New Type98/99 MBT thread

FichtL said:

M256 just builds upon the German L44 Technology, its however not a licence copy

Click to expand...

Well when you licence something or share technology, there are generally changes made to the system to make it better suited to the wants and needs of the new builder. One need only look at the massive variations of the AK to see how this works. you look at the AK47 then the AKM of Russia then start jumping countries and see a massive number of variations of the system as each new builder tailors the system. you also have other makers who step in and take just the Ammo of the AK the 7.62x39mm and design there own system The Chinese type 56, Vz58
Another case of this is the IMI 120 found in the Israel Merkava III and Merkava IV many say it's a L44 yet the Israelis never licenced the gun, All they needed was to design a gun system that could reliably and safely fire the ammunition.

The same can be said of the main gun for the newer Chinese MBT, They started with a understanding of the T72's 2A46 and the ammo of the system then designed a new gun around it for there newer tanks.

Sunbud said:

View attachment 46484

Click to expand...

Is that a laser dazzler on the right hand side on top of the turret? (top left of the tank)

ahho said:

Is that a laser dazzler on the right hand side on top of the turret? (top left of the tank)

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I've drawn this graphic to help you out.

Note what looks like a Hoffman device mounted over the main gun.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Note what looks like a Hoffman device mounted over the main gun.

Click to expand...

It seems to be fixed quite far back on the top deck, so I can only assume that it is a storage position? And that the picture is perhaps of a live-fire exercise where the Hoffman device is not needed? If not, it seems rather close to the crew hatches and sensitive equipment.

It is a little funny but it is in line with the gun. And the PLA tank design looks like they fight buttoned up. So it might not be viewed as such an issue. I mean they issue smoke devices on top of there helmets for Opfor infantry training.
Unless it's not a Hoffman but some others new toy. But if you look at the gun barrel there seems to be a device mounted on it as well. So they might be forced to compromise

Old photos but nonetheless very nice. The first one has been posted before but at a lower resolution. All images are 2048x1363.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

But if you look at the gun barrel there seems to be a device mounted on it as well. So they might be forced to compromise

Click to expand...

by78 said:

Old photos but nonetheless very nice. The first one has been posted before but at a lower resolution. All images are 2048x1363.

Click to expand...

this Clearly illustrates what I was saying. There is clearly a sighting device mounted atop the manlet that would prevent adding a Hoffman there. Also note how low the gun is mounted and the relative size of the turret and hull vs the gun. This means it's likely that this tank has a limited range of vertical movement mush like the Type 96 and T72 series. Those get about 4-5 degrees down, 11-12 degrees up. Larger tanks like the Abrams and even K2 get about 9-10 degrees down and 14-15 degrees up. It may seem unimportant but from a hill top or hillside position looking up or down elevation and depression is a major windfall.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

this Clearly illustrates what I was saying. There is clearly a sighting device mounted atop the manlet that would prevent adding a Hoffman there. Also note how low the gun is mounted and the relative size of the turret and hull vs the gun. This means it's likely that this tank has a limited range of vertical movement mush like the Type 96 and T72 series. Those get about 4-5 degrees down, 11-12 degrees up. Larger tanks like the Abrams and even K2 get about 9-10 degrees down and 14-15 degrees up. It may seem unimportant but from a hill top or hillside position looking up or down elevation and depression is a major windfall.

Click to expand...

Definitely. IMO the gun needs to be that low down since the 99A still uses the soviet style autoloading system that holds ammunition around the turret ring, so the gun can’t be mounted too high up or the mechanics will take up much more space to move ammunition that high up the turret.

I would much rather they looked at up armouring the bustle (Basically make what is currently the external stowage baskets armour) and used that as ammo storage and autoloader instead of the soviet style around the turret ring stowage which led to great results in the T-72.

Considering the 99A isnt the widest tank around and has rubber skirts and no add-on side armour, I highly doubt that the hull sides of the tank has anything over 300mm RHA making the carousel autoloader a very precarious choice, considering all the effort they’ve gone to upgrading the turret and hull front, of which the turret front should in theory be able to survive any kinetic energy tank round out there at the present time with some to spare. The hull front may be able to survive a imperfectly placed shot, but from the hull sides, I reckon most APFSDS fielded by China’s adversaries would go in one side, out the other.