Just don't reply to him anymore. He is wasting everyone's time and as others suggest, this is a Type98/99 MBT thread. Just wait for the mods to remove his post as they have nothing to do here.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Mod will remove my post only if it hurt there feeling lol. Look like it did hurt yours though.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
What the hell is going on in this thread? I don't see anything about type 98 or 99. I'm not a big tank enthusiast so I don't bother reading everything, but it's pointless talking about any Indian weaponry. No matter what tank you give the Indians, it breaks down. No matter what ship you give the Indians, it's on fire. No matter what jet you give Indians, it crashes. What's the point of this discussion? China joins the tank biathlon, beats Russia on Russian soil and Russians inflate their own score to win. India joins the tank biathlon, can't even finish cus all their junk broke down. If that was China, I wouldn't have the audacity to talk about tanks at all but I guess since no Indian tanks shot each other (yet), that's actually considered a bragging point for them...
Seems that it all started on this post:
About 2 days of posting vt-4 vs t-90. I also posted once, but didnt expected that this would be so extended.
Problem is that it seems to me that the moderators arent doing a good job at it. Name calling and thread derailing seem to be going unanswered. I miss the days that BD popeye was showing up. He once banned me, but it seems that things were in better control then.
And AirForceBrat. He may be zealous, but he at least controlled the ultranationalist movements on both sides. Not gonna lie, we need more mods. All of the mods are mainly focused on the air and navy threads which can get pretty lengthy.
It's really disappointing. One Indian jingoist is all that's takes to make a mess. What that Indian member is doing is some good old psychological projection.
I've been in defence.pk and I've not seen much muscle flexing from Pakistani members regarding VT-4's capabilities vs TS-90 XXs. Most were content about the purchase, the bang for buck, the technologies promised by VT-4 and more engaged about fixing the economic problems of Pakistan which limits its defence preparedness.
I've been in defence.pk and I've not seen much muscle flexing from Pakistani members regarding VT-4's capabilities vs TS-90 XXs. Most were content about the purchase, the bang for buck, the technologies promised by VT-4 and more engaged about fixing the economic problems of Pakistan which limits its defence preparedness.
@Orthan
Russian tank technology (Armata is probably the best tank in the world right now, shame that Russia can't afford a T-90-scale fleet of them) is best in the world, true, and the Chinese have made major design mistakes with the ZTZ-99A, using Western turret design without understanding it (relatively poor side armor), but the fact of the matter is, India isn't running Armatas, it's running T-90s.
And Chinese tank design isn't that bad.
===
Also, I'll point this out for the ZTQ-15. There's a claim going on that with modern ERA, the ZTQ-15 is expected to defeat Mango type penetrators. So, ironically, while the ZTQ-15 is pretty toast against an Abrams head-on, it's good enough to survive against an Indian or Vietnamese T-90S long enough for its ATGM to hit the target.
If you recall, the ZTZ-98 family was designed to counter Abrams tanks, even if 1:1 they might not be completely comparable (note the Abrams is currently heavy as all hell). The ZTZ-96 family, on the other hand, was designed to counter Soviet T-72s. The ZTQ-15 can possibly now be considered the successor to the ZTZ-96; it gives up firepower compared to the ZTZ-96, but it has extremely good weight and mobility characteristics and likely comparable armor due to the current generation ERA.
Russian tank technology (Armata is probably the best tank in the world right now, shame that Russia can't afford a T-90-scale fleet of them) is best in the world, true, and the Chinese have made major design mistakes with the ZTZ-99A, using Western turret design without understanding it (relatively poor side armor), but the fact of the matter is, India isn't running Armatas, it's running T-90s.
And Chinese tank design isn't that bad.
===
Also, I'll point this out for the ZTQ-15. There's a claim going on that with modern ERA, the ZTQ-15 is expected to defeat Mango type penetrators. So, ironically, while the ZTQ-15 is pretty toast against an Abrams head-on, it's good enough to survive against an Indian or Vietnamese T-90S long enough for its ATGM to hit the target.
If you recall, the ZTZ-98 family was designed to counter Abrams tanks, even if 1:1 they might not be completely comparable (note the Abrams is currently heavy as all hell). The ZTZ-96 family, on the other hand, was designed to counter Soviet T-72s. The ZTQ-15 can possibly now be considered the successor to the ZTZ-96; it gives up firepower compared to the ZTZ-96, but it has extremely good weight and mobility characteristics and likely comparable armor due to the current generation ERA.
I disagree, that was a deliberate design choice. From what we know, ZTZ99A has very strong base armor (together with ERA, which might be or not FY-4, its protection vs APFSDS is equal or higher than 1000mm of steel) and the tank is already at 58 tons which impedes its deployment in many regions. Stronger armor at the expense of coverage was chosen. However having relatively weak side armor even on turrets it's a common trend on Asian tanks, look at Type 90, Type 10, even K2 all of them have weak side armor on the turret.
Wrong. Type 99 has far superior frontal armour compared to the very best of "heavier" Russian tanks - modernised T-80s (no longer built) and modernised T-90s. All have very poor side armour but who cares, NATO tanks have better side armour but easily penetrated by direct side shots. Sure the NATO tanks have better survivability against more angled shots. I'd say going with a more western style turret design is a good choice by the Type 98/99 designers. Don't forget they have combined the Russian style turret of lower profile and supplemented by ERA. The Type 99 has extremely thick frontal armour behind the ERA rig. It uses laminate composites, spaced armour principles (due to the ERA rig), and pretty modern ERA on top of this. Russian tanks have always had (until the T-90MS) relatively thin main armour with far more reliance on ERA to defeat KE compared to Chinese tanks. The weight difference between Type 99 and modern Russian tanks is pretty much mostly in the frontal turret main armour. At least 5 tonnes more!
The only way for the Chinese designers to give their tanks better frontal turret protection compared to Soviet style tanks was to beef up the turret. It loses some profile advantage and mobility but they decided it was worthwhile when they noticed how poorly Soviet designs performed against NATO tanks, 100% penetration all the time. Even Type 96 export predecessor to Sudan had no issue penetrating a T-72 whereas T-72 and M-60 variants could not penetrate even that improved Type 85/88. The point is Russian tank protection has never been its strong suit. T-90MS really does better because the turret main armour has been beefed up since the earlier T-90s and the newest ERA are quite exceptional for their size and weight. Armata re-designs the whole idea.
ZTQ-15 has superior firepower to Type 96. You're thinking firepower is only gun bore and calibre. It is everything. Fire control, communication, networking, situational awareness, sensors, hydraulics and gimbal, ammunition types and quality etc. In every regard of firepower, the ZTQ-15 is superior to the Type 96A except for gun bore and calibre. So no, the ZTQ-15 is not giving up firepower. That's overly simplifying it. The 105mm is good enough for all side armour direct shots and potentially good enough for all except the latest and greatest eastern bloc tanks frontal.
Correct. The Type 99A's frontal armour equivalent protection against CE and KE is basically equal to the latest NATO tanks... but the 99A also has that ERA cage under which they could even place extra plates in the empty space between the ERA layer and the main turret armour if it is shown that it is needed. Then there's also the modular ERA layer which offers quite an improvement over NATO tanks. I doubt any frontal attack short of air delivered strikes can penetrate the front of a Type 99A. Type 99s are already pretty impregnable. Of course gunships, drones, and even man portable ATGMs can direct attacks from the top and side. Tanks have never been so vulnerable, which is why it makes sense for the PLA to eventually stop Type 96 production completely and stick with the super light but mobile and the heavy tank. Type 96 is literally the worst of both worlds but the PLA really needs the numbers to cover the expanse.
The tank is nearly 60 tonnes and I doubt its top and bottom armour are as thick as NATO tanks. We know the side armour is much thinner. All that weight is put on the turret front and hull front and glacis. The idea was basically match or exceed the heaviest NATO tanks in frontal protection while sacrificing all other aspects because the PLA thinks almost all shots if they land will land frontal and for ATGMs you'll just need good infantry and air superiority along with APS.