New Type98/99 MBT thread

Discussion in 'Army' started by Dongfeng, Nov 10, 2005.

  1. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,360
    Likes Received:
    10,698
    Noise factor is overstated. You would have to be deaf not to hear a MBT for miles.
    Infact Abrams gas turbine is rather quiet for a tank which is like saying a death metal band is rather mellow.

    The issue with gas turbines is also more a product of the time. T80 was one of the first of the Gas turbine tanks a rarity yes. But when you compare but as that engine type as advanced fuel economy gets better.
    The Russians just never really updated the power pack. And the Ukraine never gave the GT a chance. Compounding this is that as time as progressed more armor kits entered service but no power pack upgrades. Until what really killed T80 when the maker fell apart in the new economy. An APU wouldn't have hurt either.
    T80U gets over blamed as a failure really the issues were The Russian Army was tank crazy with a half dozen types in service so when they were needed they couldn't get the right ERA.
    Otherwise it's was an age issue.
    However what black eagle offered was a Long New gun with unitary ammo. Truth is that it was never built but was trailing elements of the system. The bustle rack needed because of the ammo.
    you can have the best tank in the world but if you don't know or bother to employ it properly it's a hunk of junk.
    Besides two fallacys here
    1) not every hit to the back of a Bustle rack tank hits the magazine.
    Sorry but a casual hit is just as likely to destroy a back pack or tool box. Like on Type 99 and Russian tanks you have other things stored in the bustle area that don't go boom. Remember at the end of the Iraq invasion American forces commenced "Thunder runs" where tanks like Abrams tore though Baghdad as a show of power. As they did so they came under attack with everything the Iraqis had left. Most of the tanks came back operational despite large amounts of equipment set a blaze.
    During one run an Abrams was disabled but not because of the ammo storage but because an RPG nailed a fuel cell and started an engine fire.
    You also have slat armor back there to. Chances of actually nailing the magazine are not as good as it might seem.
    2) is that a tank like a Type 99 would be operational from a hit like that. Reality is that's still the thinner armor of the tank turret. Again assuming that they don't kill something useless like the snorkel or hit the extra fuel drums there is still a chance of nailing the actual back of the turret in a soft spot which would likely penetrate possibly kill the turret crew but very likely start a fire a fire inside the turret that is sitting on a powder keg.
    Of course it's just as likely to hit the power pack which is a kill for that tank.
     
    #2671 TerraN_EmpirE, Feb 6, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  2. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,360
    Likes Received:
    10,698
    Now I said before and I Still hold to it that the reason the PLA kept the caoucel loader is they intended to keep the Binary 125mm ammo system. The advantage is its a very compact package for the gun. Unitary ammo like the NATO 120mm smooth bore will not fit in that form of auto loader which is why the NATO tanks with auto loader systems have them bustle mounted.
    Moving to a 140mm is at least in NATO versions even longer ammo (some was binary) This works against the caoucel loader unless again the ammo is multi part. Even then it's starting to scale up to a size that works against a manned turret.
    To give more room for larger ammo the Bustle magazine system is used.
    This is also why the British can't change the Challanger 2 from 120mm Rifled to 120mm smooth bore. The British rifed ammo is binary.. well really trinary. Because the Challanger 2's turret would need to be replaced to accommodate the new longer ammo type vs the multi bin system on the Challanger 2 resulting in basically a Challanger 3.

    Now on the T14 and it's supposed up gun. Back in the 1990s the US Army built and tested the M1 TTB Tank Test Bed. Which featured both a Carousel loader and an unmanned turret. Remember that this used the same gun and Ammo as the stock M1A1 of the time. By removing the crew to the hull the unmanned turret allowed the tanks autoloader to fit the NATO spec 120mm L44 ammo. Where it wouldn't fit in a Soviet style autoloader under a manned turret.
    This is why no one has converted a T72 or T80 variant to 120mm smooth bore. The changes needed basically result in either a new tank or new ammo system.
     
  3. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    914
    @TerraN_EmpirE

    A side hit from another MBT would always be fatal unless great luck is involved. The problem is when Houthis with RPG-7s start blowing up your tanks with turret shots.

    Badly driven tanks? Absolutely. But it highlights that design flaw, just like badly driven T72s highlighted their design flaws.

    ... I never claimed otherwise. The Type 99A obviously went with the 3 man design because 3 guys are easier to protect than 4, and RoF matters less in tank duels. Not to mention, if a 4 man tank would have Type 99A level protection, it would probably weigh 75+ tons and therefore be useless against Vietnam, one of the big potential foes.

    AFAIK China intends to move onto 125mm L60 first. The current one (L52 or L55) has very good kinetic performance and probably classes as the strongest anti armor gun in service with any military. Unless other countries start making thicker armored tanks, or more realistically develop god tier ERA, there's no need for a 140mm+ gun. Such a weapon would have an even lower RoF.

    Information on the next generation of tanks is super scarce. In one way the Type 99A already represents the next generation of tank, at least within it's niche. Hard to say if PLA would procure another design, it would be a bit overkill given that China does not need to use tanks in a lot scenarios.

    My guess is that whatever they make next will have a completely different role compared to 99A. Maybe a tank focused on urban warfare and anti infantry while being part IFV like the Merkava IV for amphibious scenarios?
     
    FishWings likes this.
  4. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,360
    Likes Received:
    10,698
    The Tank is not blowing up the ammo is cooking off. And the blow out panels are what you are seeing. However.
    It’s not th driving its the operations. Single tanks on there own stationary silhouetted against the horizon no infantry support. This is ABJECT STUPIDITY! Any tank in the world Russian, American Chinese European, Japanese, Korean, Israeli I dont’s care who you operate a tank like that it’s only a matter of time before it’s over run and destroyed. They are being used in a manor they were never designed to be and the results speak for themselves.
    Yet again this is cherry picking. 20 tanks were replaced by the US for losses of which only 6 were lost with there crews. Out of over 300 in service.
    Rate of fire is another mistaken argument. Manual human loaders are faster for the first few shots but as it progresses the human loader slows down. Not because he is tired adrenaline is quite the stimulant. It’s because of how the ammo is sorted. A human loader will start with the ready to go rounds but as the fight progresses and more ammo is fired the available ammunition starts moving more and more to remote spaces in the magazine. What an autoloader does is move the ammo to a fixed loading arm. As such unless the magazine is depleted there is always a ready to load round. Where as a human loader starts having to grab more and more hard to reach ammo. But again other things apply here as the chances of needing to fire more than a few tank rounds in a string are rare, as battles lasting hours are very rare. And in the in between the loader will rearrange the ammo.
    Although a 3 man crew may require less than a 4 having a larger tank crew can be advantageous. You have an extra man for watch, an extra set of hands for the grunt work of tank repair and military tasks.
    Vietnam is hardly a big potential foe. A potential yes but only if the PRC is on the offensive.
    :rolleyes:
    It’s a 125mm 50 caliber yes it’s longer than the Russian gun. Armor continues to evolve as does type of protection but the big push now is range. With penetration as the secondary.

    This I agree with. The PLA just invested in this tank adding a new tank type so suddenly seems a reach. They are more likely to try and continue upgrades at least until 2035. That said the Chinese have already doe an exceptionally fast series of upgrades for the Type 99.
     
    Dfangsaur likes this.
  5. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Well the Chinese never had access to the actual T-72s design schematics or something like that. But I think it is highly likely that they had access to a T-72 at some point.
    For one they were suppliers of weapons to Iraq which fielded T-72s. I think it would be highly unlikely if they never had the chance to inspect a T-72.
    Especially considering how much the Type 99's design is similar to that tank. Now given that their prior tank upgrade program was done together with Western countries it is quite likely they used different technologies to reach a similar objective and this can be clearly seen in things like the engine which are not Soviet inspired at all. But actually are Western technology derived. The Chinese 100mm rifled tank guns and their 155mm artillery guns are also Western technology derived. But the smoothbore gun used in the Type 99 is not. It does not even use a NATO gun caliber or ammo type. It might use similar manufacture methods but for practical purposes the design is not the same.
     
  6. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    914
    Why would they bother to use an outdated design for anything but target practice analysis?

    And that’s ignoring the inherent flaky ness of the claim. China also supply arms to Saudi Arabia, maybe they inspected the M1A1 then.

    Please provide proof of such a bold claim. Same for the claim that the 99As design resembles T72 variants. You know, the Type 99 is 10 tons heavier than even the heaviest T72/80 variant (Black Eagle). The armor scheme and hull are completely different, as is the gun subsystem and the engine.

    The only commonality is sharing mode of autoloader and same caliber. You might as well claim Type 90 descends from Leclerc.

    It’s not NATO derived as much as just China derived. Even the Type 89 120mm has difference performance compared to NATO ones.

    Here is a comparison of the ZPT-98 shooting vs 2A46M5:

    Is there a concrete picture of the Type 99A autoloading system? There are some claims that it stores explosives in the bustle and the carousel only contains the front ends of the shells
     
  7. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_90_II.htm

    In the 1980s China obtained a T-72 from Romania in exchange for plasma spray technology.

    Wikipedia claims the Romanians in turn got their T-72s via a purchase from Israel which captured the tanks in 1973. Given that we know there was Israeli/Chinese technical cooperation in that period of time that would not be totally impossible either.

    So no, it is not a licensed copy or even clone of the T-72 but the design was clearly inspired by it.
    Also there are credible rumors about the Chinese having access to an actual T-72.
     
    #2677 gelgoog, Feb 7, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
    N00813 likes this.
  8. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    914
    That was also during the height of Sino Soviet tensions, after the Vietnam war.

    US also got it’s hand on multiple polish T-72s, such purchases are common in order to determine the weakness of enemy platforms.

