New Type98/99 MBT thread

[hmmwv]

I thought the rubber skirt picture is from a 88A or 59D, not from the 99, 99/99A use rubber skirts as well but have steel wire frame so it'd be almost impossible for a human hand to bend it like that.

[IronsightSniper]

Welp, anyway. It does protect against 1st generation RPG's and has good chance to 'catch' similiar velocity rounds (so, up to 120m/s) without them detonating. But with everything faster, such as an RPG-29 (280m/s) it would simply fly past without being affected by the rubber a or punch through it directly.
I wonder If China could strenghten it or make it more robust and on the same time more flexible somehow, to even 'catch' these 'high velocity' rounds... Because, no matter how good a tank is armoured from the sides, it can never hope to resist a direct gun-hit from an opposing tank, an ATGM hit, or one from a high performance man-portable anti tank weapon. So, everything should just be done for the sake of protecting against light anti tank and other low-penetration but commonly available weapons. At least this would be the most cost effective route, instead of plastering the sides full with heavy ERA that would only protect the sides once, no matter if it was hit by either a heavy or a light anti-tank weapon, and then expose a huge gap that is vulnerable to near everything. Heavy rubber plates are more flexible and multiple-hit capable compared to that...

Well, realistically, rubber side skirts have little chance to 'catch' the projectile, if I'm getting you correctly, while at the same time, rubber side skirts are resilient enough not to have something like a PG simply passing right through. The side skirt, as it is now, serves it's purpose fine, and provides enough material to pre-emptively detonate a PG before it makes contact to the vehicle's main armor.

And I'd like to state that armoring a MBT's side verses 'heavy' threats isn't unfeasible. You wouldn't want to use Heavy ERA for the sides because it's protection is diminished without the angle that's imparted to it if it were placed on the front vector. Heavy ERA on the side of a tank is rarely sloped, so it's protection is diminished. Despite this however, Western tanks in particular have proven that up-armoring their sides isn't unfeasible. But armor isn't the only necessity, crew survivability also is. From what we know of tanks to date, the most survivable tank of all time, the M1 Abrams, only became that way because of it's totally segregated section of ammunition. Other large western tanks, like the Merkava or the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2, also have a segregated ammunition section, yet they still retain ammunition in non-segregated parts. The Abrams therefore, remains to be the only tank in service to have a totally segregated armor section, which is crucial to preventing a complete destruction of the tank in case of a penetration.

And even so, penetration does not necessarily mean a kill. For example, a PG-29V warhead, with a penetration of anywhere between 750 mm to 1,000 mm of RHAe, was able to penetrate the side turret of an Abrams but was unable to detonate the ammunition stowed in the turret. This was due to the fact of the Abram's relatively thick side-turret, which is estimated to be more protective than the glacis of the T-72BM, without Kontakt 5, which is, considerable to say the least. Similarly, one can field Active Protection Systems to either stop or slow down a projectile, and have the main armor to receive the brunt of the force.

iraqi chinese made tank during the desert storm has bar armour around the turrent.US army also adapted bar armour for there LAV in iraq.how effective was bar armor against RPG?

Depends on the RPG. Testing in the 70s and 80s of 'bar armor' (we call it cage armor) show that it's extremely effective to first generation PGs (your notorious PG-7V, for example). However, second generation PGs will but simply ignore the cage and continue as it were. I should note that the now-retired Swedish S-tank, employs cage armor on it's frontal sector. Tests have shown that the cage is effective versus period tank-rounds, like the 115 mm gun on the T-62. However, 125 mm APFSDS rounds simply ignored it.

