MwRYum
Major
Like everywhere else, by draw lot or assignment, everybody got to play OP-FOR (or "targets") sometime or the other.
PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
by78
General
Take this with a grain of salt.
This is an account of an alleged lecture given by the chief designer of Type-99a, Mr. Mao Ming (毛明). The context of the lecture (where, when, and to whom) is not known. It's not entirely clear that the lecturer in the photos is Mr. Mao Ming himself, given the poor lighting.
Certain claims made are suspect and surprising to me, and most specifications have been redacted by the poster.
The original link to the post is . The CJDBY thread on the lecture is .
Photos of the lecture taken by a different individual:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original summary of the lecture in Chinese:
1、替代ZBD05的新一代两栖战车基本搞定，水上速度50KM/H。
2、99A配备弹种里有攻坚弹，考虑的是对台军事斗争准备。
3、装备的炮射导弹对武装直升机有较大威胁。
4、顶部防御XXX毫米RHA，免疫所有现役末敏弹。正面抗穿7XX毫米RHA、抗破1XXX毫米RHA，能在正常交战距离上防御所有现役坦克和反坦克导弹。
5、火控观瞄方面，猎歼、车长周视热像、稳像、自动校炮、毫米波雷达、自动选弹等等，总之该有的全有。
6、发动机各项指标全面超越MTU同类产品，发动机寿命500小时VSMTU的近千小时略有不足，但完全满足我军实际使用需要。
7、99A产量已超过99。
8、99B在研，作为特化地域攻坚和城市战的型号，主要考虑的是一带一路铺开之后的军事需求。
9、T-14阿玛塔和日本的TK10式是什么垃圾！
10、没有考虑过升级口径，130/140/152都没有考虑过，因为对火力有绝对自信，目前炮口动能能达到1XMJ，很快能达到接近20MJ，对近期可能升级的对手毫无压力。
——————更新的分割线——————
看了大家的回复，补充一些内容吧。
1、关于T-14和10式是垃圾：
毛明总师的原话:
“T-14说是要提升人员生存，把乘员全部塞到车身里搞了个无人炮塔，但全车高达2.8米，搞得高高大大的，反而极大影响了生存能力。” “我们正常的坦克发动机是V型的，T-14的坦克发动机是X型的，就导致了车高根本控制不住。” “我们的99A、美国M1A2SEP和日本的TK10式都声称能够接入数字化机步师体系作战，但是现在世界上只有美国和我们搞了数字化机步师，美国最先，我们是第二家……” “日本的TK10式啊，你们可能很少看到，因为可靠性太差了，动不动就掉履带。” “T-14说是用了很多创新设计，但是无论是火力防护还是机动都不怎么样，不足为虑。”
2、关于防御，用词是这样的，大家自己琢磨：
“防御能力，抗穿7XX毫米RHA、抗破1XXX毫米RHA以上”
“我们拿能打穿一米二钢板的反坦克导弹做过试验，根本打不穿。”
“抗破肯定远超一米二，不过还达不到两米。我们今年最新定型的反坦克导弹，破甲深度就有两米，这个99A还是防不住的。”
3、不用等原版了。现场不知道哪个臭小子拍了视频上网流传，现在有人满世界在找他去喝茶。我也拍了照片但想了想还是不发了。
另外，本内容为删减版，如果你觉得这样就算红裤衩那就太年轻了。
关于装甲防御机理/新弹芯材质/火炮精度等内容，因为可能会被喝茶，就不放了，比现在放出来的内容更刺激。
再有就是，我以前对附加装甲是NERA的猜测是错的，实际情况比我猜的刺激一百倍，在这里跟大家道歉
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My translation (with my annotations and comments highlighted in red):
Began translation:
1. The replacement of the ZBD05 amphibious IFV will have a waterborne speed of 50km/hour (31.07mph).
2. Type-99A is equipped with 攻坚弹 (anti-reinforced-concrete/bunker busting round?), specifically for the invasion of Taiwan.
