New Type98/99 MBT thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

thats because of The British L30 a improved version of the L11 Gun found in the Chieftain series MBT, The first NATO spec 120mm tank gun. Well most of NATO adopted variants of the L44/L55 german 120mm smooth bore. the Chieftain added a extra level of safety for it's charges by storing them in a container surrounded by a water/glycol mixture. if the hull was penetrated the chances of a fire were reduced by dousing the charges with this medium.

 

[Miragedriver]

Question: What relation is the MBT-3000 to the Type 98/99 tank?
MBT-3000 is now called VT-4, is the current version of VT-1/MBT-2000 after major upgrade.

TerraN you know more about this, can you help me out. Thanks

Considering the cost of the vehicle (or maybe just the color of the paint), perhaps the most possible customer will from the Middle East.



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

 

[Lezt]

Iraqi but also Syrian and Russian T 72 (Lebanon, current civil war, Chechen war) and derived types (Yug M 84 for example) suffered these catastrophic explosions not only as a result of a direct hit in the autoloader which as you correctly pointed out is located low on the floor and thus unlikely to get directly hit but also if not mostly as a result of a fire which resulted from a hit.

If the fire reached the autoloader than there would be a catastrophic explosion with the turret being usually blown off. There are a zylion pics & vids from the Yug wars, Chechen wars etc. proving this. Were all the crews of those blown up tanks incompetently handling ammo? Maybe, but I would rather opt for the explanation I presented.

It is a different story with the T 64 which has its ammo in the autoloader stored vertically. A direct hit by a penetrating round or HEAT – jet usually causes a catastrophic explosion right away as many Ukrainian tanks and their crews experienced.

The Soviets wanted to design for a number of reason a small, compact tank with a limited crew and heavy fire power given by a 125 mm gun and the autoloader was part of the deal though it also imposed a penalty.

The same with armour. Soviet tanks (now days Russian) have good frontal armour that is thick glacis plate and turret front but suffer from weak armour at various other places and even additional armour (ERA and the like) does not make up for it. Combat experience in a number of conflicts showed that a hit to the side of a T 64, T 72 or T 80 even with a relatively light shoulder fired AT weapon will likely penetrate with a substantial possibility of a catastrophic explosion.

What I would say is,
1) How often do European tanks fight in low intensity conflict in urban setting which these soulder fired AT weapons are so effective? Lets ask why M1A2 TUSK is developed if the risk to western tanks are so mimimal? The Merkava, which is arguably even better protected than most euro/american tank in terms of urban settings are destroyed/damaged with simple shoulder AT weapons like the RGP7 or more so now like the RGP29

2) it is not like no advanced euro/american tanks have been destroyed by cheap rockets:

or have their turret blown off:

Some will claim IED, but when IED hits a tank, normally it doesn't burn through the inside, and the tank generally keep one side of the suspension and there a huge crater to one side:

3) you have to remember that most of the tanks that you see in the footage are cheap monkey models of the original. will the original fair better? I don't know, but do you judge the Abrams's effectiveness by how easy the ISIS destroyed Iraqi M1A1s?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Janes said 28 M1A1 was damanged and 5 was destroyed by

a 9K11 Kornet ATGM, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and a M70 Osa rocket launcher. The latter is a Yugoslavian weapon that has been widely used by insurgents in neighbouring Syria, but is rarely seen in Iraq.

,

4) why are you comparing older T72s and T64s to modern tanks, is it a suprize that they are vulnerable to shoulder fired AT weapons of their era? Hell, it is not like the venerable RGP7 is weak, the PG-7VL we commonly see in militant videos is a single HEAT rated to >500 RHAe, the latest PG-7VR is rated to >750mm RHAe; i.e. no roof/side/deck/rear armor will be that thick. M60s, Centurions, Leopards, AMX30s of that era are also famous for brewing up.

What I am trying to say is, if the media spoon feed you information, it doesn't mean it is true, or if you cannot find information, it doesn't mean that it did not exist; and i bet you that the real events are not as romantic as the soviets wanted to create a lighter tank at the premium that it does not protect its crew well. lest we forget how much the west feared when the Iranian Centurions 105 L7; and M60 failed to penetrate the armor of Iraqi T72s. resistance to penetration is much more important than systems to deal with the penetration afterwards.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The vast majority of Tank kills on modern MBT's have been via IED's and mines. take a good look at your photos Lezt a good number of these were bombs or cases where the tank was disabled by terrain. even when the tank is engaged then the majority are mission kills not crew kills.

By the way i love the maverick missile shot.. Especially since that would requite a fixed wing attacker to fire the maverick as it's a Air to surface missile.
Can tanks be killed with RPG's and ATGMs? Yes. That's why There is constant work to improve them with newer armor and APS systems and both are more likely to be found on newer tanks then older ones.
[video=youtube_share;xLCVi6PVNdY]http://youtu.be/xLCVi6PVNdY[/video]

Hit anything with enough explosive and kinetic effects and it will eventually crack.

now then
@ Mirage
Rumors say Cameroon, Which kinda makes sense considering the CAR and Nigeria these days... or any days for that matter.
As to a relationship between this and the Type 99? 99 is longer, heavier and wider well VT4 is just a little taller they may share the same gun both are listed as 125mm smooth bores. the engines may be related but VT4 is inferior. Turrets look close as to the hull chassis ( both have 6 road wheels) They seem to me to be kissing cousins. likely sharing elements of there Chassis, possibly guns, basic fire control systems, hatches perhaps base turret and automotive parts. Armor wise hard to guess we know it has modules on it's hull this might be composite or ERA or both. the hull armor is likely closely related but probably not as advanced as that found on the latest 99 tanks maybe the same armor used on the first of the 99's. both tanks likely use the same accessory systesm in terms of options for RWS or Commanders MG, coax and Smoke grenade launchers.

 

[Blackstone]

Why isn't there any rubber pads on those threads? Metal tracks tear up roads, if those tanks ever have to roll over paved surfaces.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

answer one
They are not ready yet.
Answer two
Since this is likely a prototype they never intend for road drives for this particular unit
Answer three
if it's meant for African use, then the end buyer did not request it as they lack normal roads

 

[Lezt]

The vast majority of Tank kills on modern MBT's have been via IED's and mines. take a good look at your photos Lezt a good number of these were bombs or cases where the tank was disabled by terrain. even when the tank is engaged then the majority are mission kills not crew kills.


Hit anything with enough explosive and kinetic effects and it will eventually crack.

TE, I don't deny that the majority of MBT kills are from IED, the question is much more if the russian auto loaders are really making the tank more prone to self detonation as western media loves to claim and I am arguing that the answer is no.

IED is also a touchy subject, it is also used as a scape goat for people claiming that the Abrams cannot be penetrated, when there are many insurgents videos showing the Abrams being hit on the skirt on the lower hull. I mean, sure, an IED could have done the damage too, why put ERA blocks on the skirt which will have no effect on IEDs?

I have doubts about mission kill and crew kill definitions, in most videos showing russian tank brewing up, there is generally sufficient time for the uninjured crew to escape; does those count as crew killed?

Mission killed, I mean more than 500 Abrams have been shipped back to the states to be rebuilt, it is more like campaign killed. Which some other countries have different philosophies, such as Russia which might find melting down a destroyed tank and giving you a new one is cheaper than rebuilding them.

I find this fairly a repeat of ww2, IED are Japanese soldiers in pits with a hammer and a 500lb bomb, Abrams are like German Tiger tanks, while russian T series are more like M4 shermans,

 

[Broccoli]

I'm sorry, but that is the single greatest myth to have come out of the first gulf war.

The Russian autoloaders were fine, it was the poor ammo handling by the Iraqi crew that was the cause of turrets being blown off the turret rings.

Specifically, the Iraqis stupidly stored extra rounds inside the fighting compartment, which is a big no-no.

The carousel itself is armored AND placed very, very low on the floor, which is impossible to hit directly (unless the tank somehow presents its belly to the enemy). It could be argued that the carousel is far more vulnerable to mines than penetration from enemy rounds.

I was told the above by two separate gulf war veterans, one was a tank driver and the other a gunner.

Apparently everyone who buys tanks with Russian style autoloader don't know how handle ammunition. I have seen enough pics of T-72 turrets what have been flying up to dozen meters away from the tanks and i wont believe it happens just because crews don't know what they are doing.

Here is pic from Georgia.



Abrams blow out panel test.
[video=youtube;O6A7fKcotyM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6A7fKcotyM[/video]

 

[POKL]

What I would say is,
1) How often do European tanks fight in low intensity conflict in urban setting which these soulder fired AT weapons are so effective? Lets ask why M1A2 TUSK is developed if the risk to western tanks are so mimimal? The Merkava, which is arguably even better protected than most euro/american tank in terms of urban settings are destroyed/damaged with simple shoulder AT weapons like the RGP7 or more so now like the RGP29

2) it is not like no advanced euro/american tanks have been destroyed by cheap rockets:

or have their turret blown off:

Some will claim IED, but when IED hits a tank, normally it doesn't burn through the inside, and the tank generally keep one side of the suspension and there a huge crater to one side:

3) you have to remember that most of the tanks that you see in the footage are cheap monkey models of the original. will the original fair better? I don't know, but do you judge the Abrams's effectiveness by how easy the ISIS destroyed Iraqi M1A1s?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Janes said 28 M1A1 was damanged and 5 was destroyed by ,

4) why are you comparing older T72s and T64s to modern tanks, is it a suprize that they are vulnerable to shoulder fired AT weapons of their era? Hell, it is not like the venerable RGP7 is weak, the PG-7VL we commonly see in militant videos is a single HEAT rated to >500 RHAe, the latest PG-7VR is rated to >750mm RHAe; i.e. no roof/side/deck/rear armor will be that thick. M60s, Centurions, Leopards, AMX30s of that era are also famous for brewing up.

