New Type98/99 MBT thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

It was meant to hint at operational limitations that come with shorter ranges which can be a direct result of excessive weight or a fuel guzzling engine

Fuel load is part of the economy of how a tank gets around but in this case people have a habit when it comes to Abrams of making mountains out of Mole Hills. The weight of Abrams is the result of Size a tank for a 4 man crew and bustle loader based magazine for all its ammo with heavy emphasis on passive armor drives up the weight.
This by the way is why when Abrams wears ERA it sports it on the sides and not across the face like Russian tanks.

Tanks like the T72 focused on minimizing the crew and crew space to allow less armor and smaller size. They farther focused on use of ERA to reduce the need of passive armor and keep weight down. Even reducing the frontal protection in favor of ERA.

The 99A seems to be the PLA rebalancing there response upping the passive armor well keeping the era. They are trying to bridge the two schools of thought.

1000mm RHA equivalent has to be for HEAT rounds and the like. There is no way that number is for KE weapons like APFSDS rounds.
I have heard rumours in the past that some Chinese tanks also have depleted uranium armor in them. That would make numbers like those possible.

The stated 1000mm of RHA equivalent vs KE does seem a bit hyperbolic, my bet is some rounding up is happening but then them again when the A2 SEP entered production it's armor was equal to 960mm RHA vs APFSDS and that was introduced in about 94 so given 25 years perhaps they crossed that last 40mm Mark it is possible after all tank armor is designed to be replaced both after damage and as improvements are made.
DU mesh layers are not against HEAT but APFSDS so adding in that would again up the RHA equivalent vs KE rounds. Of course the unknowns are range of fire and what particular version of the APFSDS round type were these ratings based on.
Still that rating is likely the thickest point of the Tank. No tank has uniform protection levels across it.
Even the front of a tank generally the best protected can very from incredibly thick to remarkably thin. Tank designers have to find that perfect compromise between being able to move at speed and range well offering max protection. Its a battle old as time.
Systems like ERA, Slat/Spaced armor and Hard Kill APS are also there to try and make up some of the compromise

 

[Sunhead_from_Arya]

1000mm RHA equivalent has to be for HEAT rounds and the like. There is no way that number is for KE weapons like APFSDS rounds.
I have heard rumours in the past that some Chinese tanks also have depleted uranium armor in them. That would make numbers like those possible.

Soviet declassified FST's and US CATTB prototypes have +1000mm against KE.
Possibly T-14 Armata have same level of protection.
Type-99 have 600mm against KE without ERA, and 99A should have much better protection. It can be up to +1000mm in most thick parts with using heavy and sloped armor

 

[Biscuits]

@TerraN_EmpirE

The 99A has a really high “weight/person” ratio. 1000mm+ sounds reasonable given that tanks with less weight relative to their size have had 900mm+. It’s also not super clear whether the protection is before adding ERA or after.

PLA uses depleted uranium for some ammo at least, but newer tungsten composites can be just as if not more effective. Most likely it has more in common with the Challenger 2’s layout (I.e. stacked tungsten and ceramic plates) than the M1A2 since it might be risky politically if soldiers get sick due to DU. No known PLA vechicle use DU armor.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

@TerraN_EmpirE

The 99A has a really high “weight/person” ratio. 1000mm+ sounds reasonable given that tanks with less weight relative to their size have had 900mm+. It’s also not super clear whether the protection is before adding ERA or after.

PLA uses depleted uranium for some ammo at least, but newer tungsten composites can be just as if not more effective. Most likely it has more in common with the Challenger 2’s layout (I.e. stacked tungsten and ceramic plates) than the M1A2 since it might be risky politically if soldiers get sick due to DU. No known PLA vechicle use DU armor.

Tungsten is more superior than uranium.

Uranium is cheap, has lower melting point, low heat of fusion and vaporisation.

Tungsten is as poisonous as uranium.

So, usage of tungsten is more of a sign of superiority .

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Tungsten is more superior than uranium.

Your, grammer leaves some thing to be desired.
In known performance both seem to do about the same.

Uranium is cheap, has lower melting point, low heat of fusion and vaporisation.

Nothing wrong with cheap and plentiful is there? Although its not that cheap. It actually cost more than Tungsten unless you happen to be a nation with Uranium cored Nuclear power plants.... which The U.S. is then it becomes cheap.
The other factors you list are not really its down sides but it's up. ( I'll cover that later.

Tungsten is as poisonous as uranium.

No argument.

So, usage of tungsten is more of a sign of superiority .

That logic is faulty.
Tungsten Superior DU Inferior doesn't consider the whole package.
An Army will choose what it feels answers the need best.
The factors you gave.

Cheap
Cheap and plentiful is which a good thing if you are using it for a military product. Tungsten production is EXPENSIVE to tool and for the U.S. it's a strategic material. Only a few countries produce it in large numbers. The US imports much of its Tungsten for use well ironically exporting it's domestic production.
DU however is stock piled. Plentiful with no chance of being shut off.
Because the U.S. is always producing more DU by power plants around the country and is easier to alloy and machine it becomes cheap for the U.S. this is an advantage, as it means more ammo can be made and more armor can be added.

Heat of fusion and vaporization are fairly close to each other as Heat of fusion is the point where a material changes its state. For DU this is a potentially deadly deal. As as it breaks up and vaperizes it super heats and burns spontaneously in the presence of Oxygen.
This does two fold.
First it "self sharpens" as excess material breaks off on impact it burns away from the tank armor and penitrator. DU is Pyrophoric in a powder form it wants to ignite.
Second If you are in a T72 on the receiving end of a APFSDS round made of DU this means that once the round has cut through the armor it's not just going to blast you with toxic fragmentation it's going to blast you with super heated flaming toxic metal fragmentation. That is a very deadly weapon. Now yes it might not be able to perforate 1000mm of RHA equivalent but when it does the thinner armor its more likely to end that fight with it's nastier effects.