3. Type-99a is equipped with gun-launched anti-air missiles against helicopters.
4. Type-99a's protection against top-attack munitions is xxx mm (triple-digit mm) RHA, which is immune to all existing top-attack bomblets. Frontal protection against "穿" (penetration?) is 7xx mm (700+ mm) RHA, and against "破" (broken/shatter?) is 1xxx mm (1000+ mm) RHA, good enough to defeat all existing anti-tank rounds and anti-tank missiles at combat distance. (I'm not entirely sure about the technical difference between "抗穿" and "抗破". Could please someone help me with this?).
5. Type-99a is quipped with all the usual features: advanced fire-control, hunter-killer capability, commander's stabilized sights with thermal imaging, automatic/integrated bore-sighting device, milli-wave ballistic radar, automatic ammo-selection, etc.
6. Performance parameters of Type-99a's powerpack surpasses German MTU and equivalents, however the lifespan of the engine is 500 hours (?!) vs 1000 hours (?!) of the MTU, but still good enough to meet our practical needs. (Are those typos? 500 and 1000 hours are way too short.)
7. Type-99a has been produced in greater numbers than its predecessor, the Type-99.
8. Work has begun on the Type-99B, which is tailored toward assaulting 'special fortified terrains/areas and urban warfare. The main consideration here is the possible future needs that might arise once China's One-Belt, One-Road (OBOR) project is finished. (Interesting...)
9. The Russian T-14 Armata and the Japanese Type-10 are "garbage" (Unsure if the word "garbage" was actually used by the lecturer or merely represents the poster's sentiment.)
10. We have not considered larger caliber guns, whether they be 130mm, 140mm, or 152mm in diameter. The reason is that we are confident of the firepower of our guns. We have already achieved muzzle energy of 1x mega-joules (10+ mega-joules) with our existing tank guns, and soon we will achieve close to 20 mega-joules.
Supplementary material (provided by the original poster) for clarification purposes:
1. On why T-14 and Type-10 tanks are "garbage":
According to Mr. Mao Ping, "the Russians claim that T-14 has improved crew protection due to its unmanned turret and a separate armored crew compartment, but they ended up with a very large hull, with a height of 2.8 meters. This very large hull size has compromised its survivability." "T-14's engine cylinders are arranged in an X-pattern, as opposed to the V-pattern of our own tank engines. This X-pattern has resulted in a higher center of gravity and compromised T-14's controllability (mobility and maneuverability?)." "Our Type-99a, the American M1A2SEP, and the Japanese Type-10 are all claimed to feature a digital battlefield management system that integrates armor elements with mechanized infantry, but only America and China have actually fielded fully-digitized infantry divisions. America is the first to have done it, and China is the second." (I think what is implied here is that Type-10's digital battlefield management system lacks the ability to communicate with the infantry because Japanese infantries have not been digitized. Only America and China have achieved an all-emcompassing digital battlefield management system that integrates all participants, including individual soldiers, into the system). "The Japanese Type-10 is rarely seen. This is because it has very poor reliability; the threads easily come off during maneuver." "As for T-14, despite its claimed innovations, its firepower, protection, and maneuverability are unimpressive; it's no worry for us."
2. Regarding the armor protection level (of Type-99a):
"We tested an anti-tank missile that can penetrate 1200mm RHA on the Type-99a, the armor held up." (The poster didn't specify the tested armored area. Was it the frontal turret armor? Glacis armor? Side armor? I think the area in question is likely the frontal turret armor.)
"Therefore, the protection level far exceeds 1200mm RHA, but is less than 2000mm RHA. Our newest anti-tank missile, whose design was frozen (certified?) this year, can penetrate 2000mm RHA. Type-99a cannot defend against this new missile."
3. Don't hold your breath on a full account of this lecture or any official confirmation (meaning the lecture was top-secret). Somebody else at the lecture took some pictures (I have shared them above) and posted them on the internet. The authorities are now looking for him. I took some photos as well, but after careful consideration, I will not share them.
Also, this summary is an abridged version of the lecture.
