wrong. Sloped armor will usually have about the same "protection" as it's vertical, thickness equivalent. This is because even though it looks "thicker" it can't offer more protection without actually having more armor than the vertical one.

No comments, physics 101.

You are correct. The Type 99 (along with pretty much all "modernized" Russian derived tanks) don't have sufficient "Standard" armor to be protected from modern weapons. They must then, use add-on armors, such as ERA, or in the Type 99's case, Ceramic plates. Western Tanks put our Ceramic plates inside our tanks, in the overall armor array, so that all the materials we have layered together works in tandem to defeat whatever is trying to penetrate the tank, while, the Type 99, only has a comparably small armor array, which they fill with high Mass-efficiency materials, but the small array, even though the materials used are very good pound for pound, is not enough in itself, to stop modern weapons.

Too bad your good ally of Germany and Israel has been excluded from your list of "western country".

LeopardIIA4 and earlier version, have fatal inefficiency of its frontal armor, and like Windows Vista's "patch", those good looking slopped ceramic armor, has been "patched" like accessory in later versions. It is "Standard Issue" now, but it is still standard issued accessory. My compliment to M1A2 regarding its "one piece armor array", but if you want to "name calling" a country, mind you include your own beloved ally as well. Israel included.

... The Leopard 2A6 for example, has a huge turret, 800 mm thick on it's smallest point and over 2m thick in it's largest. There is no AT HEAT round in existence that can penetrate the Leopard 2A6's front turret.

My compliment to LeopardII A6's engineering achievement, but if a professional people telling me a modern MBT got 2m thick of armour (I take it you are NOT saying "there is hollow within", with proud)... I simply have no further comment.

But I do appreciate your recommendation of book. There is never too much for reading.

[IronsightSniper]

No comments, physics 101.

From wikipedia:

"The mere fact that the LOS-thickness increases by angling the plate is not however the motive for applying sloped armour in armoured vehicle design. The reason for this is that this increase offers no weight benefit. To maintain a given mass of a vehicle, the area density would have to remain equal and this implies that the LOS-thickness would also have to remain constant while the slope increases, which again implies that the normal thickness decreases. In other words: to avoid increasing the weight of the vehicle, plates have to get proportionally thinner while their slope increases, a process equivalent to shearing the mass."

Too bad your good ally of Germany and Israel has been excluded from your list of "western country".

LeopardIIA4 and earlier version, have fatal inefficiency of its frontal armor, and like Windows Vista's "patch", those good looking slopped ceramic armor, has been "patched" like accessory in later versions. It is "Standard Issue" now, but it is still standard issued accessory. My compliment to M1A2 regarding its "one piece armor array", but if you want to "name calling" a country, mind you include your own beloved ally as well. Israel included.

The Leopard 2A4 didn't have sloped Ceramic armor, the sloped part of the turret is made out of Steel, in the Leo's case, triple hardness steel. In regards to the Leo/Merkava, I'm quite sure they do have what you refer to as a "one piece array".

My compliment to LeopardII A6's engineering achievement, but if a professional people telling me a modern MBT got 2m thick of armour (I take it you are NOT saying "there is hollow within", with proud)... I simply have no further comment.

Every tank has a hollow area, but this is intended for it's design. The Leopard 2A6's turret features many things, including triple-hardness steel, NERA, and a spall liner. In order for that NERA to work, there requires air for the plates to bulge. There's a couple of cm of simple air in the array, but the overall turret provides roughly 2m of RHAe v.s. HEATs.

[Red___Sword]

From wikipedia:

"The mere fact that the LOS-thickness increases by angling the plate is not however the motive for applying sloped armour in armoured vehicle design. The reason for this is that this increase offers no weight benefit. To maintain a given mass of a vehicle, the area density would have to remain equal and this implies that the LOS-thickness would also have to remain constant while the slope increases, which again implies that the normal thickness decreases. In other words: to avoid increasing the weight of the vehicle, plates have to get proportionally thinner while their slope increases, a process equivalent to shearing the mass."

There is one thing we are different: when someone can make a statement that is reasonable or at least "adds aspective" to certain topic, I am willing to take it, like the quote you paste, it adds aspective to my understanding, for that, I thank you.

The rest... since you have shown "toughness" of stand your own ground - in this thread previous posts... and many other threads people can search about, that me - the mere bypasser is in no position to knock the sense out of anyone - I think I just give up and leave anyone to thought "who's the winner" as they like.

[vesicles]

They put alot more armoured blocks on it.

I don't think this is new. It's called type 99 U by some.

--> China Defense Blog: ZTZ 99U (U for Ugly)

China Cool Military--the larest information of Chinese PLA: China is developing Enhanced Third Generation MBT (2007)

I wonder how well the laser dazzlers and tank periscope works in muddy terrains.

I don't know. I think it looks cool. I don't know about you guys, but whenever I compare type-99 with other famous MBTs, Type-99 always looks kind of "thin". The bulkier build of the new Type-99 looks cool to me.

[no_name]

I think because the turret is more 'squashed' and also the paint on the tank makes it more shiny. The newer version looks more rough-surfaced.

[IronsightSniper]

I don't know. I think it looks cool. I don't know about you guys, but whenever I compare type-99 with other famous MBTs, Type-99 always looks kind of "thin". The bulkier build of the new Type-99 looks cool to me.

For me, the increased amount of armor on the front turret makes the turret look boxy. Reminds me of the KV-2 with it's boxhead turret.

[plawolf]

From wikipedia:

"The mere fact that the LOS-thickness increases by angling the plate is not however the motive for applying sloped armour in armoured vehicle design. The reason for this is that this increase offers no weight benefit. To maintain a given mass of a vehicle, the area density would have to remain equal and this implies that the LOS-thickness would also have to remain constant while the slope increases, which again implies that the normal thickness decreases. In other words: to avoid increasing the weight of the vehicle, plates have to get proportionally thinner while their slope increases, a process equivalent to shearing the mass."

That only shows you cannot understand what was written.

The point that paragraph was making is that you do not save on weight from having sloped armor. Think of a right angled triangle, the vertical side is always going to be shorter than the sloping side, thus with sloping armor, you need more of it to cover the same volume compared to vertical armor.

It in no way refutes the very basic physical fact that sloping armor has the same equivalent thickness as thicker vertically positioned armor when dealing with a head-on projectile.

[no_name]

I thought it was like this: Sloping armour increases internal volume for the same level of protection at the same armour weight (effectively when you slope the armour you thin it but extend it out compared to straight surface, because the armour is at an angle it provides the same level of protection even if it has to be made thinner to have the same weight, but your internal volume increases.)