[paintgun]

very good comments gents/guys, much appreciated

pardon the ignorance, i have another question, is there any design/philosophical difference between Russian and Western tanks regarding non-frontal protection against medium caliber AP rounds? how about ZTZ-99, simple RHA, or composite along an arc, or thin composite throughout?

also regarding the turret, i have a feeling that this is a revolutionary dead end for the ZTZ-99, they can't go on and uparmor the turret endlessly can they?
it's probably time for a new class of MBT

[IronsightSniper]

very good comments gents/guys, much appreciated

pardon the ignorance, i have another question, is there any design/philosophical difference between Russian and Western tanks regarding non-frontal protection against medium caliber AP rounds? how about ZTZ-99, simple RHA, or composite along an arc, or thin composite throughout?

also regarding the turret, i have a feeling that this is a revolutionary dead end for the ZTZ-99, they can't go on and uparmor the turret endlessly can they?
it's probably time for a new class of MBT

Quite so. There are two elephants, so to say, to talk about, in regards to design philosophies for Western and Russian, and in fact even, Chinese MBT's, along the non-frontal sectors.

As a preface, a large difference in, generally speaking, Western and Eastern (Russian/Chinese), tank designs is that Western tanks tend to be larger and heavier, whilst Eastern tanks tend to be smaller and lighter. This is illustrated today by the 10-15 tonne discrepancy between the main line Russian and Western tanks. But that doesn't neccessarily mean one tank was less protected than the other. In any arms race, the aggressor tries to overtake the defender, and vise versa. So depending on who was playing what role at which time, one side's tank was usually better than the other's at one thing, but weaker at another. That was true until the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russian tank designs lagged behind Western ones and had to play catch up since (thus far, they've redeveloped their equivalency to Western tanks). In any case, Western tanks were heavier, in large part to their heavier armor. This was because Western tanks generally had thicker arrays of high Thickness-efficient (TE) materials. This meant that for say, 100 mm of armor, that space of armor would provide for, perhaps, 150 mm of RHAe of armor. In contrast, Eastern tanks tend to be thinner, but utilized high Mass-efficient (ME) materials, in interesting and even revolutionary designs. However, the draw back of high ME materials was that they tended to be low TE too, thus they needed to add more of the material to achieve protection-parity with Western tanks for any given thickness of space. In fact, the Russians only kept innovating further. While the West kept developing and utilizing high TE materials, the Russians experimented with and eventually utilized composite armor designs, ERA and subsequent Heavy ERA, and eventually Active Protection Systems. I should note however, that though the Russians pioneered those technologies, they weren't the sole executives of it, and Western tank philosophies quickly adapted and utilized the same techniques, in unison with their one.

The next large difference is turret designs. Western turrets have a tendency to be rectangular and box-like, providing the best frontal protection in the game, and providing impressive side-turret protection for the 'front part' of the box, tapering and weakening as we go down the turret and finally reach it's rear. Eastern (predominately Soviet and Russian) tanks have a very round turret, and feature heavy ERA for about the top half of the circle. This means that, RHAe to RHAe, the Russian tank turret provides similar levels of protection over similar arcs of fire. Chinese tanks on the other hand, appear to try to take both design philosophies and meld them together. The ZTZ-99 for example, doesn't have a traditional round-Russian turret, but isn't much bigger than those. They however, take the shape of a Leopard 2 turret, and even features similar turret add-ons. In any case, all three design philosophies's turrets have a similar armoring pattern, extremely protected front, weakening as you go to the back of the turret. Turrets however, are usually thick anyways. From what's available, some speculate that even the side-turret may feature "special armor" instead of plain RHA. However, no one really knows.

The hulls are a different story. From what we can tell, the majority of tanks have thin, plain RHA, hulls. However, not much is known about Western tanks (at least to me), in this regard. The ZTZ-99, for example, is said to have but only 80 mm of RHA at it's hull. The T-72BM, is said to have 60mm of RHA at it's hull. Not a lot of tanks mount any type of special armor along the entire hull of the tank, as that would require far more space than adding special armor to the tank's turret. For example, the T-80U has NERA (probably rubber and metal mix) over the frontal half of the hull, which would provide substantial resistance against HEAT attacks, but as you'd notice, it's only over the front half of the hull, and not the entire hull. I'd say that adding special armor on the hull, in considerable thicknesses, would simply cost too much.

[paintgun]

very comprehensive reply, thank you, i hope we will have more material to discuss on the ZTZ-99 to come

[RedMercury]

Really the differences which underlie the different designs is from different doctrines. The Soviets took their lessons from WW2 to heart and designed the bulk of (land) military equipment to be easy to manufacture, rugged, and with a short life expectancy (since they will be lost in battle anyway). This in contrast to Western procurement systems which incentivised arms companies to gold plate their offerings with all the latest and greatest so they can demand a higher price.

Another doctrinal difference was how the tanks would have been used. The grand contingency for both sides was an armored attack through Europe, in places like the Fulda gap, with massive tank armies of the soviet union. The Soviets designed their tanks for the attack, using a hi-low combination of T-64 (high) and T-72 (low). The T-64s were more advanced, with the best sensors and equipment the Soviets could offer, and were to spearhead the attack. The T-72 were supposed to exploit the breakthroughs made by the T-64 tank armies and wreck havoc behind the front lines of the western armies. Hence, the T-64s were designed with better protection and firepower, while the T-72s were supposed to be cheaper, numerous, and mobile. It had less protection (and emphasized side protection and protection from infantry anti-tank weapons more) because it was supposed to be confronting the opposition's non-front-line forces (logistics, bases etc).

The West designed their tanks for the defense. Hence the massive frontal armor and massive turrets. The tanks were to sit in prepared entrenched positions and pick-off the soviet armor as it advanced, and then retreat to the next line of prepared positions, to deny the Soviets the breakthrough they were seeking. The tanks didn't have to be as numerous, since they had only a few strategic choke points to guard, but they had to be individually difficult to destroy. They didn't have to be as strategically mobile, hence mass was not as big of an issue.

Attached is a 3-view blowup of a T-72BM

You can see the hull front armor is substantial and composite. The hull side armor at the vertical part is the standard 80mm. At the angled part it is thinner.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

Really, until the M1 appeared, the Soviets did not have worse tanks. The T-62,64,72 were clearly superior to the M-60. The M1 and the T-80 (its contemporary) compared quite closely. Only with the M1A1 and later did the US have an arguable advantage over Soviet Union/Russia.

[challenge]

main reason why western armour has box shape wield turrent was introduction of Chobham armour, according to desert storm tank veteran,the armour box contain ceramic (carbide ) "brick".the only solution to imbed the ceramic tiles was box shaped wielded armour.

[IronsightSniper]

main reason why western armour has box shape wield turrent was introduction of Chobham armour, according to desert storm tank veteran,the armour box contain ceramic (carbide ) "brick".the only solution to imbed the ceramic tiles was box shaped wielded armour.

Though it's true ceramic armor preforms worst when sloped, a turret does not need to be "boxy" to utilize ceramic armor. From what we can tell, the front part of the Abram's turret armor (the sloped part) is of hard steel and perhaps NERA. Behind that, are vertical 'plates' of ceramics backed by depleted uranium, and probably encased in more steel. The ceramic section does not, and isn't sloped.

To be honest, I wouldn't argue that the Abrams' turret shape comes from necessity, rather, practicality. I'm not 100% sure, but IIRC, the Abram's turret has more space than the Leopard 2's and plenty more space than the T-90's. This can be attributed to the extra height of the turret, thanks to the not-slopeness of the armor. More turret space would explain why the Abrams is the only tank to store 100% of it's ammunition in a single armored place, as compared to every other tank.

[challenge]

do russian tank or chinese tank lined with anti spalling kevlar?judging from large number of iraqi T-72 tank ,(not to mention t-80 tank destroyed in grozny) suffer from catastrophic explosion ,ripping the turrent and powerpack 20 feet into the air.may indicate the absent of anti spalling lining.
spalling behave like shotgun,when ammo non metal combustion cartridge hit by the spall it will detonate.
latest version of T-90MS are lined with kevlar,but I am not sure on type-99 ot Type-98.But I am sure MBT-2000 may have kevlar lining.

