New Type98/99 MBT thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

To be more exact, the general side turret base armour profile is substantually better armoured than the ones of its contemporaries like the Leo2s or the Type-90.
Ofcourse an APFSDS Round hitting an Abrams from the side will pen that, but when you hit the turret side from a very shallow angle your chances of penetrating are slimmer than those of a Leo2A4 or Type-90.

This should give you an Idea of the Armor design of a tank with a Bustle mounted rack/autoloader. this is the K2 and you can see the "Box" where the Autoloader fits. now the K2 auto loader like that on the Leclarc is only able to hold part of the ammo of the Tank 16 rounds with 24 in the hull. Of the Western Tanks with autoloaders the Type 90 from Japan has the largest capacity in the loader 20 rounds. There were concepts for a Abrams Auto loader with 36 rounds trailed on the Component Advanced Technology Test Bed but they never entered production.
The Main goal and proven is that yes if you can pierce the Bustle rack it's easier to do and the ammo will go. but generally the Crew will have more time to escape or a better chance to live through the event.
The Carousel loader's greatest advantage is also it's key failure point. The System uses the Tanks hull armor for it's protection but that demands that the system is inside the fighting compartment. From armor penetration to a fire in the tank the crew is sitting on a literal powder keg. This and the Unitary ammo is why when the US looked at a Carousel loader in the TTB it was under a unmanned turret.
There is also the ability to repair and replace the Loader and rack if it has been opened. If the loader on a T72 is broken you have to remove the turret for repair or replacement. If a tank with a Bustle loader or rack has a problem it comes right out of the turret.

 

[Gloire_bb]

To be more exact, the general side turret base armour profile is substantually better armoured than the ones of its contemporaries like the Leo2s or the Type-90.

Leopard turret sides are "heavy" too. So a Leclerc and Challenger 2.

 

[SteelBird]

Has anyone seen this photo before? It is said to be the "self destruction" button at commander's seat on the VT-4 of Royal Thai Army.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

self destruction

Wait What?!! I can only imagine that this is not for the Tank but for programming high explosive air burst rounds.

 

[SteelBird]

Wait What?!! I can only imagine that this is not for the Tank but for programming high explosive air burst rounds.

Ah, I should said it more clearly. the "self destruction" is mean to destroy the computer's data only, not the whole tank. but I'm not sure this is true or not.

 

[by78]

Has anyone seen this photo before? It is said to be the "self destruction" button at commander's seat on the VT-4 of Royal Thai Army.

Probably to destroy the onboard electronics, thereby rendering the tank unusable to adversaries and to wipe whatever sensitive data that might be stored onboard, especially data in the battlefield management system.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Although possible... I am not sold. Generally modern tanks are complex and require training to operate. Of course in light of Iraq and Syria I could see some potential want of a "kill switch". But from a practical standpoint I am not sure how well it would workout.

 

[plawolf]

Even if they designed in such a feature, you would not place it there on the main control panel.

At the minimum you would want big a red button all by itself with a flip up cap protector to prevent accidental employment.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Has anyone seen this photo before? It is said to be the "self destruction" button at commander's seat on the VT-4 of Royal Thai Army.

Better than pouring hot coffee into electronics & subcomponents like what US airmen did at Hainan in 2001, at least.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Even if they designed in such a feature, you would not place it there on the main control panel.

At the minimum you would want big a red button all by itself with a flip up cap protector to prevent accidental employment.

I think it has to be in the Computer interface although I do agree that you don't want it to be to easily confused for part of the fire control.
I would think a Key would be a better option something that the crew has to intentionally want to use and not a object that would be mistaken for something else. Because the VT4 and the ZTZ99A and A2 series fit in the "Advanced Third Generation Main battle Tank" It's systems are more reliant and integrated with computer systems compared to older vehicles. As Such If you can wipe the hard drive or lock the OS the Tank is dead. This differs compared to previous generations of MBT's.
I mean A First Gen MBT like say Type 59 is just a modification of a Tank dating back to the last days of World war 2. The Type 59 was production of a T54/55 which was a enlarged modification of the T44 which entered service in November 1944 ( didn't seen combat in WW2 by the Way. It was just being introduced. )
You jump to the second Gen like the T72 And more of the systems were electrical but the Optics and Fire control are still more analog. A captured model could be operated so long as as you had some electrical know how.