New Type98/99 MBT thread

FishWings

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Type 99A actually aren't all that impressive at all compared to the latest and greatest western and Russian tanks. How can it be expected to? It's based off the second Type 99 which itself isn't really world leading even in the late 2000s. The T-14 isn't exactly in service and with numbers at the moment but 2A82 and higher calibre versions are all going to be FAR superior to anything in service around the world. The best gun in significant service numbers (so no T-14 ones) is probably the L55 used by the latest Leopard 2s and the K-2. The best round, the M829A4 and the 3BM69.

The Russians have created the next generation of MBTs even though they haven't started fielding them in numbers. The Americans want their best APFSDS round to penetrate the frontal armour of all Chinese and Russian tanks in service. The PLA doesn't have the funding to have developed and fielded its next gen MBT like the Russians, it also doesn't have the funding to change the Type 99 into a design that allows for long penetration rods and one piece ammo to develop something that reaches or exceeds the M829A3/A4 using the current ZPT98 125mm.

Type 96/99 series should be plenty enough to punch through every Japanese and Taiwanese tank in service since the Type 10's armour is genuinely underwhelming to say the least and the Type 90's from another era. Fools will believe the heavier Type 90 is better armoured. It's barely superior to the Type 10's lazy and generous use of high tensile strength steels. Surprisingly poor effort from the Japanese but good mobility and firepower though. Not that Japanese tanks are likely to get deployed in such a way they're facing PLA tanks. 96/99 gun and rounds are also probably good enough to penetrate most Russian 40-50 tonners too and this includes just about all of India's main tank force. Definitely good enough to go through every side armour on the planet. The Arjun is a mystery at over 60 tonnes but who cares honestly. Are they going to air drop them past the Himalayas? lol HJ missiles supplied to Pakistan will make 100 Arjuns light work within a hour if they really decide to send those crawling elephants into the desert. The Americans won't be dropping Abrams and the Koreans will at most be fighting the North with their impressive K-2s before their 2-3 hundred stock will see Chinese border IF such a crisis ever happens. Now it becomes more obvious why drones and WZ-10s are probably prioritised over MBTs. PLA MBTs are there to hold an already captured territory or storm through with overwhelming air and artillery support, facing at most a random IFV and foot soldiers firing ATGMs if they get a chance to slip through. That's where modular armour, FY-3/4 ERA, and GL-5 APS come into the picture. They aren't going to be facing vastly superior MBTs in equal number face-offs, at most if they face other MBTs, PLA will be able to totally outflank and outnumber them, punching through side armour like hot knife through butter.

Type 15 project was a GREAT opportunity to explore a newer design philosophy, using the K-2/Leclerc like autoloader and ammo storage layout. It's a low risk way to work towards exploring different paths which are used as learning steps in designing a next gen MBT. It's also something the PLA has a gap in - high altitude, light, superior mobility to any MBT, incredible hp/t, low tonnage surface/bridge crossing, flexible, urban competent with narrow and compact size aided by APS against the main urban threat. Honestly PLA's doctrine and situation makes the Type 96A/B the real "most valuable player" overall like an AK-47 of combat effectiveness for the PLA's particular needs and way of war. Spending time and money developing super tanks like the T-14/ K-2 etc would have been a huge blunder when the talent and money should be focused on 21st century weapons. I wouldn't say Type 99A's firepower is 1980s, maybe early 2000s lead level overall but it's better to have vast and varied combat drones, than world leading MBT firepower.

Great points, never thought of it this way.

I still hold the opinion that the ZTZ-99A's protection is world-class level. But if the armament is that weak, it still at least somewhat limits the potential capability of the elite units issued with the tank, despite the drones and helicopters

As for ZTQ-15, I also do not understand the decision to equip it with a 105mm gun. This tank is excellent in all respects, even having the option of having APS installed! However, it's armament also limits its capabilities, and I fear it would have difficulty penetrating the frontal armor of ERA-equipped Indian T-72s, which would probably be deployed and encountered in the Himalayas.

As a side note, having helicopters and drones are not a surefire way to defeat an enemy with tons of tanks. In the Idlib offensive this year, it was proved Turkish drones could not stop the SAA (with its hordes of tanks) from continuously gaining territory, before the declaration of ceasefire
 

FishWings

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Type 99A actually aren't all that impressive at all compared to the latest and greatest western and Russian tanks. How can it be expected to? It's based off the second Type 99 which itself isn't really world leading even in the late 2000s. The T-14 isn't exactly in service and with numbers at the moment but 2A82 and higher calibre versions are all going to be FAR superior to anything in service around the world. The best gun in significant service numbers (so no T-14 ones) is probably the L55 used by the latest Leopard 2s and the K-2. The best round, the M829A4 and the 3BM69.