The lecture also covered other areas such as the mechanics (methods and laws?) of armor protection, a new penetrator material, and gun accuracy. These areas are more exciting than what I have shared with you here, but I won't reveal them because I don't want to be invited to tea (hauled in by the authorities).
One last thing, I thought the add-on armor modules of (Type-99a?) were NERA (non-energetic reactive armor). I was mistaken. The actual composition of the add-on modules is far more exciting, and I apologize for not revealing it here.
End translation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, I try to be as accurate and faithful as possible in my translations. However, due to my very limited knowledge of Chinese, mistakes are unavoidable. Please help me (@jobjed @Bltizo @latenlazy) by pointing out any inaccuracies and errors.
Any thoughts and comments? Is this credible?
This is an account of an alleged lecture given by the chief designer of Type-99a, Mr. Mao Ming (毛明). The context of the lecture (where, when, and to whom) is not known. It's not entirely clear that the lecturer in the photos is Mr. Mao Ming himself, given the poor lighting.
Certain claims made are suspect and surprising to me, and most specifications have been redacted by the poster.
The original link to the post is . The CJDBY thread on the lecture is .
Photos of the lecture taken by a different individual:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original summary of the lecture in Chinese:
1、替代ZBD05的新一代两栖战车基本搞定，水上速度50KM/H。
2、99A配备弹种里有攻坚弹，考虑的是对台军事斗争准备。
3、装备的炮射导弹对武装直升机有较大威胁。
4、顶部防御XXX毫米RHA，免疫所有现役末敏弹。正面抗穿7XX毫米RHA、抗破1XXX毫米RHA，能在正常交战距离上防御所有现役坦克和反坦克导弹。
5、火控观瞄方面，猎歼、车长周视热像、稳像、自动校炮、毫米波雷达、自动选弹等等，总之该有的全有。
6、发动机各项指标全面超越MTU同类产品，发动机寿命500小时VSMTU的近千小时略有不足，但完全满足我军实际使用需要。
7、99A产量已超过99。
8、99B在研，作为特化地域攻坚和城市战的型号，主要考虑的是一带一路铺开之后的军事需求。
9、T-14阿玛塔和日本的TK10式是什么垃圾！
10、没有考虑过升级口径，130/140/152都没有考虑过，因为对火力有绝对自信，目前炮口动能能达到1XMJ，很快能达到接近20MJ，对近期可能升级的对手毫无压力。
——————更新的分割线——————
看了大家的回复，补充一些内容吧。
1、关于T-14和10式是垃圾：
毛明总师的原话:
“T-14说是要提升人员生存，把乘员全部塞到车身里搞了个无人炮塔，但全车高达2.8米，搞得高高大大的，反而极大影响了生存能力。” “我们正常的坦克发动机是V型的，T-14的坦克发动机是X型的，就导致了车高根本控制不住。” “我们的99A、美国M1A2SEP和日本的TK10式都声称能够接入数字化机步师体系作战，但是现在世界上只有美国和我们搞了数字化机步师，美国最先，我们是第二家……” “日本的TK10式啊，你们可能很少看到，因为可靠性太差了，动不动就掉履带。” “T-14说是用了很多创新设计，但是无论是火力防护还是机动都不怎么样，不足为虑。”
2、关于防御，用词是这样的，大家自己琢磨：
“防御能力，抗穿7XX毫米RHA、抗破1XXX毫米RHA以上”
“我们拿能打穿一米二钢板的反坦克导弹做过试验，根本打不穿。”
“抗破肯定远超一米二，不过还达不到两米。我们今年最新定型的反坦克导弹，破甲深度就有两米，这个99A还是防不住的。”
3、不用等原版了。现场不知道哪个臭小子拍了视频上网流传，现在有人满世界在找他去喝茶。我也拍了照片但想了想还是不发了。
另外，本内容为删减版，如果你觉得这样就算红裤衩那就太年轻了。
关于装甲防御机理/新弹芯材质/火炮精度等内容，因为可能会被喝茶，就不放了，比现在放出来的内容更刺激。
再有就是，我以前对附加装甲是NERA的猜测是错的，实际情况比我猜的刺激一百倍，在这里跟大家道歉
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My translation (with my annotations and comments highlighted in red):
Began translation:
1. The replacement of the ZBD05 amphibious IFV will have a waterborne speed of 50km/hour (31.07mph).
2. Type-99A is equipped with 攻坚弹 (anti-reinforced-concrete/bunker busting round?), specifically for the invasion of Taiwan.
3. Type-99a is equipped with gun-launched anti-air missiles against helicopters.
4. Type-99a's protection against top-attack munitions is xxx mm (triple-digit mm) RHA, which is immune to all existing top-attack bomblets. Frontal protection against "穿" (penetration?) is 7xx mm (700+ mm) RHA, and against "破" (broken/shatter?) is 1xxx mm (1000+ mm) RHA, good enough to defeat all existing anti-tank rounds and anti-tank missiles at combat distance. (I'm not entirely sure about the technical difference between "抗穿" and "抗破". Could please someone help me with this?).
5. Type-99a is quipped with all the usual features: advanced fire-control, hunter-killer capability, commander's stabilized sights with thermal imaging, automatic/integrated bore-sighting device, milli-wave ballistic radar, automatic ammo-selection, etc.
6. Performance parameters of Type-99a's powerpack surpasses German MTU and equivalents, however the lifespan of the engine is 500 hours (?!) vs 1000 hours (?!) of the MTU, but still good enough to meet our practical needs. (Are those typos? 500 and 1000 hours are way too short.)
7. Type-99a has been produced in greater numbers than its predecessor, the Type-99.
8. Work has begun on the Type-99B, which is tailored toward assaulting 'special fortified terrains/areas and urban warfare. The main consideration here is the possible future needs that might arise once China's One-Belt, One-Road (OBOR) project is finished. (Interesting...)
9. The Russian T-14 Armata and the Japanese Type-10 are "garbage" (Unsure if the word "garbage" was actually used by the lecturer or merely represents the poster's sentiment.)
10. We have not considered larger caliber guns, whether they be 130mm, 140mm, or 152mm in diameter. The reason is that we are confident of the firepower of our guns. We have already achieved muzzle energy of 1x mega-joules (10+ mega-joules) with our existing tank guns, and soon we will achieve close to 20 mega-joules.
Supplementary material (provided by the original poster) for clarification purposes:
1. On why T-14 and Type-10 tanks are "garbage":
According to Mr. Mao Ping, "the Russians claim that T-14 has improved crew protection due to its unmanned turret and a separate armored crew compartment, but they ended up with a very large hull, with a height of 2.8 meters. This very large hull size has compromised its survivability." "T-14's engine cylinders are arranged in an X-pattern, as opposed to the V-pattern of our own tank engines. This X-pattern has resulted in a higher center of gravity and compromised T-14's controllability (mobility and maneuverability?)." "Our Type-99a, the American M1A2SEP, and the Japanese Type-10 are all claimed to feature a digital battlefield management system that integrates armor elements with mechanized infantry, but only America and China have actually fielded fully-digitized infantry divisions. America is the first to have done it, and China is the second." (I think what is implied here is that Type-10's digital battlefield management system lacks the ability to communicate with the infantry because Japanese infantries have not been digitized. Only America and China have achieved an all-emcompassing digital battlefield management system that integrates all participants, including individual soldiers, into the system). "The Japanese Type-10 is rarely seen. This is because it has very poor reliability; the threads easily come off during maneuver." "As for T-14, despite its claimed innovations, its firepower, protection, and maneuverability are unimpressive; it's no worry for us."
2. Regarding the armor protection level (of Type-99a):
"We tested an anti-tank missile that can penetrate 1200mm RHA on the Type-99a, the armor held up." (The poster didn't specify the tested armored area. Was it the frontal turret armor? Glacis armor? Side armor? I think the area in question is likely the frontal turret armor.)
"Therefore, the protection level far exceeds 1200mm RHA, but is less than 2000mm RHA. Our newest anti-tank missile, whose design was frozen (certified?) this year, can penetrate 2000mm RHA. Type-99a cannot defend against this new missile."
3. Don't hold your breath on a full account of this lecture or any official confirmation (meaning the lecture was top-secret). Somebody else at the lecture took some pictures (I have shared them above) and posted them on the internet. The authorities are now looking for him. I took some photos as well, but after careful consideration, I will not share them.
Also, this summary is an abridged version of the lecture.
The lecture also covered other areas such as the mechanics (methods and laws?) of armor protection, a new penetrator material, and gun accuracy. These areas are more exciting than what I have shared with you here, but I won't reveal them because I don't want to be invited to tea (hauled in by the authorities).
One last thing, I thought the add-on armor modules of (Type-99a?) were NERA (non-energetic reactive armor). I was mistaken. The actual composition of the add-on modules is far more exciting, and I apologize for not revealing it here.
End translation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, I try to be as accurate and faithful as possible in my translations. However, due to my very limited knowledge of Chinese, mistakes are unavoidable. Please help me (@jobjed @Bltizo @latenlazy) by pointing out any inaccuracies and errors.
Any thoughts and comments? Is this credible?
Last edited:
You've done a pretty good job already, I'll just top up where I can.
He doesn't mention a dedicated anti-helicopter missile, only the current gun-launched missiles already pose a grave threat to helicopters implying that the 99A's FCS can be configured for anti-air using missiles.
The 'bomblets' denote top-attack submunitions like SADARM. They fire a molten jet towards the weak top armour of armoured vehicles while parachuting down. If 99A's top armour is tailored to withstand all such weapons, it would eliminate a huge vulnerability of the PLA's combined-arms assaults.
The 99A's frontal armour can withstand APFSDS rounds with a RHA-equivalent penetration of >700mm, and HEAT rounds with a penetration of >1000mm. However, as mentioned below, the anti-HEAT value is actually above 1200mm but below 2000mm.
I'm pretty sure I've read from an insider or a friend of an insider that the 99A design team had considered a larger-calibre gun but ultimately settled for 125mm as the larger one was considered overkill. The current article says that there is no consideration for upgrading to larger-calibre guns but doesn't preclude prior consideration during the design phase.
The phrasing of the T-14's "uncontrollability" conveyed that its height could not be controlled, not that its driving characteristics were compromised. There also wasn't mention of centre of gravity.
The adverse effect that the T-14's height had on its survivability manifests as conspicuousness which attracts a lot more fire. First-hand accounts from NATO soldiers testify to the difficulties of hitting Soviet-pattern low-silhouette tanks during combat training so maintaining a low profile has real, tangible effects in real life, not just a theoretical benefit. The T-14, being so tall, is much more noticeable and and easier to hit than its predecessors.
I'm not entirely sure how to read his comment on the JGSDF's lack of networked combined-arms units. However, given that the JGSDF is mentioned to not have networked units at all and not just lacking networked tank units, I'd assume this was a comment on the JGSDF's systemic inadequacies, and not related to the Type 10 in particular. In other words, it's probably more a statement of "yeah, their tank is technically capable of network connectivity matching our tank but their military isn't even making use of the capability so the point is moot."
2000mm RHA-equivalent penetration sounds like a very heavy ATGM, possibly the AFT-10. I can't think of any other recent missile made public that is big enough to possess those performance figures. It doesn't rule out the possibility of a classified missile, though.
Goddammit, now I really wanna know what was said in the rest of the lecture. I guess the existing leak is similar to the 2008 Red Flag leak where the USAF pilot goes into classified detail on the performances of various aircraft.
Thanks for sharing and your translation skills aren't bad at all.
He doesn't mention a dedicated anti-helicopter missile, only the current gun-launched missiles already pose a grave threat to helicopters implying that the 99A's FCS can be configured for anti-air using missiles.
