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:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    10,276
    An excellent analogy.
    The Warhorse in combat was a fine but only for battle. But requirements of feed and support of the knight demanded a logistical train. The same is true of modern combat systems.
     
  2. 2=GT
    Offline

    2=GT Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    1,148
  3. Actual Decepticon
    Offline

    Actual Decepticon Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2019
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Raw data:
    A serious, 'mainline' roadway bridge: N-30/NK-80/NG-60
    The secondary roadway bridges: N-18/NK-80/NG-60
    Tertiary bridges: N-13, N-10 or N-8/NG-30 or NG-60; depending on the bridge.

    Explanation:
    N, NK, NG — classes of the standard loads, such as a tank, a column of trucks, a mob of people; measured in metric tonnes(number, e.g. N-30 means 30-tonne class bridge);
    N — baseline load, or a full mass of a single vehicle crossing the bridge as part of the column(!). Put simply, your bridge is 4-lane N-18? That means four lanes worth of trucks, the mass of individual truck should not exceed the limit of 18 tonnes.
    NG — tracked load, a limit of mass of a single tracked vehicle crossing the bridge at a time.
    NK — wheeled load; the same as NG, only for wheeled vehicles.

    It should be noted that it might be perfectly possible to cross a particular e.g. N-10 bridge even for the overweight mutants like Abrams or Leo-2 in a given case. However, if the bridge is not certified to support such loads, in practice that will instantly generate additional demand for engineering support(the bridge must be checked by specialists, lest it might get damaged, partially collapse or even fold under the tracks) and inevitably hinder the manouever, because crossing would be slower than usual, up to and including the possible necessity of having to cross it under the 'one bridge, one tank at one time' crippling limitations. You sure as hell do NOT want any of that, provided you're not criminally suicidal.

    P.S. The written above is valid for all ex-Soviet republics.
     
    mys_721tx and KIENCHIN like this.
  4. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    10,276
    I find that humorous as Early iterations of the Abrams and Leopard 2 weighed as much as The latest T90 and Type 99A do today and they weigh less than the World War 2 Tiger. Abrams today in its latest iteration is almost equal to a King Tiger of that war.
    Russian tank fans love to paint Abrams and Leopard 2 as something far heavier than they are.
     
  5. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    676
    I would also put it here that even autoloading tanks are already starting to hit the 60 ton mark, with the K2 Black Panther clocking in at 61 tons, at this rate, tanks like the T-90 are going to look pretty ligthweight in comparison.
     
    TerraN_EmpirE likes this.
  6. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    10,276
    The latest T90 weighs the same as the Japanese Type 10 tank, and both are a little heavier that a World War 2 Panther about 50-52 tons.

    the Weight of the armor set by the area needed to be covered, the weight of the fuel set by the range and demand, the weight of the automotive parts, the weight of the weapons. The weight of the optics and sensors, the weight of the magazines and ammo.

    The Machinery is not light weight. People assume that that an autoloader is lighter. Reality is that automatic loading machines are about a ton of extra weight compared to a less than 200 pound tanker. What happens is that you create a smaller protected space by installing the autoloader.
    That space being because instead of needing not just a station for the tanker to sit also space for him to shift around pull a round and leverage it into the tube. That demands a larger open space and in turn more armor around it.

    The gun of your average MBT is about 4-5 tons.
    The engine is about another 2-3 tons. Add in transmission and APU and it can hit 6 tons for the power pack alone.
    Even the individual shoes of the track band have weight that all gets tallied.
    And this is all before the armor. Once you add on the armor and then additional armor it gets heavy very quickly.
    ERA tiles are used as a cheat on many tanks a way to keep the vehicle’s armor light yet still be able to take a hit. That is why Russian tanks are covered in the stuff. Western tanks like Abrams often only add ERA to the sides and weaker points on the armor. ERA isn’t light or cheap though and those tanks that rely on it suffer when lacking it. The T80U in the Chechen war proved that.

    When you consider how much protection modern tanks have vs their forebears yet weigh almost the same it’s actually pretty remarkable how lightweight they are. That we can still compare their weight to machines from 75-76 years ago. I mean no modern tank has anywhere near the weight of the Maus. The difference between Type 10 and M1A2C is 20 tons. From the latest Abrams to that monster is 110 tons.
    So Overweight Mutant? Dude. Modern MBT weight is the same as late WW2 tanks weight.
     
  7. Rowdyhorse4
    Offline

    Rowdyhorse4 Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2018
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does the 99 not have Gun - Optic Independent stabilizer? from the video, the Gunner sight moves with the gun instead of having independent stabilization and movement like in most modern MBTs?

    upload_2019-7-8_11-18-47.png

    Image crop from a gif of a 99 in action from https://twitter.com/gran_gelli/status/1147773809715380224
     
  8. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,489
    Likes Received:
    25,789
    They certainly have here is the reference
    https://www.army-technology.com/projects/type99chinese-main/
    It is also called the Type 99 and the Chinese industrial code isWZ123. ... A Russian 125mm gun with autoloader built in 1990 was the earliest known prototype called .... Dual axis stabilization helps in firing effectively while the tank is in motion.
    See it is firing while on the move. Even type 96 has stabilized gun
     
    SteelBird likes this.
  9. Rowdyhorse4
    Offline

    Rowdyhorse4 Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2018
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    that wasn't my question and the video doesn't show me anything new XD

    i'm asking about Gunner sight - Gun Independent stabilization.... the video i linked showed that the gunner sight and Gun isn't independent of each other meaning if there is any changes in gun elevation, the gunner will need to re position its head which can be uncomfortable.... a lot of tanks have gunner sight - Gun Independent stabilization so whilst moving the gun periscope is still stable and the gunner doesn't need to readjust his neck everytime the gun elevates.....
     
  10. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    10,276
    Well Type 99 shouldn’t have that much of a elevation and depression because of the turret hight and gun mount as well as autoloader generally between-4 and -6/+12. So fairly small amount of movement. Compared to an Abram with -9/+20. So that should give you an idea of why the Type 99 design might skip a fixed gunners bore sight.
     
Loading...

Share This Page