The Russians have created the next generation of MBTs even though they haven't started fielding them in numbers. The Americans want their best APFSDS round to penetrate the frontal armour of all Chinese and Russian tanks in service. The PLA doesn't have the funding to have developed and fielded its next gen MBT like the Russians, it also doesn't have the funding to change the Type 99 into a design that allows for long penetration rods and one piece ammo to develop something that reaches or exceeds the M829A3/A4 using the current ZPT98 125mm.

Type 96/99 series should be plenty enough to punch through every Japanese and Taiwanese tank in service since the Type 10's armour is genuinely underwhelming to say the least and the Type 90's from another era. Fools will believe the heavier Type 90 is better armoured. It's barely superior to the Type 10's lazy and generous use of high tensile strength steels. Surprisingly poor effort from the Japanese but good mobility and firepower though. Not that Japanese tanks are likely to get deployed in such a way they're facing PLA tanks. 96/99 gun and rounds are also probably good enough to penetrate most Russian 40-50 tonners too and this includes just about all of India's main tank force. Definitely good enough to go through every side armour on the planet. The Arjun is a mystery at over 60 tonnes but who cares honestly. Are they going to air drop them past the Himalayas? lol HJ missiles supplied to Pakistan will make 100 Arjuns light work within a hour if they really decide to send those crawling elephants into the desert. The Americans won't be dropping Abrams and the Koreans will at most be fighting the North with their impressive K-2s before their 2-3 hundred stock will see Chinese border IF such a crisis ever happens. Now it becomes more obvious why drones and WZ-10s are probably prioritised over MBTs. PLA MBTs are there to hold an already captured territory or storm through with overwhelming air and artillery support, facing at most a random IFV and foot soldiers firing ATGMs if they get a chance to slip through. That's where modular armour, FY-3/4 ERA, and GL-5 APS come into the picture. They aren't going to be facing vastly superior MBTs in equal number face-offs, at most if they face other MBTs, PLA will be able to totally outflank and outnumber them, punching through side armour like hot knife through butter.

Type 15 project was a GREAT opportunity to explore a newer design philosophy, using the K-2/Leclerc like autoloader and ammo storage layout. It's a low risk way to work towards exploring different paths which are used as learning steps in designing a next gen MBT. It's also something the PLA has a gap in - high altitude, light, superior mobility to any MBT, incredible hp/t, low tonnage surface/bridge crossing, flexible, urban competent with narrow and compact size aided by APS against the main urban threat. Honestly PLA's doctrine and situation makes the Type 96A/B the real "most valuable player" overall like an AK-47 of combat effectiveness for the PLA's particular needs and way of war. Spending time and money developing super tanks like the T-14/ K-2 etc would have been a huge blunder when the talent and money should be focused on 21st century weapons. I wouldn't say Type 99A's firepower is 1980s, maybe early 2000s lead level overall but it's better to have vast and varied combat drones, than world leading MBT firepower.

By the way, is there evidence to suggest ZTZ-99A has significant advantage in protection when compared to Type 90 and Type 10? I was always under the impression that these Japanese tanks also have world-class protection. Maybe Type 10 actually has underwhelming armor due to light weight, but Type 90 seems to be of a similar weight class
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Great points, never thought of it this way.

I still hold the opinion that the ZTZ-99A's protection is world-class level. But if the armament is that weak, it still at least somewhat limits the potential capability of the elite units issued with the tank, despite the drones and helicopters

As for ZTQ-15, I also do not understand the decision to equip it with a 105mm gun. This tank is excellent in all respects, even having the option of having APS installed! However, it's armament also limits its capabilities, and I fear it would have difficulty penetrating the frontal armor of ERA-equipped Indian T-72s, which would probably be deployed and encountered in the Himalayas.

As a side note, having helicopters and drones are not a surefire way to defeat an enemy with tons of tanks. In the Idlib offensive this year, it was proved Turkish drones could not stop the SAA (with its hordes of tanks) from continuously gaining territory, before the declaration of ceasefire

99A's protection is quite an improvement on the first two 99's which itself is so much better than the 96s and most older modernised Russian tanks of the 40t-50t range. 99A's protection is really only world class in the front but honestly most tanks are easy enough to penetrate even from the side with a decently modern round/ATGM. The trend is towards being able to have the technical ability to build increasingly heavy and well armoured tanks with engines and drivetrains that can actually accommodate increased weight which typically entails superior protection and firepower components like digital equipment and bigger better guns.