    Again, there is no commonality in the designs aside from the crew complement, and this could easily have been “inspired” by public data, I.e. Soviet Union used an autoloader to save space, let’s try and build one too.

    It’s like saying it’s a challenger clone just because it has 1000mm+ armor. Or Armata clone because of the anti-KE ERA. That’s all public data. The actual solution looks nothing like any of those tanks, so it is imprudent to assume they have any relationship.

    You still hasn’t answered why the ZPT-98 and 2A46m5 fire completely differently when they’re supposed to be the same gun according to you.

    Or why the chassis, engine, armor scheme and turret are completely different from any T72 model ranging from T72m to T90MS.

    The only point of similarity is the anti KE ERA, sharing caliber and (possibly) similar modes of auto loading.

    At that point, you may as well say the challenger, leopard 2 and Abrams are copies of each other, since they share caliber and means of loading as well. Actually more of a copy since two of them use the same gun.

    You’re better off comparing the Type 96B to T72/90 since they’re actually around same weight category... if anything those might have been more inspired to use in armored charges vs tank on tank like the 99A
     
    #2678 Biscuits, Feb 7, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
    FishWings likes this.
  9. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,360
    Likes Received:
    10,698
    they got that from the Russians.
    they got that from South Africa.

    The Chinese did get access to a Russian tank of that era but not T72. T80. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-80.htm
    This was however around 93.
    The Chinese had been working in the 1980s on an indigenous 120mm smooth bore gun which was used in the Type89. However they seem to have found it wanting and as the 89 entered service.
    The Type 85 II AP tank shown for testing and export with a Chinese 125mm gun and autoloader. My personal suspicionis they got that from South Africa who captured T72 tanks. But just the gun. The South Africans are said to have given the Chinese reports in the effects of 105mm tank guns on T72 and visa versa.

    The Chinese seem to have wanted to study the T80 tank not copy or clone. Type 85 had revised the armor of the Type 80 tank but by 93 The gulf war had proved the weaknesses of Most Russian and Chinese tanks of the era. The West had locked the PRC out of new military tech shares and Russia was desperate for sales.

    Time line is bogus. T72 was just entering Soviet service in 1973 it had has yet to export. I don't recall a Isreali Ruso war so where did they come from?
    The answer is Syria 1982.
    The Romanians bought the T72s as the Russians had rebuffed any military sales to Romania who wanted to build there own T72s. So out of desperation in 1986 they bought from Isreal who delivered in 1987.
    This could work but it places any such sale in a tight window in 83 as the Chinese are said to have evaluated the prototype type 89 gun vs 125mm smoothbore in 84.

    In any event the Type 88IIIM becomes the first of the Type 96 and this is all far before the Type 99.

    The Chinese have to go it alone using bits and pieces of lessons learned and evaluation of these tanks.
    Simply looking over an M1A1 won't tell you how to build it or work it but having one you can take apart and study does.
    The Guns are compatible in ammo. We know that because of the Reflek missile. It's fired by both Russian and Chinese tanks.
    What we have is the same you see with American vs German vs Isreali vs Swiss vs French tanks. All have 120mm smooth bore guns. The ammo is interchangeable.
    Yet despite what is sometimes said. The American M256 is not a Licensed copy of the L44 gun as if it was, the US couldn't licence it to South Korea. The breach, recoil ballance and manufacturing are different.
    Same for the IWI gun it may be a 44 calibers but it's not the same as the American or German guns. The US didn't licence and the Isrealis had there own program going.
    The French Leclerc gun is not the same as the L44 or L55 it's 52 calibers operates and is built unique to the French.
    The Swiss Ruag gun is 48 calibers again unique to them.
    L44 guns still can fire L55 ammo and visa versa.
    Each also makes there own ammo but the rounds could be fired from any of the tanks packing such.
    The Ammo is interchangeable but not identical the gun can fire it but it's operated differently and at different velocities. The reason it's interchangeable is the same as why you can load any NATO rifle with ammo from any of these countries. Standards of ammo.
    ZPT98 may be 50 calibers vs the Russian 41 but they were based on the same standard of ammo. The same standard used in VT4. This was done as the Chinese intended to use it as the basis for export. There top export customer is Pakistan who bought tanks from Russia, Ukraine and China as well as ammo. Having the ability to fire Russian rounds from a Chinese tank is a big selling point.
    But by having such ability the Type 99 autoloader has to be compatible with such. Any tank that loads a Reflek missile has to be compatible with it. That means that the gun has to be able to interface with the missile and the charge has to be of the right size and shape to propel it.
    If it fits Type 99A then it fits Type 99 and Type 96 and T90 and upgraded T80U and T72.
     
    N00813 likes this.
  10. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,360
    Likes Received:
    10,698
    Correction D81-TM is 48 calibers
    The T14 introduced a new gun with a length between 51-55 calibers.
     
Loading...

Share This Page