New Type98/99 MBT thread

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
Okay 99A gets frontal protection well by pure brute forcing it with extremely thick (for Soviet/Chinese tank doctrine) armour then adding further layer of wedge modular armour and a layer of modern ERA on top. This is like twice T-90M's frontal but all those nearly 10 tonnes of extra weight emphasized just for that frontal engagement
Thats not an accurate description of 99A armor. It doesn´t have "wedge armor" on the turret (that term only applies to the turret add on armor present on Leopard 2 variantes since A5 and its not the official designation of that extra armor). Instead, 99A is fitted with advanced ERA, which may very well be the FY-IV or an unknown newer model. For FY-IV we know that its claimed to protect against tandem shaped charges and its performance against KE threats is somewhere in between that of Kontakt 5 and Relikt. We don´t know if FY-IV is effective against the APFSDS that are considered to have special anti-ERA performance (DM53, M829A3, among others) whereas Relikt claims that it defeats them. But on the other hand, 99A base armor is supposedly better than russian tanks so in the end their combined protection (base armor + ERA) is comparable, and likely both tanks (99A and 90M) can be defeated by the same rounds (M829A4 and whatever the germans name their next APFSDS).

TLDR: I doubt 99A can destroy some of the tanks they listed as "can be defeated by 99a" and very much doubt that 99A can't destroy some of the tanks listed as "can't be defeated by 99A"... like T-80BVM?? really? okay sure. T-72xyz? now you're taking the piss... meanwhile 99A can destroy Challenger 2? Is this like engaging the Russian types at 3km only frontal and mission kills don't count whereas it's engaging M1A2s and Leopard 2A4s from the side only? Confounding.
As far as i´m aware, the best APFSDS the Chinese have access to is the DTC-10, which has a penetration capability comparable to the latest Russian Svinets rounds but shouldn´t be able to defeat ERA. On the other hand, the Svinets don´t seem to be able to penetrate 99A´s own armor array. So if we put a 99A and a 90M facing each other none should be able to take out the other tank frontally.
 

gongolongo

Junior Member
Registered Member
DTC-10 125mm APFSDS specs leaked:

FUIkyruXoAII6bG
FUMhxRiXoAERzPr
How does this compare to other APFSDS?
 

Hitomi

Junior Member
Registered Member
I saw some comments regarding the leak with one pointing out that the round was displayed before at defense conventions with cutaways and stuff so there isn't actually much new information from this leak. Is this true?
 

Hitomi

Junior Member
Registered Member
From what people posted earlier, a CCTV7 show mentioned the 680mm penetration at 2km and 1700-1800m/s velocity
I see, so all this leak does is mostly confirm the claims of earlier news.

Though can anyone else confirm the claim regarding the round being displayed before at defense conventions?
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Thats not an accurate description of 99A armor. It doesn´t have "wedge armor" on the turret (that term only applies to the turret add on armor present on Leopard 2 variantes since A5 and its not the official designation of that extra armor). Instead, 99A is fitted with advanced ERA, which may very well be the FY-IV or an unknown newer model. For FY-IV we know that its claimed to protect against tandem shaped charges and its performance against KE threats is somewhere in between that of Kontakt 5 and Relikt. We don´t know if FY-IV is effective against the APFSDS that are considered to have special anti-ERA performance (DM53, M829A3, among others) whereas Relikt claims that it defeats them. But on the other hand, 99A base armor is supposedly better than russian tanks so in the end their combined protection (base armor + ERA) is comparable, and likely both tanks (99A and 90M) can be defeated by the same rounds (M829A4 and whatever the germans name their next APFSDS).


As far as i´m aware, the best APFSDS the Chinese have access to is the DTC-10, which has a penetration capability comparable to the latest Russian Svinets rounds but shouldn´t be able to defeat ERA. On the other hand, the Svinets don´t seem to be able to penetrate 99A´s own armor array. So if we put a 99A and a 90M facing each other none should be able to take out the other tank frontally.

But 99A and T-90M have nearly 10 tonnes of difference in weight. We know T-90M has better side and angle protection than 99A which places all its protection points on pure frontal. I would say that if the gun and ammo factors are equal for both (roughly true and both inferior to western counterparts) then 99A would more likely survive shots from T-90M whereas a less well frontally protected T-90M would be at a disadvantage in that scenario.

If the 99A's armour package (base armour) and whatever the next layer of welded modular armour (the forward wedge section) is which the T-90M doesn't quite have (instead using ERA and a Leo 2A5+ like "wedge armour") then the 99A clearly has both better base armour, more of it, and a more substantial wedge section (whatever is being used since it's allegedly filled rather than the older ztz-99 style "wedge armour" similar to T-90M and Leo2A5+ where the wedge is empty space just a frame in Leo2A5+ and frame securing ERA on top in older ztz-99 and T-90M. The 99A has FY4 on top of an allegedly solid and filled "new" modular armour section.

The bold part I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion that the two tanks would have comparable protection if we agree that 99A has better base armour and it's very clear 99A has A LOT more mass and armour dedicated to pure frontal. 99A is more than 55 tonnes by most estimates and known info (I recall a PLA source mentioning approaching 60T and how it's by far the heaviest tank PLA has ever played with and struggles on many roads bridges and surfaces that the PLA is not used to its MBTs not being able to traverse), T-90M is only approaching 50 tonnes. T-90M spreads its armour material out to cover a greater angle and both are abysmally bad on the side. Firepower let's ignore and assume equal with 99A's gun being a bit better (longer calibre, muzzle reference, electroslag remelting*, different thermal sleeve to 96A's and certainly a superior to 96A's and from what I can tell, T-90s even which uses the same as older 2A46s on 72s and 80s... T-90M and 2A46M however is admittedly different), sensors and electronics roughly equal, and T-90M having better ammo (longer piece sabots). That's around 10 tonnes more material for pure frontal on the 99A... unless many, many tonnes are attributed to heavier engine (this is true and 1500hp for Type 99A vs 1000hp to 1200hp on T-90M) which certainly isn't the case, at least not to even 5 tonnes of difference. Even 5 extra tonnes of ceramic and welded armour is enough difference to conclusively know one is better in defence than the other.

Note this is all only pure frontal.

*One of the documentaries on 2A46 derivative used for 96A (lower end tank than 99A) interviewed someone who mentioned that the Chinese gun on 3rd gen tanks learned from both Soviet 2A46 and British L7 but also with German barrel manufacturing techniques that specifically mentioned the Soviets and Russians never bothered with owing to views on tank doctrine and land war philosophy. It is expensive and extremely time consuming which ZPT-98 applies to a greater level than the gun on 96A that is based on 2A46 but both diverged since that era ... the Chinese have constantly been upgrading and improving their own when it diverged from 2A46 ... think Sinoflankers. 96A's gun is not at the same old 2A46 tech level. Certainly every other component of even 96A's firepower is far beyond T-72 and T-80 no matter what models. PLA members discussing how they train and exercise compared to Russian tank biathlon revelations are clear... the shooting itself is clear enough. All electronic aids disabled otherwise the 96A would be firing close to 100% accurate while on the move. Something even modernised T-72s and T-80s would not be doing better if at all even at the same level. T-90M and T-14 are entirely different beasts. Both Chinese and Russian low tier MBT firepower are more let down by the autoloader and shorter sabots than by less modern electronics and sensors... which they're already severely let down by compared to modern NATO levels, Japanese, Israeli, and Korean tanks too.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Despite the clear ammo issue creating the firepower disadvantage even when both lifted to 125mm and longer than L44 calibre, both Chinese and Russian tanks still have a gap in penetrative capability at longer ranges compared to those other modern MBTs, even in their higher end tanks - Type 99A and T-90M.

PLA didn't bother with a new tank. What they have with 96A and 99A along with the older versions of those tanks can do the desired job more than well enough. Resources are finite and there are dozens of more important military platforms to put resources into than MBTs... especially in this day and age. This isn't to say tanks are obsolete platforms but certainly the requirement has changed with shifting technology and how wars are waged. Russia for some reason invested into the next gen instead of their airforce and navy. Perhaps that was the correct call for them - strategic weapons and land war systems since land war is far more likely for Russia (considering Russia's military concerns between 1989 and 2022). China DOMINATES over every land neighbour. PLA is a major major force^major force. A Taiwan scenario also makes MBTs and even armoured vehicle systems far further down the important list than strategic weapons, navy, airforce and so on. Armoured vehicles need to be enough to fire their main weapons, move, and resist small arms fire to 30mm and maybe once in a while also larger guns. Far more likely to be facing ATGMs than anything else which makes any potential Taiwan scenario an infantry intensive question.

I don't see PLA hurrying a next gen tank. With Type 15, they have urban and extreme high altitude mobility issues covered, something they apparently wanted with the whole "what can come can't penetrate me and what can penetrate me can't come" sort of strategy behind that program. Overall, Type 99A represents to me something that can take the highest tank or missile dished punishment in pure frontal attacks (India doesn't use Javelin and Javelins actually can be defeated relatively easily by spaced armour, ERA, jamming/electronic means, and there's APS as well) that 96A and 99 against the latest and most capable threats may not be able to. The only reason to bother with a change to the 99 is really this, to improve the protection of 99 series basically with small modernisations and improvements in other areas but mainly to keep up to date with improving anti-tanking over the years. This shows me they are confident in 99A's protection improvement as that can be the only real purpose of developing that platform. More protection is allowable because the propulsion has been improved from <1000hp to 1200hp and then 1500hp for the 98 -> 99A.

Out of Russian tanks, T-90M and Proryv series are really the only ones that can be considered protected... not even well protected. If we consider frontal only, 99A certainly has superior protection unless whatever armour plates the Russians use is just that much better. So very much doubt this. Taking a look at the top of 99A and compare it with 90M. There's nearly 500mm of length difference (remember the 99A is a much larger than than 90M so you're not comparing proportions). Then remember that the forward wedge section of 90M is an empty frame mount like ztz-99 and Leo2A5+ whereas the 99A supposedly has (according to its designers) a modular armour section itself on top of the base armour. ERA on top of this is almost similar in overall performance - FY4 vs Relikt with the Russian one a generation ahead. But no ERA is going to compare with more than 5 tonnes and 500mm of modern armour.

Side armour is a bit of a difficult one. Most side shots angles = easy penetration to the point the rod could penetrate the other side and exit. Really a bit pointless but once you consider slightly angled frontal shots, T-90M has vastly superior protection compared to 99A. Even slight flanks expose the 99A to easy "side" kills even though they're really only slightly angled. It's a choice the PLA made consciously though. This way at least, the 99A can have a good chance withstanding the latest anti-tank rounds from pure frontal when the T-90M hasn't got a chance. And no I really don't think the T-90M has got a chance against latest and greatest anti-tank rounds... not much more than a 96A would... similar weights, similar base armour tech and thickness (actually 96A is thicker since again it places all its armour for pure frontal) and despite 96A having a much inferior ERA, it sort of balances out the fact that 96A has thicker and more armour for frontal shots than 90M.
 
Last edited:

Chavez

Junior Member
Registered Member
Likely a pointing at tungsten penetrator,a depleted uranium round with same L: D.probably will get 780mm penetration at 2km down range,
 
Top