What I am trying to say is, if the media spoon feed you information, it doesn't mean it is true, or if you cannot find information, it doesn't mean that it did not exist; and i bet you that the real events are not as romantic as the soviets wanted to create a lighter tank at the premium that it does not protect its crew well. lest we forget how much the west feared when the Iranian Centurions 105 L7; and M60 failed to penetrate the armor of Iraqi T72s. resistance to penetration is much more important than systems to deal with the penetration afterwards.

My post was not directed at you personally so cool your jets. Since we are in a Chinese – theme forum I kindly suggest some Chinese meditation techniques.

Now let me address the points you made one by one.

First of all I do not claim that Soviet and Russian tanks are always going to explode while American ones (other Western and Israeli) are indestructible.


Let me start with 1 and 2. An urban environment is difficult for tanks and I never stated the opposite. It is also difficult for an Abrams tank. Western that is for example US tanks have had to fight in urban environment for example in Iraq. However when you compare the results of an Abrams ‘brewing up’ with the result of a T 64, T 72, T 80 or M 84 brewing up the results are obviously visible. The Soviet / Russian tank will have in many cases its turret blown off, sometimes it will be blown apart completely. It is much less frequently the case with Abrams or Merkavas though they are not indestructible either. Frankly I do not see what to argue about it.

As to 3. The ‘original’ not ‘monkey model’ tanks did not fare better – Grozny New Year’s Eve 1994 / 5 might be a hint. The Russian original for their own army T 72 blew up just like all other T 72 models. Plus what is exactly a ‘monkey model’? For example much of Polish T 72 production which went to Middle Eastern customers including Iraq did not differ much (except the inside lettering was in English) from those delivered to the Polish Army. Also the various sub models of the T 72 differed significantly. Thus an export ‘monkey model’ T 72 delivered in late 80s might be better equipped and armoured than the ‘original’ T 72 delivered to the Soviet Army a decade earlier. In addition the Soviet Union also delivered for export customers tanks including T 72 from their reserve stock which were the ‘original’ as you call them tanks for the Soviet Army. You also ask if the losses suffered by Iraqi ‘Abrams’ are a part of ‘Abrams’ combat legacy to which I answer sure they are just like previous Iraqi T 72 losses are a part of T 72 combat legacy. When it comes to ‘Abrams’ taken out by ‘Kornet’ or some other Russian ATGM it does not mean the ‘Abrams’ is a weakly armoured tanks it means that modern Russian ATGMs are among the best in this class of weaponry. I do not recall claiming the opposite.

Moving on to 4. Why am I comparing older T72s and T64s to modern tanks because sorry but they were and are modern tanks. You might not know but the T 64 with which it all started was meant to outclass all contemporary tanks in the world. In some categories it did but the penalties that went with this are very heavy. The T 72 grew out of the T 64 as a simpler version and after much ‘mutations’ on the drawing board it finally emerged as a separate design though rooted in the T 64. Then the T 80 came along. All three models share significant similarities and because of that all suffer from similar drawbacks. For some time all three were even simultaneously in production. The current Russian Army T 90 is nothing more than a T 72 on steroids and thus is basically another ‘mutation’ of the previous designs. All in all though with additional armour, upgraded FCS and uprated engine basically all MBTs produced east of the Oder are rooted in the same designs dating back several decades. The same goes for the vast majority of western tanks. Even the basic design of ‘Abrams’, ‘Leo II’ etc. are already decades old. So yes all these tanks are modern tanks though people who served in them as young men when they were introduced first are sometimes already grandfathers. The RGP 7 or more precisely the projectiles that can be fired from it can sometimes also penetrate the side of a modern western tanks. The difference is what happens after the penetrations. Few ‘Abrams’ or ‘Merkavas’ blew up with the turret literally flying away from such a hit but many T 64, T 72, T 80 and M 84 suffered this fate. The failure to penetrate the armour of Iraqi T 72 by L 7 105 mm guns can have different reasons. As I have stated in my original post (read it carefully) the frontal turret arc and glacis plate of the T 72 were good armour and the penetration especially by kinetic rounds depends on many factor such as distance and angle for example. And resistance to penetration is very important as is to have systems to deal with it. You worry about not being hit but you also worry about what happens when you get hit – it is as simple as that.

Last but not least kindly please do not lecture me about being spoon fed info by media for except invoking a conversation with two US Army tankers all you provide is stuff one can find using google. I do not know how long you are in the field of military research but my short sting on this forum should not confuse you as I have been researching stuff since 20 years.

 

[by78]

A couple of high-resolution scans of the new Type-99: