New Type98/99 MBT thread

sorry buddy, I don't buy that switching U.S and Iraqi forces with T-72 and Abrams. I've been toe to toe with a T-72 with the 72 behind berms in some cases getting off the first round. The Iraqi tankers fought and lost because they could not kill or in some cases hit our Abrams while one hit from a Abrams killed the T-72. Your equipment matters in a tank fight and that equipment is the main battle tank plain and simple. Yea training is a factor along with airsupport and intel.... but the pony you ride means the most.

Its all about armour and If your tank cant survive a hit then you die. plain and simple. any way don't want to turn this into a us against you type of thing.

speaking armour defensive system.PLA have imported russian Arena and Druoz(?) armour active defense system,the other locally develop passive system use JD-3 IRCM ,LWR and smoke generator similiar to Ukraine Zaslon system.
according to Steven zaloga,Druoz(?) active defense system was originally funded by then soviet army,but they lost interest eventually adapted by the soviet marine.
Druoz(?) use 4" primitive" millimeter wave radar ,and 2X4unguide rocket,the radar cover only the frontal arc,and the rocket are unguided.the whole system consider outdated.
While Arena design to replace the former,it is expensive,while Zaslon type may not be quite effective against new gen. of ATGM.

utelore said:

sorry buddy, I don't buy that switching U.S and Iraqi forces with T-72 and Abrams. I've been toe to toe with a T-72 with the 72 behind berms in some cases getting off the first round. The Iraqi tankers fought and lost because they could not kill or in some cases hit our Abrams while one hit from a Abrams killed the T-72. Your equipment matters in a tank fight and that equipment is the main battle tank plain and simple. Yea training is a factor along with airsupport and intel.... but the pony you ride means the most.

Its all about armour and If your tank cant survive a hit then you die. plain and simple. any way don't want to turn this into a us against you type of thing.

Click to expand...

Not trying to argue with you mate, I completely understand your argument from a tank crew’s point of view, I would choose to be inside a M1 instead of a T-72 on any days, that's why we Aussie are the newest user of the M1s , and that’s why I talked about the importance of those protective technologies with regard to secondary impact. I guess what I was trying to emphasize is that the evaluation of a particular type of equipment should be placed in the appropriate context, we all like to do one-on-one comparison, nothing wrong with that, however, just because T series tanks had perform badly in the hands of Arab armies in past wars should not lead us into any simple conclusion.

While I understand everyone want their country’s tank to be the best in the world, new technologies are being developed and old models being constantly improved, look at the jobs being done by the Israelis on the M60 series, its latest mod is comparable with any current standard third generation MBTs. T series is going through the same process. Simply put, Saddam was conned, what they got was second-rate export version, that in itself was not a huge thing, what was most unfortunate or fortunate, depends on which side you’re coming from of course, is that all these Middle East countries receiving Soviet-designed weapon did not tried to independently develop the capacity to improve and upgrade those weapon. For instance, a truly effective APFSDS round would help them a lot, but that single piece of technology itself requires an industrial base which could take decades to develop.

In any case, I believe the Fire Control System plus advance thermal sight has become the crucial factor in tank-to-tank battle, the true advantage that M1 has over T-72 in 1991 is in this aspect, if you could detect your enemy first, then you could fire first, right? Utelore.

Aero said:

While I understand everyone want their country’s tank to be the best in the world, new technologies are being developed and old models being constantly improved, look at the jobs being done by the Israelis on the M60 series, its latest mod is comparable with any current standard third generation MBTs. T series is going through the same process. Simply put, Saddam was conned, what they got was second-rate export version, that in itself was not a huge thing, what was most unfortunate or fortunate, depends on which side you’re coming from of course, is that all these Middle East countries receiving Soviet-designed weapon did not tried to independently develop the capacity to improve and upgrade those weapon. For instance, a truly effective APFSDS round would help them a lot, but that single piece of technology itself requires an industrial base which could take decades to develop.

Click to expand...

Iraq did make some improvements and upgrades for their MBT's, i.e. T-69-QMx and T-55-QMx with layered armor, appliqué spaced armor, L7 & L80 gun upgrades, mortar, laser range-finder, etc. A few Iraqi T-72's were also reported to have Polish ERA upgrades. An example of Iraqi T-55 "Enigma":


However these improvements were mostly poor man's "budget upgrades" as Saddam had already driven his country into bankruptcy from financing the war. Iraq sourced T-72 parts from Poland, prolly beacuse it was cheap and affordable. Had Saddam not started the war, he could've been shopping for T-90's or LeClerc MBT's in 2003, instead of sitting in a cel.

