New Type98/99 MBT thread


TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
China is in a unique situation where despite having the MOST number of neighoring nations (14 nations, tied with Russia), it really only has two potential enemies - Russian T-90S and Korean K2 Panther.
Of those tanks only one sits on China's boarders. People keep pointing to K2 but here are two reality checks.
1) it's K2 and K1A2. The South Koreans have both tanks and are not yet showing evidence of retiring the latter. Infact they continue to modernize.
2) however between The PRC and ROK is the DPRK. Who maintains a huge number of tanks of there own.
Tanks that are at last check not to the spec of the current K2 or T90S but still a potential trouble.

South Korea is not at war with China if anything they seem to be a neutral power vs the Chinese intent on not being beholden but also not directly interfering. The only issue the PRC really has with the ROK is it's a US Allie.
Their interest is the DPRK.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
This is true. It does however mean a mission kill. As the vehicle is rendered disabled and there are generally fuel cells around it which would ignite and burn. A fire in a tank like a fire in any enclosed metal box filled with fuel and ammo is a rather emotional event for the crew inside.
This generally resorts in a "Oh my God the Tank is one fire" bail out.
Which is why I thought it should've been colored orange/mission killed as oppose to red crew killed in the above categorization. but generally speaking yes, ALL tanks have weak spots in the back relative to the front or even sides. That's a forgone conclusion. The engine placed in the back does offer some level of protection for the crew.

If placed in front like the Merkava's it's pretty much indestructible (in front) regardless of rounds hitting it though it may render mission killed if the engine is damaged however it works well with the IDF doctrine because crew survivability is at a premium and the crew can always jump out and go get another tank since the Merkavas were designed to fight close to home head on with incoming aggressors and not deployed to some godforsaken places in another region.

For head to head tank vs tank battles in open terrain the Merkavas are unbeatable. In CQB or urban fighting they suck, but so do most tanks.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The engine placed in the back does offer some level of protection for the crew.

If placed in front like the Merkava's it's pretty much indestructible (in front) regardless of rounds hitting it though it may render mission killed if the engine is damaged however it works well with the IDF doctrine because crew survivability is at a premium and the crew can always jump out and go get another tank since the Merkavas were designed to fight close to home head on with incoming aggressors and not deployed to some godforsaken places in another region.

For head to head tank vs tank battles in open terrain the Merkavas are unbeatable. In CQB or urban fighting they suck, but so do most tanks.
The Engine at the rear is more due to weight distribution. Merkava does place the engine at the front this is true but Merkava also places the driver wheel at the front meaning that the track is easier to disable. And a shot to the back is even more dangerous as that space is used for ammo storage. Merkava before Trophy had been blown up by RPG hits to the rear door of the unique tank. Again the vast majority of the rear space is filled with ammo.
 

Sunbud

Junior Member
Registered Member
Vehicle engines are generally huge hunks of steel blocks. That would make them very good at stopping penetrations.
I still don't agree that an engine block could be equivalent to anything more than 300 to 350mm of homogeneous armoured steel. Yes, versus a traditional hardened steel core AP shell or HEAT (lots of space to dissipate the plasma), sure. But against APFSDS' made of dense materials like tungsten or DU at Mach 5-6, I believe would go through an engine block with still a respectable amount of penetration potential to spare. Hence why I conjectured that a 600mm RHA penetration APFSDS at 2KM hitting a tank rear would be able to penetrate through the engine block into the crew compartment. Also remembering that the engine compartment isn't just the engine block, there are lots of piping, empty space, plastic oil/water containers and hydraulics and batteries, all of which would be poor at stopping a 30mm AP, let alone a 125mm APFSDS. My diagram below for reference.
Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 00.48.05.png
 
Last edited:

kriss

Junior Member
Registered Member
Which is why I thought it should've been colored orange/mission killed as oppose to red crew killed in the above categorization. but generally speaking yes, ALL tanks have weak spots in the back relative to the front or even sides. That's a forgone conclusion. The engine placed in the back does offer some level of protection for the crew.

If placed in front like the Merkava's it's pretty much indestructible (in front) regardless of rounds hitting it though it may render mission killed if the engine is damaged however it works well with the IDF doctrine because crew survivability is at a premium and the crew can always jump out and go get another tank since the Merkavas were designed to fight close to home head on with incoming aggressors and not deployed to some godforsaken places in another region.

For head to head tank vs tank battles in open terrain the Merkavas are unbeatable. In CQB or urban fighting they suck, but so do most tanks.
Main problem for merkava putting engine at front is that a hit from almost all direction would likely cause a mission kill. And even count both engine and frontal armor they are not as protected as most other modern tanks.
 

vesicles

Colonel
I still don't agree that an engine block could be equivalent to anything more than 300 to 350mm of homogeneous armoured steel. Yes, versus a traditional hardened steel core AP shell or HEAT (lots of space to dissipate the plasma), sure. But against APFSDS' made of dense materials like tungsten or DU at Mach 5-6, I believe would go through an engine block with still a respectable amount of penetration potential to spare. Hence why I conjectured that a 600mm RHA penetration APFSDS at 2KM hitting a tank rear would be able to penetrate through the engine block into the crew compartment. Also remembering that the engine compartment isn't just the engine block, there are lots of piping, empty space, plastic oil/water containers and hydraulics and batteries, all of which would be poor at stopping a 30mm AP, let alone a 125mm APFSDS. My diagram below for reference.
View attachment 51644
I think there might be a misunderstanding of my earlier post. I have never doubted that a hit on the engine compartment would mission-kill a tank. I have never suggested that the engine block is as effective as an actual piece of armor. I was simply trying to support an earlier post, which doubted the notion that a direct hit on the engine compartment would kill the crew as well. My point was that the engine block should provide some level of protection, which should allow the crew to walk away alive, maybe injured but still alive.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Main problem for merkava putting engine at front is that a hit from almost all direction would likely cause a mission kill. And even count both engine and frontal armor they are not as protected as most other modern tanks.
The power pack is protected from most hits save for a direct tank shell. The weakness is more inreguards to the secondary elements. The drive wheel. Mind you a tank track can also.be knocked out with a hit at any point but the drive wheel is harder to replace.
My point was that the engine block should provide some level of protection, which should allow the crew to walk away alive, maybe injured but still alive.
This is generally correct. A modern well armored MBT can take a hit to the power pack and have the crew walk away as long as the tank is properly built and a fire doesn't spread crew compartment.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Is China develop any new MBT?
Type 99A was the latest development and that happened not too long ago. It's probably as good as a late 3rd gen tank can get for the weight, size, and price class. If there are any developments in progress for new MBTs, you can bet it'll be a next gen type like how T-14 is a step above a T-90M. For this, China will almost surely wait until all the other players come out with their 4th gen MBTs and army vehicles so that the designers have some knowledge of what they will be up against and what they need to consider and defeat. So until US army shows their hand, Norinco will probably only stick with undisclosed concept studies. China doesn't quite have the economic luxury of forging ahead and leading in a relatively trivial field. It is a costly exercise. PLA has no real intentions for invading anyone and so any fighting involving PLA is home ground/ region and it has ridiculous size advantage there for conventional warfare.
 

Top