The western tanks have always delivered on this because of their superior powerplants and drivetrains. Chinese tank development went with the Soviet/Russian way of compensating for more poorly manufactured and performing rounds (two piece rounds and shorter penetrators in the past) with gun launched missiles, something the western tanks never bothered with because they weren't necessary at all, but these days the gun launched ATGMs are much longer ranged, carry better punch, and often can be used against various target types including helicopters. 99A's 5 tonne or so increase on the last 99 is just showing that PLA is slowly upgrading its leading MBT into that first tier category. Of course India's Arjun immediately jumps into the heavy weight BUT without the engine and drivetrain abilities. Their military and political elites understand how the Arjun 1 and 2 are truly incapable of carrying this sort of near 70 tonne weight and their constant rejections of these tanks in the past suggests the mobility issues are not just speculation. The Leopards, Abrams, and Merkavas are all decent mobility heavyweights. Challenger 2 not so much until it receives engine upgrades. The French, Japanese, and Koreans have all remained satisifed with high 40s and 50-60 tonne range, mostly due to environment and surface requirements.

The 99's ZPT98 aren't weak at all though with the highest chamber pressure featured in tank guns and using pretty advanced manufacturing standards like electroslag remelting. It's mostly let down by the ammunition it fires, which is let down by the fundamental arrangement design of the autoloader setup carried over from Soviet tank designs and doctrines. However this is really an old criticism and may have been overcome in other ways when it comes to APFSDS penetration. Propellants are upgraded and the larger bore size and longer length of the barrel (125mm L50 I recall being the length of the ZPT98 used by the Type 99s and L48 like the 2a46 used by the Type 96s compared to typical L44 120mm still used in many first rate tanks which can still easily penetrate frontal armour of most tanks).

The Type 15's APFSDS rounds may be just as lethal as the ones fired by the Type 99s because they're probably longer and if I recall, they're all one piece rounds. The rod itself may not need to be smaller or lighter than an APFSDS from a 96/99 because of the bore size. The sabot is discarded and the penetrator rod's dimensions are really determined more by the propellant and the ability of the gun to create enough pressure and muzzle velocity to optimise the design of the round. The L7 105mm were used in the first M1 Abrams and K1 tanks too. It's a fantastic gun and will make light work of every armoured target/bunker up to a well ERAed Russian modernised. So yeah it's uncertain at least to us whether the 105mm can penetrate the front of an Indian T-90 but I doubt Type 96A/Bs cannot be brought to the field if the Indians can make decent use of those tanks. The Type 96B thoroughly outclasses the T-72 and at least matches the Indian T-90S. If they buy the T-90MS and field them there, no reason Type 99 second gens can't also be placed there albeit with higher tonnage and lower hp/t compared to a T-90MS. All of this is really stupid though because tank vs tank face-offs without support are as unlikely as lone F-15 vs Su-27 happening today. If it really comes down to Type 15 against modernised T-72 and T-90, I don't think the 105mm can certainly penetrate the frontal armour of the T-90S but the T-72s are definitely gone. They use much older ERA and the composites of the core turret face armour are pretty weak.

By the way, is there evidence to suggest ZTZ-99A has significant advantage in protection when compared to Type 90 and Type 10? I was always under the impression that these Japanese tanks also have world-class protection. Maybe Type 10 actually has underwhelming armor due to light weight, but Type 90 seems to be of a similar weight class

None at all lol. We've only weight to go on but if the PLA is confident enough to not have urgently upgraded ZPT98 and ammo even though they may be facing far heavier (70 tonne) behemoths with armour that is not going to be inferior in pound for pound stopping power, then why will 45-48 tonne Japanese tanks worry them? The ZPT98 and current APFSDS/rounds/ATGM are meant to be capable of giving 70 tonne world leading protection tanks enough trouble. Type 10 and 90 are good tanks when it comes to firepower and mobility but protection has never been a Japanese focus since forever. They can have the best compositions for the secret armour but no 48 tonne tank can be described as well protected for this generation. Even 55t and 65t tanks are being absolutely wrecked beyond recognition by semi decent, 2000s ATGMs (admittedly placed well) ALL OVER the middle east since 2010. Imagine the latest and greatest ATGM and anti-tank rounds. Artillery and air to surface anti-tank aren't even required here.