In the other end of that we have the DU armor. It's a mesh of DU wide sandwiched in layers of steel in the armor mix. This is where density comes in. DU Is less dense than Tungsten yes. But only slightly. For armor it's all about density and the shifts in material density are used to break up or deflect a penitrator. But here one of the popular claims of some fanboi is inversed.
DU is something like 95% of the effectiveness but for the U.S. 5% of the cost. Remember Tungsten is a strategic material to the U.S. China and Russia are major exporters so they have more material on hand. But DU is easier to Machine and Alloy.
So in the end the Army in question will make it's choices based on the total package.
DU has its advantages and disadvantages so does Tungsten.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Your, grammer leaves some thing to be desired.
In known performance both seem to do about the same.

Nothing wrong with cheap and plentiful is there? Although its not that cheap. It actually cost more than Tungsten unless you happen to be a nation with Uranium cored Nuclear power plants.... which The U.S. is then it becomes cheap.
The other factors you list are not really its down sides but it's up. ( I'll cover that later.
No argument.

That logic is faulty.
Tungsten Superior DU Inferior doesn't consider the whole package.
An Army will choose what it feels answers the need best.
The factors you gave.

Cheap
Cheap and plentiful is which a good thing if you are using it for a military product. Tungsten production is EXPENSIVE to tool and for the U.S. it's a strategic material. Only a few countries produce it in large numbers. The US imports much of its Tungsten for use well ironically exporting it's domestic production.
DU however is stock piled. Plentiful with no chance of being shut off.
Because the U.S. is always producing more DU by power plants around the country and is easier to alloy and machine it becomes cheap for the U.S. this is an advantage, as it means more ammo can be made and more armor can be added.

Heat of fusion and vaporization are fairly close to each other as Heat of fusion is the point where a material changes its state. For DU this is a potentially deadly deal. As as it breaks up and vaperizes it super heats and burns spontaneously in the presence of Oxygen.
This does two fold.
First it "self sharpens" as excess material breaks off on impact it burns away from the tank armor and penitrator. DU is Pyrophoric in a powder form it wants to ignite.
Second If you are in a T72 on the receiving end of a APFSDS round made of DU this means that once the round has cut through the armor it's not just going to blast you with toxic fragmentation it's going to blast you with super heated flaming toxic metal fragmentation. That is a very deadly weapon. Now yes it might not be able to perforate 1000mm of RHA equivalent but when it does the thinner armor its more likely to end that fight with it's nastier effects.

In the other end of that we have the DU armor. It's a mesh of DU wide sandwiched in layers of steel in the armor mix. This is where density comes in. DU Is less dense than Tungsten yes. But only slightly. For armor it's all about density and the shifts in material density are used to break up or deflect a penitrator. But here one of the popular claims of some fanboi is inversed.
DU is something like 95% of the effectiveness but for the U.S. 5% of the cost. Remember Tungsten is a strategic material to the U.S. China and Russia are major exporters so they have more material on hand. But DU is easier to Machine and Alloy.
So in the end the Army in question will make it's choices based on the total package.
DU has its advantages and disadvantages so does Tungsten.

I don't argue with your logic regards of cost / manufacturing output.
IT is correct.

I haven't mentioned the density as advantage, that is irrelevant.

What is the most important however is the difference in psychical properties.
Tungsten :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

3695

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(3422 °C, 6192 °F)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

6203 K (5930 °C, 10706 °F)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(near r.t.) 19.3 g/cm3
when liquid (at m.p.) 17.6 g/cm3

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

52.31

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

774 kJ/mol

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

24.27 J/(mol·K)

Uranium :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1405.3

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(1132.2 °C, 2070 °F)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

4404 K (4131 °C, 7468 °F)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(near r.t.) 19.1 g/cm3
when liquid (at m.p.) 17.3 g/cm3

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

9.14

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

417.1 kJ/mol

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

27.665 J/(mol·K)

So, the uranium way cheaper ,not because of raw material cost, but it is possible to cast, and easy to form.

But let see the heat capacity of W vs U, up to / including heat of melting from 20 Celsius:
W : (3402*24.27+52000.31)/183=735 J/gram
U: (1102*27.665+9000.14)/238=165 J/gram

Heat capacity up to and including vaporisation ,including melting from 20 Celsius:
W: 735 + ((6203-3695)*24.27+774000)/183=5297 J/gram
U:165+((4404-1405)*27.665+417100)/238=2266 J/gram

Of course the molar heat capacity values are not stable, as the temperature increase the /K value decrease, s this calculation expect symmetric degradation .
So, Tungsten can absorb twice as much energy prior of vaporisation.

However it is very hard and expensive to form Tungsten.

sometime it is possible to buy CCCP Tungsten armour penetrator sabots from auction sites , however they are quite tricky, everyone can see that those are military stuff, even if the price of them is fraction of the scrap W price : D

 

[Sunhead_from_Arya]

Guys, who can read and rewrote this?
Where 7**mm 1***mm Rha

 

[mys_721tx]

Guys, who can read and rewrote this?
Where 7**mm 1***mm Rha

The front armor's resistance to AP round/sabot is equivalent to 7** mm RHA, the resistance to HEAT round is equivalent to 1***mm RHA....

The top armor's resistance to HEAT round is equivalent to ***mm RHA...

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Well that sounds a lot more reasonable.
700mm of RHA equivalent resistance vs APFSDS
And 1000mm of RHA equivalent vs HEAT.

 

[Sunhead_from_Arya]

Thanks, I just don’t see which hieroglyphs represent AP/sabot and HEAT. From this i have persistent feeling that these words are not on photo