When comparring T-72 platform to M1, we have to keep in mind that the T-72 was designed to be a low-cost, medium weight (41 ton) MBT that can use existing rail/road infrastructure. The M1 is a much more expensive and heavier tank (68 ton). The unit price that Austrlia paid for refurbished (read: used) M1's was almost twice as much as what Malaysia paid for brand new PT-91's, not to mention the M1's much larger appetite for petro.

The T-72 and M1 platform both have areas where they excel. The T-72 is lighter, consumes less petro, and can operate in more diverse terrain & road infrastructure. The M1 can beat the T-72 head-on, but is much heavier with restrictions on type of terrain and infrastructure it can use, plus it sucks up petro at rate of 200 meters per liter. As Austrlia discovered, the MBT is too heavy for transport over its bridges:


You could spend billions of dollars on a fleet of shiny new M1 Abrams that could kick the T-72 in the pants, but if it's too heavy and you cannot deploy it to the field or even cross a bridge in front of you, then you're screwed.

From a weight and transportation infrastructure point of view, the T-99 is like a balance between the T-72/PT-91/M-95/etc platform and the M1Ax platform. I'm pretty sure the PLA took transportation needs into consideration...

areo, on maybe two occasions the Iraqi army did get the first round off. We would conduct a movement to a certain phase line while in the process we were told to just do a B-line as there was not OPFOR....well wouldn't ya know it. bam bam and we are taking rounds..T-72 in turret down 2 stage berm so no quick thermal detection...so much for intel that there is no OPFOR before the next phase line....also got into a nasty fight near a oil industrial complex were the engagement ranges was very close...this would be another instance....cheers ute

Iraq did make some improvements and upgrades for their MBT's, i.e. T-69-QMx and T-55-QMx with layered armor, appliqué spaced armor, L7 & L80 gun upgrades, mortar, laser range-finder, etc. A few Iraqi T-72's were also reported to have Polish ERA upgrades. An example of Iraqi T-55 "Enigma": .....................

.......................From a weight and transportation infrastructure point of view, the T-99 is like a balance between the T-72/PT-91/M-95/etc platform and the M1Ax platform. I'm pretty sure the PLA took transportation needs into consideration...

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing this out, I’m aware of their work on the “Enigma”, though not sure about the bit on L7 gun. Actually, Iraqi experience with the “Enigma” and others serve as a perfect example in illustrating my point. These being: 1, as you pointed out, they’re improvised solution in nature, shows the lack of any long-term planning for technology modernization on the part of the government, this is still the case today in most of these countries. 2, these attempts totally relied on the goodwill of foreign countries, so when Saddam was no longer useful as a tool in countering Iran, these helps largely disappeared. 3, foreign input did not lead to any substantial improvement in domestic design and manufacturing capabilities, a lot of resource were wasted, case in point, rather than spending his petrol-dollar on research and development, Saddam was importing massive amount of luxury goods like fleets of Mercedes and building palaces, and this was in the midst of a very costly war with Iran.

Fair points on T-72, in addition, I would say two things, 1, T-72 was the Soviet idea of a high-low combo with T-64, a lot of the new technologies like autoloader, composite amour in the T-64 was simplified to created the relatively inexpensive T-72, note how the Soviets never exported any T-64, not even to East Germany. Now if the technological performance of tanks can be gauged by the year they’re being introduced, then T-72 is not really a ‘fair’ comparison with M1 which came a whole decade later, a more suitable candidate would be the T-80 with its gas turbine engine, more protection and DU rounds, however don’t interpret this as if I’m implying that US army had it easy in 1991, any other nations would have suffered far greater casualties. 2, T series was designed with a philosophy with its roots in Soviet tank combat experience in WW2, this design philosophy emphasize firepower, mobility, low production and maintenances cost in addition to easy handling by crew. So are tanks designed with this philosophy in mind still suitable today? Yes and No, the answer would swing between the two depending on a whole number of different factor: where are the battle being fought, urban mazes in Chechnya, flat deserts or Mongolian steppe? In whose hands these tanks are being used, well-trained European countries or some forces like Iraq under Saddam? Innovative tactics? Air support? Good logistic? etcs, those are all very relevant factors to be considered here.

Australia’s decision to purchase M1 is largely a political and strategical decision geared toward future side-by-side armour operation under US command in oversea deployment, if it was meant for continental defence from an invading army, then there is lot other choices to select from. One small points, there aren’t a lot of river here to begin with, so bridge-crossing isn’t really an issue, the place for future deployment of those M1s is up in the north of the country. As in China’ case, yes, transportation is a very important factor there, it is the most geographically diverse country anywhere for armour operation I believe.

areo, on maybe two occasions the Iraqi army did get the first round off. We would conduct a movement to a certain phase line while in the process we were told to just do a B-line as there was not OPFOR....well wouldn't ya know it. bam bam and we are taking rounds..T-72 in turret down 2 stage berm so no quick thermal detection...so much for intel that there is no OPFOR before the next phase line....also got into a nasty fight near a oil industrial complex were the engagement ranges was very close...this would be another instance....cheers ute

Click to expand...

Interesting to hear that, would you say that this is the exception rather than the norm, or did you guys had more experience like that in other battalions?

aero, I would say my unit had about the norm of the 1st cav while the 1st cav had much less than say the 2nd "tiger brig" that pushed up into Kuwait from the south. I was flying out on that left hook that drove through great expanses of desert before reaching an area just west of Basra.

Again I did not see what I would call a great deal of action. mostly taking shots at 2.5 to 3k and only was worried about being killed one time near that oil industrial area...cheers ute

Aero said:

You’re right on this point, despite what many analysts have been saying, really, just think about it, which is safer, placing ammos in the hull where they’re protect by layers of amour or in compartment behind turret? It is common knowledge that around 80% of hits are on the turret, in fact this design on many western MBT is mainly to facilitate rapid loading, not so much as preventing second impacts.

While blow out compartment is a good design feature for safety, however, I believe the single most important factor in the prevention of second impact is the role played by modern Fire Detection and Suppression System, I don’t know why it is rarely mentioned by people, but this is the technology that made such contrasting outcome between Soviet-designed tanks and Israeli-western tanks on the battlefield. Second impact occurred because old T series tanks lacked this system which could very effectively deal with problem; this was one of the major combat conclusions of the Israeli-Lebanese war in early eighties. You may or may not believes all those stories about China-Israel military cooperation, but this is one piece of technology that China definitely got it from their friends in Tel Aviv back in the eighties. Also should be mentioned here is the another technique pioneered by the Israeli, that is individual protective casing for each rounds stored inside a tank, together with FDSS, these technologies prevented second impact on Israeli tanks and saved the lives of many its crew, it is advisable in my opinion not only for China but many western tank designers to follow suit, yes, it is costly to have such protective casing for every single round, but a team of well-trained and motivated crew is worth much more.

Lastly, about that fixation with T-72, just imagine this, give T-72 to US force and M1s to Iraq, now, US has complete air dominance with A-10 and AH-64 firing those amour piecing 30mm rounds and Hellfires above you, complete battlefield situation awarenence so any attempt of tactical maneuvering from your side are detected, complete CI3 about where your amour groups are, so you are attacked from all side before you’re even aware of it, do you really think those M1s in Iraqi hands are going to perform better than T-72s. When strategical and tactical circumstance are overwhelmingly working against you, it really doesn’t matter if you tanks have that wonderful little piece of technology which could prevent the turret being blown toward the sky when you’re hit.

Click to expand...

Fantastic post.

Things that we should remember.

America rules the air in Iraq therefore anything that is a large/noisy target
can be hit and destroyed

Israel in Lebanon was confronted by a group armed with very good manportable AT systems. I don't believe the Iraqi's have anything equivalent

On crew survivability: if a tank is penetrated by a DU sabot round, the crew is, well, dead. They either immediately die from the energy released or die later from cancer caused by breathing in the radioactive particles. So crew survival with respect to DU sabot is a moot point. On the other hand, penetration by a chemical energy round may do little damage, depending on what it hit and how much energy was left after penetration. So keeping your ammo from cooking off in the event of a mild HEAT penetration is something worthy of consideration.

talking about DU sabots, just what is its kill mechanism? One of my profs, who was in the Navy, said that second handed information he has states that the heat is the kill mechanism. I always thought the disintegration of the round itself is what's important.