Type 90s are very old. The Japanese actually got rather lazy with the Type 10's armour design if publicly disclosed info is all there is to it. They've gone the modular path a la Leclerc with no reactive armour and super high tensile exotic steels along with composites and ceramics. There's little sophistication with their protection design. The Type 90 is really MEH by 2020 standards. It's literally identical to the earliest M1 and Leopard 2 design only much lighter and less armour than those from the freakin 80s and earlier! Type 10 is better and has FAR superior firepower to the Type 90. Firepower includes everything that is involved in search, track, attack so you can imagine the software and digital superiority a 21st century tank would have over the antique that is the Type 90. To be fair, the Japanese also don't focus on army tanks. They're investments are in more appropriates as well. The Koreans have fielded one of the best tanks in the world with the K-2 and it's a brilliant all rounder no matter where you put it. It's why Turkey used it as the licensing base for their own Altay (another killer super tank). The Koreans have serious land war concerns and need something like an $8M tank. Can't see where the Japanese put the $8M in the Type 10 when the T-14 and K-2 cost their respective nations the same price to purchase as a simplified unit but it's probably corruption and MIC inefficiency.

The Type 99A I don't think measures up to the world leaders like the Leo2A6/7, M1A2/2, Leclerc, K-2, or Merkava 4. But it's also considerably cheaper than those and probably less complex, easier and quicker to manufacture. It also doesn't have any very obvious shortfalls in the three major domains. For example the Arjun has serious mobility issues even if we assume the firepower and protection is actually even on par with something like a Chinese heavyweight, 99A. The T-90 upgrades all have firepower and protection downfalls more so than something like the 99A until we're talking T-90MS which resolves all those issues and is a brilliantly balanced good tank (expensive though). The Type 10 has poorer protection but better than other T tanks in its weight class but why would a $8M 2015 tank want to compare itself with a T-72/90 from the 20th century? The Type 90 is ancient and its armour technology comparable to 1980s German ones.

In light of the contextual considerations, 99A is quite a neat tank and about 80% the overall capability of great tanks at a fraction of their prices. All domestic too ;) the earlier 99s are also decent. The 96 are number fillers and honestly won't be seeing gunfights against superior tanks ever.
 
Last edited:

Kejora

Junior Member
Registered Member
99A's protection is quite an improvement on the first two 99's which itself is so much better than the 96s and most older modernised Russian tanks of the 40t-50t range. 99A's protection is really only world class in the front but honestly most tanks are easy enough to penetrate even from the side with a decently modern round/ATGM. The trend is towards being able to have the technical ability to build increasingly heavy and well armoured tanks with engines and drivetrains that can actually accommodate increased weight which typically entails superior protection and firepower components like digital equipment and bigger better guns.

The western tanks have always delivered on this because of their superior powerplants and drivetrains. Chinese tank development went with the Soviet/Russian way of compensating for more poorly manufactured and performing rounds (two piece rounds and shorter penetrators in the past) with gun launched missiles, something the western tanks never bothered with because they weren't necessary at all, but these days the gun launched ATGMs are much longer ranged, carry better punch, and often can be used against various target types including helicopters. 99A's 5 tonne or so increase on the last 99 is just showing that PLA is slowly upgrading its leading MBT into that first tier category. Of course India's Arjun immediately jumps into the heavy weight BUT without the engine and drivetrain abilities. Their military and political elites understand how the Arjun 1 and 2 are truly incapable of carrying this sort of near 70 tonne weight and their constant rejections of these tanks in the past suggests the mobility issues are not just speculation. The Leopards, Abrams, and Merkavas are all decent mobility heavyweights. Challenger 2 not so much until it receives engine upgrades. The French, Japanese, and Koreans have all remained satisifed with high 40s and 50-60 tonne range, mostly due to environment and surface requirements.

The 99's ZPT98 aren't weak at all though with the highest chamber pressure featured in tank guns and using pretty advanced manufacturing standards like electroslag remelting. It's mostly let down by the ammunition it fires, which is let down by the fundamental arrangement design of the autoloader setup carried over from Soviet tank designs and doctrines. However this is really an old criticism and may have been overcome in other ways when it comes to APFSDS penetration. Propellants are upgraded and the larger bore size and longer length of the barrel (125mm L50 I recall being the length of the ZPT98 used by the Type 99s and L48 like the 2a46 used by the Type 96s compared to typical L44 120mm still used in many first rate tanks which can still easily penetrate frontal armour of most tanks).