The 'bomblets' denote top-attack submunitions like SADARM. They fire a molten jet towards the weak top armour of armoured vehicles while parachuting down. If 99A's top armour is tailored to withstand all such weapons, it would eliminate a huge vulnerability of the PLA's combined-arms assaults.
The 99A's frontal armour can withstand APFSDS rounds with a RHA-equivalent penetration of >700mm, and HEAT rounds with a penetration of >1000mm. However, as mentioned below, the anti-HEAT value is actually above 1200mm but below 2000mm.
I think those are MTBO figures, not total life expectancy. I can't find anything online for life expectancy of the MTU 870 but other diesel engines seem to last ~5000-10,000 hours in total so I'd be surprised if the 870 had to be written off after only 1000 hours of use.
This claim is highly suspect. Currently identified units sporting the ZTZ-99A are the 112th Division and 62nd Brigade, the former with 93 vehicles and the latter with 62-80 vehicles, totalling 155-173 vehicles. The original ZTZ-99 including both 99-1 and 99-2 total some ~500 vehicles across 16 battalions so it's unlikely that the 99A's production figures have surpassed the original 99. What he might've meant is that existing orders from the PLA already outnumber the existing numbers of 99s so it's inevitable that the 99A will eventually number more.
For all the time we've been noting the PLA's lack of interest in MOUT accessories, this might be the tank to finally demonstrate the PLA's willingness to fork out the $$ for bells and whistles like ultra-thick side-skirts, RWS, APS, etc.
I'm pretty sure I've read from an insider or a friend of an insider that the 99A design team had considered a larger-calibre gun but ultimately settled for 125mm as the larger one was considered overkill. The current article says that there is no consideration for upgrading to larger-calibre guns but doesn't preclude prior consideration during the design phase.
The phrasing of the T-14's "uncontrollability" conveyed that its height could not be controlled, not that its driving characteristics were compromised. There also wasn't mention of centre of gravity.
The adverse effect that the T-14's height had on its survivability manifests as conspicuousness which attracts a lot more fire. First-hand accounts from NATO soldiers testify to the difficulties of hitting Soviet-pattern low-silhouette tanks during combat training so maintaining a low profile has real, tangible effects in real life, not just a theoretical benefit. The T-14, being so tall, is much more noticeable and and easier to hit than its predecessors.
I'm not entirely sure how to read his comment on the JGSDF's lack of networked combined-arms units. However, given that the JGSDF is mentioned to not have networked units at all and not just lacking networked tank units, I'd assume this was a comment on the JGSDF's systemic inadequacies, and not related to the Type 10 in particular. In other words, it's probably more a statement of "yeah, their tank is technically capable of network connectivity matching our tank but their military isn't even making use of the capability so the point is moot."
2000mm RHA-equivalent penetration sounds like a very heavy ATGM, possibly the AFT-10. I can't think of any other recent missile made public that is big enough to possess those performance figures. It doesn't rule out the possibility of a classified missile, though.
Goddammit, now I really wanna know what was said in the rest of the lecture. I guess the existing leak is similar to the 2008 Red Flag leak where the USAF pilot goes into classified detail on the performances of various aircraft.
Thanks for sharing and your translation skills aren't bad at all.
by78
General
Thank you. That was very thorough!
SinoSoldier
Colonel
I kind of wish they would do away with all ZTZ-99 variants and build a scaled-up variant of the VT5. No amount of armor enhancements will make up for that extremely poorly-designed side armor cheek and the "explosive nature" of the ammo carousel, not to mention that their ERA add-ons are of dubious quality/design as well.
Skywatcher
Captain
I wonder if they said anything about the hybrid/all electric 4th generation tank?
125mm gun is adequate, I wonder if that's referring to the hi velocity AT gun that popped up back in spring 2015?
125mm gun is adequate, I wonder if that's referring to the hi velocity AT gun that popped up back in spring 2015?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
considering the current model is supposed to make 45km/h water speed that seems a conservative update. Still given the light weight of the ZBD series I wonder if Speed is not the problem they should address.
Both the US (M830A1 MPAT), NATO DM12 And Israelis have such rounds. They are high explosive types that clear barriers. They are also currently intended to be replaced by a general purpose programmable round
no shock there, the Kobra, Refleks and LAHAT missiles are capable of taking out low flying aircraft as well. HEAT rounds can also take out choppers. but it's a limited capability.
This seems a bit of a stretch.
about the norm. Although that would mean a very heavy weight, RHA is likley used as a Equivalent measure and we are talking about the PRC composite armor not the actual armor in RHA
Just a wild guess but bone shatter perhaps bone splinter or rather armor splinter like a HESH High Explosive Squash Head munitions like those used by the British, These impact the Tank and deform the warhead across the armor before detonating, the Explosive energy is then driven through the armor into the Interior of the tank where the armor of the tank would break becoming spall or fragments of sharp metal that would fly through the fighting compartment and the crew.
I am not sure about existing, Fielded or known performance is probably a better phrasing. most of the data released on such is filtered and actual performance data tends to be classified.
WAAAYYY TO SHORT.
perhaps they mean time between repairs. At least that's my hope. Gas Turbine Engines are known for having high life cycles between repairs and maintenance, Turbo diesels though considered more fuel efficient demand more Tender lov'in and care.
trying to keep up with the Jones, Most modern MBT have a urban combat kit these days because of the fact that more and more of the world is developed every day, And if the PLA does intend to operate in Taiwan, They will be in Urban combat. normally such packages include SLAT armor around the Engines and sides of the Tank, ERA kits also for the sides, additional smoke dischargers, options for gun shields or remote weapons stations, infantry phones so the grunts can walk up to a Tank and give directions. under armor cameras.
Some like this T72B also add a Dozer blade for clearing obstacles it also works as a Spaced armor to detonate RPG's. ??
fair reasoning in theory, however it sounds like the premium is being placed on the Engine of the Tank by this reasoning. Whereas the T14 is placing the premium on the Crews. unlike in the Soviet era the Russians don't have a limitless supply of Tankers so they are trying to optimize protection around the crew and view the rest of the tank as varying degrees of Expendability. the Highest point of the T14 is of course the unmanned turret. which as I just said is unmanned. what this means is although the turret sits higher and can be seen behind barriers if attacked although the turret might be disabled or destroyed ( still not a fan of carousel autoloaders) the crew is more likely to live through the incident.
Of course the reason that the tank turret sits so high is the way they designed the fighting compartment. for comparison
We have a nice scale here thanks to that Police officer and the commander.
And here the Falcon Turret on a Challenger 1
and for scale a Challenger 1 and Falcon turret challenger
both are unmanned turrets but there is a critical difference here. The hull height. Armata's hull is fairly tall if we look at the T14 commander he is standing on a foot rest in the hull and the hull fighting compartment is roomy enough for him to basically stand in the hull with his shoulders out. by contrast the Challenger 1 hull with Falcon Turret was designed as a retrofit but this also has an unmanned turret the driver and hull crew compartments are different and require a semi inclined to inclined seating position akin to what most Tank drivers already do. basically the Tank driver on a Conventional MBT like the Type 99 is seated like someone in a reclining chair feet up back at an angle.
In the T14 they are seated more like if they were driving a car or an older type of Tank. that is back up feet down. this seating position is the type more often seen in the turret position or the Driving compartment of the Merkava series.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
"the threads easily come off during maneuver." the Claims of the Type 10 have to be taken with a grain of salt because the Type 10 is a new tank with at last count over 103 units as of 2016, by now may be 150+, I bet Type 99 did not do so hot when you only had the first batch.
The Japanese SDF had not had a reason to spend in the major digital field until recently with the tensions with the PRC now they may be pushing harder to digitize.
I will give them that the T14 is not the World beater the Russians claim. The Main gun is not a huge revolution and the mobility and protection levels are more on the level of Par.
again RHA equivalents. if this was western terminology then that means R&D was stopped for production phase.