[paintgun]

do russian tank or chinese tank lined with anti spalling kevlar?judging from large number of iraqi T-72 tank ,(not to mention t-80 tank destroyed in grozny) suffer from catastrophic explosion ,ripping the turrent and powerpack 20 feet into the air.may indicate the absent of anti spalling lining.
spalling behave like shotgun,when ammo non metal combustion cartridge hit by the spall it will detonate.
latest version of T-90MS are lined with kevlar,but I am not sure on type-99 ot Type-98.But I am sure MBT-2000 may have kevlar lining.

those catastrophic explosions are the hallmark of the carousel style and Russian hull ammo storage, also like you said the combustible cartridge

if we have to make a guess, 99 is probably kevlar lined, it is PLA's top line tank and the tech/method is already accessible to them, as it is also used in aircrafts and helos

is the MBT-2000 also kevlar protected? did the recent pictures show anything? the kevlar would be coated and embedded in resin, covered under paint layers

i'd imagine there is no way to know for sure, there is just so few photos on interior, CDF maintains a good record on various AFV pictures, but IIRC there are probably only a couple shot, and that's even close up on consoles and optics, also several years old/outdated by now

with the mystery shroud over this tank (i think one of the most guarded PLA secret from public), people in the know (tank watchers) tend to be prudent commenting on it, and those who really have information probably prefer to keep it to them

[IronsightSniper]

do russian tank or chinese tank lined with anti spalling kevlar?judging from large number of iraqi T-72 tank ,(not to mention t-80 tank destroyed in grozny) suffer from catastrophic explosion ,ripping the turrent and powerpack 20 feet into the air.may indicate the absent of anti spalling lining.
spalling behave like shotgun,when ammo non metal combustion cartridge hit by the spall it will detonate.
latest version of T-90MS are lined with kevlar,but I am not sure on type-99 ot Type-98.But I am sure MBT-2000 may have kevlar lining.

The short answer is yes. The Russians have had, at the least, some type of spalling layer for decades now, but they used to use an "anti-radiation" layer, which is now replaced by a kevlar layer. However, having a spall liner wouldn't save a tank from catastrophic explosion, the reason being that the spall liner is only there to stop the HEAT fragments after the majority of it has been stopped by the main armor. The reason why you see so much T-72's doing the "hat trick" is because, though they do have a spall liner, the majority of the rounds hit the sides of the T-72, which armor is too thin to stop the round enough for the spall liner to do it's thing. Unless you have good enough main armor, a spall liner is just more material to penetrate.

[delft]

Really the differences which underlie the different designs is from different doctrines. The Soviets took their lessons from WW2 to heart and designed the bulk of (land) military equipment to be easy to manufacture, rugged, and with a short life expectancy (since they will be lost in battle anyway). This in contrast to Western procurement systems which incentivised arms companies to gold plate their offerings with all the latest and greatest so they can demand a higher price.

Another doctrinal difference was how the tanks would have been used. The grand contingency for both sides was an armored attack through Europe, in places like the Fulda gap, with massive tank armies of the soviet union. The Soviets designed their tanks for the attack, using a hi-low combination of T-64 (high) and T-72 (low). The T-64s were more advanced, with the best sensors and equipment the Soviets could offer, and were to spearhead the attack. The T-72 were supposed to exploit the breakthroughs made by the T-64 tank armies and wreck havoc behind the front lines of the western armies. Hence, the T-64s were designed with better protection and firepower, while the T-72s were supposed to be cheaper, numerous, and mobile. It had less protection (and emphasized side protection and protection from infantry anti-tank weapons more) because it was supposed to be confronting the opposition's non-front-line forces (logistics, bases etc).

The West designed their tanks for the defense. Hence the massive frontal armor and massive turrets. The tanks were to sit in prepared entrenched positions and pick-off the soviet armor as it advanced, and then retreat to the next line of prepared positions, to deny the Soviets the breakthrough they were seeking. The tanks didn't have to be as numerous, since they had only a few strategic choke points to guard, but they had to be individually difficult to destroy. They didn't have to be as strategically mobile, hence mass was not as big of an issue.

Attached is a 3-view blowup of a T-72BM

You can see the hull front armor is substantial and composite. The hull side armor at the vertical part is the standard 80mm. At the angled part it is thinner.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

Really, until the M1 appeared, the Soviets did not have worse tanks. The T-62,64,72 were clearly superior to the M-60. The M1 and the T-80 (its contemporary) compared quite closely. Only with the M1A1 and later did the US have an arguable advantage over Soviet Union/Russia.

I remember reading an article in International Defence Review in the mid -'80's and written by a British Field Marshall, whose name I do not remember anymore, that said that in case of war in Europe NATO would be defending itself in Eastern Germany or Poland. I understand that the talk about Fulda Gap was just propaganda. I remember NATO introducing the term "forward defense" much earlier. Was that around 1970?

[challenge]

加拿大《汉和防务评论》月刊2月号发表文章称，99式主战坦克似乎再度进行了改良，该刊把2009年阅兵式 亮相的99式称作99g，这一次改良之后称作99g1。

　　文章指出，从公开的99g1图片可以看出其改良方向。首先是底盘有所变动，尤其是底盘后段略微隆起，更 像是出口型的mbt2000主战坦克底盘，整个底盘的长度有所缩短，这极有可能表明换装了新的发动机和变速 器。最重要的是强化其防御能力，因此在炮塔前部安装了新型的模块化反应装甲，似乎是三层，早期只有一层，这 意味着坦克的重量将会增加至少5吨以上。滑膛炮显然还是125毫米，但是明显加长。

　　最后的重点是主动防御系统，这是世界坦克的发展方向。韩国的k2坦克也安装了激光干扰器和毫米波雷达。 在一张“新型坦克进行冬季测试”的雪地图片中，早在3年前99式坦克就已经安装了类似俄罗斯alanna毫 米波雷达那样的系统，位于炮塔后部两个舱口之间，似乎是360度天线安装方式，总体尺寸似乎比alanna 更小。与此同时依然保留了99式基本型配备的激光干扰系统。至关重要的还有观瞄系统，在99式基本型上安装 的是第二代热成像系统，噪音较大，2000年以后，中国与法国的公司开始合作生产第三代热成像系统，是否安 装在99g1上，依照目前的模糊照片无法确认。

　　文章称，炮塔后部依然保留了两个燃油箱，仅这一点就可以说明，中国坦克还具备俄式风格。总体上说中国坦 克的改良速度比俄罗斯要快很多，10年以来，99式坦克至少进行了三次大改，最新的改良型似乎还在测试之中 ，并未发现已经制式化装备部队的照片。

　　

---------- Post added at 08:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 AM ----------

according to the latest issue of kanwa,type-99 tank continue to evolve,latest variant is type-99G1.
improvement was made on transmission and powerpack,new modular armour,earlier version of modular armour contain only one layer,but latest variant contain 3 layer,this increase additional 5 ton, the tank retain the 125mm gun,but slighly longer barrel.
tank may be undergoes development,3 years ago picture of tank emerge in the internet showing carrying what appear to be Alanna MMW radar system,but slightly smaller than russian counterpart.but retain laser jamming device.
the earlier tank uses gen.2 IR imaging which is very noisy,but the latest gen. using gen-3 IR imaging.

[nikhil991]

very comprehensive reply, thank you, i hope we will have more material to discuss on the ZTZ-99 to come

Indias Agni V will definatley overcome this!!

---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

very comprehensive reply, thank you, i hope we will have more material to discuss on the ZTZ-99 to come

Indias Agni V will definatley overcome this!!
Even land based Brahmos too adds India

[vesicles]

Indias Agni V will definatley overcome this!!

---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------



Indias Agni V will definatley overcome this!!
Even land based Brahmos too adds India

Agni V is an intermediate-range ballistic missile and BrahMos is a supersonic cruise missile. Are you saying using ballistic and cruise missiles to hit a tank?