The Type 15's APFSDS rounds may be just as lethal as the ones fired by the Type 99s because they're probably longer and if I recall, they're all one piece rounds. The rod itself may not need to be smaller or lighter than an APFSDS from a 96/99 because of the bore size. The sabot is discarded and the penetrator rod's dimensions are really determined more by the propellant and the ability of the gun to create enough pressure and muzzle velocity to optimise the design of the round. The L7 105mm were used in the first M1 Abrams and K1 tanks too. It's a fantastic gun and will make light work of every armoured target/bunker up to a well ERAed Russian modernised. So yeah it's uncertain at least to us whether the 105mm can penetrate the front of an Indian T-90 but I doubt Type 96A/Bs cannot be brought to the field if the Indians can make decent use of those tanks. The Type 96B thoroughly outclasses the T-72 and at least matches the Indian T-90S. If they buy the T-90MS and field them there, no reason Type 99 second gens can't also be placed there albeit with higher tonnage and lower hp/t compared to a T-90MS. All of this is really stupid though because tank vs tank face-offs without support are as unlikely as lone F-15 vs Su-27 happening today. If it really comes down to Type 15 against modernised T-72 and T-90, I don't think the 105mm can certainly penetrate the frontal armour of the T-90S but the T-72s are definitely gone. They use much older ERA and the composites of the core turret face armour are pretty weak.



None at all lol. We've only weight to go on but if the PLA is confident enough to not have urgently upgraded ZPT98 and ammo even though they may be facing far heavier (70 tonne) behemoths with armour that is not going to be inferior in pound for pound stopping power, then why will 45-48 tonne Japanese tanks worry them? The ZPT98 and current APFSDS/rounds/ATGM are meant to be capable of giving 70 tonne world leading protection tanks enough trouble. Type 10 and 90 are good tanks when it comes to firepower and mobility but protection has never been a Japanese focus since forever. They can have the best compositions for the secret armour but no 48 tonne tank can be described as well protected for this generation. Even 55t and 65t tanks are being absolutely wrecked beyond recognition by semi decent, 2000s ATGMs (admittedly placed well) ALL OVER the middle east since 2010. Imagine the latest and greatest ATGM and anti-tank rounds. Artillery and air to surface anti-tank aren't even required here.

Type 90s are very old. The Japanese actually got rather lazy with the Type 10's armour design if publicly disclosed info is all there is to it. They've gone the modular path a la Leclerc with no reactive armour and super high tensile exotic steels along with composites and ceramics. There's little sophistication with their protection design. The Type 90 is really MEH by 2020 standards. It's literally identical to the earliest M1 and Leopard 2 design only much lighter and less armour than those from the freakin 80s and earlier! Type 10 is better and has FAR superior firepower to the Type 90. Firepower includes everything that is involved in search, track, attack so you can imagine the software and digital superiority a 21st century tank would have over the antique that is the Type 90. To be fair, the Japanese also don't focus on army tanks. They're investments are in more appropriates as well. The Koreans have fielded one of the best tanks in the world with the K-2 and it's a brilliant all rounder no matter where you put it. It's why Turkey used it as the licensing base for their own Altay (another killer super tank). The Koreans have serious land war concerns and need something like an $8M tank. Can't see where the Japanese put the $8M in the Type 10 when the T-14 and K-2 cost their respective nations the same price to purchase as a simplified unit but it's probably corruption and MIC inefficiency.

The Type 99A I don't think measures up to the world leaders like the Leo2A6/7, M1A2/2, Leclerc, K-2, or Merkava 4. But it's also considerably cheaper than those and probably less complex, easier and quicker to manufacture. It also doesn't have any very obvious shortfalls in the three major domains. For example the Arjun has serious mobility issues even if we assume the firepower and protection is actually even on par with something like a Chinese heavyweight, 99A. The T-90 upgrades all have firepower and protection downfalls more so than something like the 99A until we're talking T-90MS which resolves all those issues and is a brilliantly balanced good tank (expensive though). The Type 10 has poorer protection but better than other T tanks in its weight class but why would a $8M 2015 tank want to compare itself with a T-72/90 from the 20th century? The Type 90 is ancient and its armour technology comparable to 1980s German ones.

In light of the contextual considerations, 99A is quite a neat tank and about 80% the overall capability of great tanks at a fraction of their prices. All domestic too ;) the earlier 99s are also decent. The 96 are number fillers and honestly won't be seeing gunfights against superior tanks ever.
I guess that's also the reason China didn't mass produce Type-99A? While it's an improvement over previous Chinese tanks it doesn't provide enough parity over western tanks to justify replacing all existing Chinese tank with it nor they think it worth upgrading it further. So instead China currently developing a new clean sheet next generation tank design with unmanned turret.
 

FishWings

Junior Member
Registered Member
99A's protection is quite an improvement on the first two 99's which itself is so much better than the 96s and most older modernised Russian tanks of the 40t-50t range. 99A's protection is really only world class in the front but honestly most tanks are easy enough to penetrate even from the side with a decently modern round/ATGM. The trend is towards being able to have the technical ability to build increasingly heavy and well armoured tanks with engines and drivetrains that can actually accommodate increased weight which typically entails superior protection and firepower components like digital equipment and bigger better guns.

The western tanks have always delivered on this because of their superior powerplants and drivetrains. Chinese tank development went with the Soviet/Russian way of compensating for more poorly manufactured and performing rounds (two piece rounds and shorter penetrators in the past) with gun launched missiles, something the western tanks never bothered with because they weren't necessary at all, but these days the gun launched ATGMs are much longer ranged, carry better punch, and often can be used against various target types including helicopters. 99A's 5 tonne or so increase on the last 99 is just showing that PLA is slowly upgrading its leading MBT into that first tier category. Of course India's Arjun immediately jumps into the heavy weight BUT without the engine and drivetrain abilities. Their military and political elites understand how the Arjun 1 and 2 are truly incapable of carrying this sort of near 70 tonne weight and their constant rejections of these tanks in the past suggests the mobility issues are not just speculation. The Leopards, Abrams, and Merkavas are all decent mobility heavyweights. Challenger 2 not so much until it receives engine upgrades. The French, Japanese, and Koreans have all remained satisifed with high 40s and 50-60 tonne range, mostly due to environment and surface requirements.

The 99's ZPT98 aren't weak at all though with the highest chamber pressure featured in tank guns and using pretty advanced manufacturing standards like electroslag remelting. It's mostly let down by the ammunition it fires, which is let down by the fundamental arrangement design of the autoloader setup carried over from Soviet tank designs and doctrines. However this is really an old criticism and may have been overcome in other ways when it comes to APFSDS penetration. Propellants are upgraded and the larger bore size and longer length of the barrel (125mm L50 I recall being the length of the ZPT98 used by the Type 99s and L48 like the 2a46 used by the Type 96s compared to typical L44 120mm still used in many first rate tanks which can still easily penetrate frontal armour of most tanks).

The Type 15's APFSDS rounds may be just as lethal as the ones fired by the Type 99s because they're probably longer and if I recall, they're all one piece rounds. The rod itself may not need to be smaller or lighter than an APFSDS from a 96/99 because of the bore size. The sabot is discarded and the penetrator rod's dimensions are really determined more by the propellant and the ability of the gun to create enough pressure and muzzle velocity to optimise the design of the round. The L7 105mm were used in the first M1 Abrams and K1 tanks too. It's a fantastic gun and will make light work of every armoured target/bunker up to a well ERAed Russian modernised. So yeah it's uncertain at least to us whether the 105mm can penetrate the front of an Indian T-90 but I doubt Type 96A/Bs cannot be brought to the field if the Indians can make decent use of those tanks. The Type 96B thoroughly outclasses the T-72 and at least matches the Indian T-90S. If they buy the T-90MS and field them there, no reason Type 99 second gens can't also be placed there albeit with higher tonnage and lower hp/t compared to a T-90MS. All of this is really stupid though because tank vs tank face-offs without support are as unlikely as lone F-15 vs Su-27 happening today. If it really comes down to Type 15 against modernised T-72 and T-90, I don't think the 105mm can certainly penetrate the frontal armour of the T-90S but the T-72s are definitely gone. They use much older ERA and the composites of the core turret face armour are pretty weak.



None at all lol. We've only weight to go on but if the PLA is confident enough to not have urgently upgraded ZPT98 and ammo even though they may be facing far heavier (70 tonne) behemoths with armour that is not going to be inferior in pound for pound stopping power, then why will 45-48 tonne Japanese tanks worry them? The ZPT98 and current APFSDS/rounds/ATGM are meant to be capable of giving 70 tonne world leading protection tanks enough trouble. Type 10 and 90 are good tanks when it comes to firepower and mobility but protection has never been a Japanese focus since forever. They can have the best compositions for the secret armour but no 48 tonne tank can be described as well protected for this generation. Even 55t and 65t tanks are being absolutely wrecked beyond recognition by semi decent, 2000s ATGMs (admittedly placed well) ALL OVER the middle east since 2010. Imagine the latest and greatest ATGM and anti-tank rounds. Artillery and air to surface anti-tank aren't even required here.

Type 90s are very old. The Japanese actually got rather lazy with the Type 10's armour design if publicly disclosed info is all there is to it. They've gone the modular path a la Leclerc with no reactive armour and super high tensile exotic steels along with composites and ceramics. There's little sophistication with their protection design. The Type 90 is really MEH by 2020 standards. It's literally identical to the earliest M1 and Leopard 2 design only much lighter and less armour than those from the freakin 80s and earlier! Type 10 is better and has FAR superior firepower to the Type 90. Firepower includes everything that is involved in search, track, attack so you can imagine the software and digital superiority a 21st century tank would have over the antique that is the Type 90. To be fair, the Japanese also don't focus on army tanks. They're investments are in more appropriates as well. The Koreans have fielded one of the best tanks in the world with the K-2 and it's a brilliant all rounder no matter where you put it. It's why Turkey used it as the licensing base for their own Altay (another killer super tank). The Koreans have serious land war concerns and need something like an $8M tank. Can't see where the Japanese put the $8M in the Type 10 when the T-14 and K-2 cost their respective nations the same price to purchase as a simplified unit but it's probably corruption and MIC inefficiency.

The Type 99A I don't think measures up to the world leaders like the Leo2A6/7, M1A2/2, Leclerc, K-2, or Merkava 4. But it's also considerably cheaper than those and probably less complex, easier and quicker to manufacture. It also doesn't have any very obvious shortfalls in the three major domains. For example the Arjun has serious mobility issues even if we assume the firepower and protection is actually even on par with something like a Chinese heavyweight, 99A. The T-90 upgrades all have firepower and protection downfalls more so than something like the 99A until we're talking T-90MS which resolves all those issues and is a brilliantly balanced good tank (expensive though). The Type 10 has poorer protection but better than other T tanks in its weight class but why would a $8M 2015 tank want to compare itself with a T-72/90 from the 20th century? The Type 90 is ancient and its armour technology comparable to 1980s German ones.

In light of the contextual considerations, 99A is quite a neat tank and about 80% the overall capability of great tanks at a fraction of their prices. All domestic too ;) the earlier 99s are also decent. The 96 are number fillers and honestly won't be seeing gunfights against superior tanks ever.

Thank you for the excellent explanation then +1

Yet another side point however, is that I doubt Merkava IV qualifies as a world leader MBT. It might be good for the battles fought by the IDF, but certain design flaws put it in a disadvantaged position against the real world leaders of MBTs

And while I doubt that the ZTQ-15's APFSDS can truly match the performance of 125mm APFSDS, I agree with you in that it is far less probable that the ZTQ-15 will face any armored threat it probably can't defeat on first shot.
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
Disappointing then. Latest Russian APFSDS for 2A82 is said to be capable of penetrating 900mm at 2000m, with American APSFDS being said to penetrate 1000mm+ at 2000m. Other estimates for 3BM69 can also penetrate 1000mm+. It looks like we are far behind in this area, 680mm penetration is early 1980s tech at best...

Where did you guys get those weird specs... Only 140/152s can hit 1000+... (See the Pz68 140 gun test)

I mean, at least we know the dimensions of some of the foreign APFSDS right? You should really do some calculations... The M829A4 is supposed to pen roughly 780/0 deg v50 at 2km, and Вакуум-2 also shouldn't exceed 800 at v80... Dunno how you got those "1000+"s but right now only 140/152 guns are really effective at penetrating say, the Leopard 2A7.
How the hell are you going to pen 1000+ with a DU penetrator with less than 750 in length at 1650 mps... As for 680, it's v90 data so in theory its v50 should be at about 720 so not such a high difference... Probably except that 829A4 is optimised against heavy ERA... But such a technology is also seen on newer Chinese APFSDS, and isn't really actually that hard to achieve...
The only issue with Chinese APs is the autoloader, and the never-changing saddle shaped sabot, which causes hitting within autoloader if made too long... The overall capabilities of Chinese Kinetic armor piercing technologies? Well, to my knowledge is not that bad. Might not be "leading", but least we can say we're "advanced" worldwide.
 
Last edited:

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
Where did you guys get those weird specs...
I mean, at least we know the dimensions of some of the foreign APFSDS right? You should really do some calculations... The M829A4 is supposed to pen roughly 780/0 deg v50 at 2km, and Вакуум-1 also shouldn't exceed 800 at v80... Dunno how you got those "1000+"s but right now only 140/152 guns are really effective at penetrating say, the Leopard 2A7.
How the hell are you going to pen 1000+ with a DU penetrator with less than 750 in length at 1650 mps... As for 680, it's v90 data so in theory its v50 should be at about 720 so not such a high difference... Probably except that 829A4 is optimised against heavy ERA... But such a technology is also seen on newer Chinese APFSDS, and isn't really actually that hard to achieve...
The only issue with Chinese APs is the autoloader, and the never-changing saddle shaped sabot, which causes hitting within autoloader if made too long... The overall capabilities of Chinese Kinetic armor piercing technologies? Well, to my knowledge is not that bad. Might not be "leading", but least we can say we're "advanced" worldwide.
hi RichardGao

So the problem is the carousel autoloader, in the future CHINA MBT, will they used the unmanned turret with bustle loader, in this way they can used single shell 125mm Chinese APFSDS sabot round? I know its hush hush secret program, but at least give us a hint ;) ;) ;)
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
hi RichardGao

So the problem is the carousel autoloader, in the future CHINA MBT, will they used the unmanned turret with bustle loader, in this way they can used single shell 125mm Chinese APFSDS sabot round? I know its hush hush secret program, but at least give us a hint ;) ;) ;)
Unmannned turret yes. 125 not sure. Gun and ammo uses new technologies. Lightweight is the way to go.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I guess that's also the reason China didn't mass produce Type-99A? While it's an improvement over previous Chinese tanks it doesn't provide enough parity over western tanks to justify replacing all existing Chinese tank with it nor they think it worth upgrading it further. So instead China currently developing a new clean sheet next generation tank design with unmanned turret.

I don't believe that's the reason. At least not the let's not mass produce this because it's not absolutely no.1 in the world. Because Type 99A is mass produced in every sense. There are already more Type 99A versions than K-2 and Type 10 tanks. And the production rate seems to be higher since older 99 versions are no longer produced. It's just smaller in number for the PLA but conservative estimates of 250 Type 99As in service is a HUGE inventory of MBT by any standard except Russian and American. It's just more complex and expensive than the Type 96 and since the extra abilities of the 99 are not considered paramount to winning land wars/battles, there is more need for numbers and presence (and mobility/deliverability) than there is for the extra capability. I think this is the main reason the Type 96's production rate is so much higher than the Type 99's.

Thank you for the excellent explanation then +1

Yet another side point however, is that I doubt Merkava IV qualifies as a world leader MBT. It might be good for the battles fought by the IDF, but certain design flaws put it in a disadvantaged position against the real world leaders of MBTs

And while I doubt that the ZTQ-15's APFSDS can truly match the performance of 125mm APFSDS, I agree with you in that it is far less probable that the ZTQ-15 will face any armored threat it probably can't defeat on first shot.

I'd put the Merkava IV ahead of the Chally 2 and the Chally 2 is one sweet MBT even after all these years of not receiving significant upgrades. It's engine outputs less. It's gun is rifled due to the Brit's partiality to HESH rounds. It has less hp/t and its armour package while still advanced and world leading (totally new and innovative) in its day, now 3 decades or so have passed and no new armour upgrades and redesign. At least the Leclerc features modular armour which the French may have upgraded multiple times by now. They've also got a very nice GIAT smoothbore. They're all fantastic tanks in their own environment but the Chally 2 mainly suffers from lower hp/t and aging components. At least I haven't been aware of any upgrades like the Abrams has been receiving.

The Merkava has the king of smoothbores and a range of high performance ammo incl gun launched missile. The turret armour design is superior in my opinion plus they've got APS working for years and have reactive armour packages available.
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
Unmannned turret yes. 125 not sure. Gun and ammo uses new technologies. Lightweight is the way to go.
Hi RichardGao

thanks for your prompt reply, what MM gun will they used ?from what I know , they had develop a powerful 125mm , that is shown in a gun carriage years ago, it was display at a ceremony before being censored. Its is said that it will used a single shell ammo for the future MBT and will not go to 130mm gun route, sorry for being a nuisance.
 
Top