New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
note commanders panoramic sight behind that have the commanders hatch surrounded by periscopes. Note the bracket for a machine gun between the hatch and commanders sight. Also the hinges on the commanders hatch these only lift up meaning either opened or closed.Top-side view of Type-99A's turret.
(2048 x 1361)
Between the commander and gunner hatches that is a casing ejection hatch. Under that is the breach of the main gun.
Gunners hatch opens forwards.
You can see the commanders sight and weapon mount, the gunners sight to. There is not a lot of space that the crew lives in in a tank like this even a Abrams is right quarters. Russian and Chinese tanks use autoloader to allow smaller tanks. And the compartments you are seeming from are little more then A chair and work station.(2048 x 1361)
almost everything in the front of this turret is armor modules.(2048 x 1361)
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Commander’s sight housing. Looks like they stripped out the internals.
Pretty sure that's the laser APS.
The commander's independent view housing is the round thing with the rectangular aperture on the right side of the turret.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You are right, too early in the morning for me!
Any information of the effectiveness of ZTZ-99A ERA? I read that it is FY-4, and similar to Russian 4S24 ERA (used by T-80BVM and T-90M). Also, the sides of ZTZ-99 and ZTZ-99A look unprotected, in that there is no ERA able to be mounted. Or is that what the sideskirts are?
Yes IIRC FY-4 is basically purchased or licensed Kontakt-5. Side protection has always been super weak on PLA tanks after Type 80. Reason for this is clear. There is no point in adding extra weight for the side, back, and top if the tank can still be penetrated by other tanks or anti-tank weapons if the round hits that area. Similarly I really doubt any western tank can withstand a side shot against modern anti-tank munitions. Leclercs, M1s, Leopards, and Merkavas have all been easily knocked out if not totally destroyed by second rate munitions fired by people with less than proper military training. These tanks stand little chance in real life against peer or even near peer adversaries even if we're limiting the environment to only other tanks and infantry, which won't ever be the case.
However side armour does need to be decent enough to defend against "light munitions" like RPG-7s and various small arms. PLA tanks have enough side armour to protect the crew from these. Thinking about strategy, PLA tanks are not designed to be used for urban warfare. In fact tanks are not designed to be used for urban warfare unless the group you're fighting against are Syrian rebel level competence i.e. zero competence apart from murdering civilians. PLA doctrine still keeps that "human wave" idea of overwhelming opponent using numbers. Their tanks are not expecting to be outflanked while defending mainland China where they will enjoy numerical and technological superiority against all foes except USA.
So where does that leave Type 99? Serviceable tank which was modified to take on more armour along with a more powerful engine. It is still slightly lighter than most current generation western tanks but it's probably already pushing the boundaries in terms of engine+transmission strain (reported problems with transmission in past for Type 98 and early 99s) and terrain accessibility. PLA probably expects to fight against Russian tanks and Indian tanks if there is a fight at all. Type 99s are a bit too heavy for Japan and Taiwan for any invasion, if planners are aggressive and stupid enough to do so. No existing methods of delivering them apart from amphibious landing ships and as discussed, these tanks work best in numbers. To counter T-90s and Arjun is main task for now while continuing to develop domestic tank building and design.
Also should add that you will read everywhere people claiming that those Leclercs, M1s, and Leopard 2s destroyed in the middle east in the last few years are all due to selling them sub-standard variants. These claims are garbage and come from the mouths of western stronkists who cannot take the ego hit. The truth is these sold tanks are nearly identical in armour package with the main difference being some sensors, electronics, software, and communication equipment. The mechanics are exactly the same because the production line will not be redeveloping an entirely new method of fabrication and manufacturing of parts just to sell another nation a monkey model. It will cost the seller far more. On top of this, the buying nation spends about three to four times the cost to buy a unit compared to the manufacturing nation. Sure this includes some parts and support, but they are paying serious coin for each tank. They have experts evaluating the tanks, checking them, and keeping an eye on the production facilities. These are tanks we're talking about, not turbofan manufacturing.
So in summary, the ideal side armour is one that is modular and can be modified to meet dynamic requirements of the battlefield and future weapons. One that withstands the common RPGs and small arms (can defeat using APS as well but that's usually cost ineffective), basically the lower threat category munitions that have high possibility of outflanking the tanks, any more side armour is dead weight until it is able to defeat the main anti-tank munitions, making it almost as thick and heavy as frontal arc. And frontal arc can be penetrated. Welded turrets with composite ceramic plate armour is OLD news... the whole thing is a science and defeating it once you know the composition is easy work. Expect latest generation of anti-tank missiles to be effective. Russian and Chinese sabot rounds are less capable than NATO ones owing to the two piece ammunition requirement from auto-loader, rather from the Soviet desgin carousel autoloader, resulting in shorter sabot rounds.
So in summary, the ideal side armour is one that is modular and can be modified to meet dynamic requirements of the battlefield and future weapons. One that withstands the common RPGs and small arms (can defeat using APS as well but that's usually cost ineffective), basically the lower threat category munitions that have high possibility of outflanking the tanks, any more side armour is dead weight until it is able to defeat the main anti-tank munitions, making it almost as thick and heavy as frontal arc. And frontal arc can be penetrated. Welded turrets with composite ceramic plate armour is OLD news... the whole thing is a science and defeating it once you know the composition is easy work. Expect latest generation of anti-tank missiles to be effective. Russian and Chinese sabot rounds are less capable than NATO ones owing to the two piece ammunition requirement from auto-loader, rather from the Soviet desgin carousel autoloader, resulting in shorter sabot rounds.
Last edited: