New Type98/99 MBT thread


TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Could be any number of reasons. Abrams for example trialed the L55 gun but it had all kinds of oscillation issues because of the trunion.
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why did the L/54 not make it on the production version?
Low lifetime. Chief designer 毛明 tried both increasing the barrel length to L54 and use composite material sabots but both turned out to be not as effective as using LTSC charges developed by Prof. 王泽山. Plus 毛明 managed to work out a composite material WHA penetrator that efficiently reduced the minimum penetration velocity compared to traditional penetrators with similar dimensions. Why the composite sabots was discarded, was, according to relevant papers, because that although the velocity was effectively increased, the maximum chamber pressure exceeded the required design limit, which was mainly caused by unsuitable charge structures after changing the dimensions of the sabot. However more advanced charges have long been developed and might have been used on a certain new munition, but that's not what us amateurs should or will understand.

All above information are from papers and interviews open to the public.
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
Wow you must be special to get secret photo.
It's from a certain "official" release, not actually a secret photo to be exact. (I'd be really happy if I can really get secret photos (probably things like the exact composite armour structures and materials of the 99A or so?) tho. but in that case I won't post them online, either back at home or here outside, for I don't wanna get my head off my neck lol. leaking state secrecy is no easy punishment) I'm simply "special" because I'm Chinese and can read all that stuff.:D
 
Last edited:

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
Wow you must be special to get secret photo.
Although image is from some official media of the factory producing 99A, but it was still just part of the whole image, and no clue was given about what it was, other than it was "some"(某) turret module. (you can see such nomenclature commonly in Chinese military reports, referring weapons to some blurry concept(某型) instead of using their actual name). That's why I called it an "official" release and blurred the image, as no clues were given officially of what it actually was. (However easily judging by the sharp angles and it's shape it surely belongs to 99A) Also the media is hardly reachable without a Chinese IP so I thought it best to keep it blurred.

PS knowing the actual thickness of some composite armour which you don't know its inner structures, materials and mechanisms doesn't really help much when trying to know its actual protection abilities. One example is that the Type 96 and 99A have UFP composite armour of roughly the same thickness, however the latter is much improved both in protection abilities and weight.
 

TK3600

New Member
Registered Member
Although image is from some official media of the factory producing 99A, but it was still just part of the whole image, and no clue was given about what it was, other than it was "some"(某) turret module. (you can see such nomenclature commonly in Chinese military reports, referring weapons to some blurry concept(某型) instead of using their actual name). That's why I called it an "official" release and blurred the image, as no clues were given officially of what it actually was. (However easily judging by the sharp angles and it's shape it surely belongs to 99A) Also the media is hardly reachable without a Chinese IP so I thought it best to keep it blurred.

PS knowing the actual thickness of some composite armour which you don't know its inner structures, materials and mechanisms doesn't really help much when trying to know its actual protection abilities. One example is that the Type 96 and 99A have UFP composite armour of roughly the same thickness, however the latter is much improved both in protection abilities and weight.
If 96 had similar thickness, why isn't the newer one having the armor material upgrade? Protection would surely outweight the cost.
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
If 96 had similar thickness, why isn't the newer one having the armor material upgrade? Protection would surely outweight the cost.
Long story short, it doesn't outweigh the cost. The only 96s currently under production are the 96Bs for the biathlon. Leveling the protection of 96 to equivalent with 99A doesn't bring any significant bonus to the overall potency of the tank as a whole. Electronic systems (including communication buses and FCSs), mobility (including the powerpack and walking systems), and firepower (for example the gun-autoloader assembly) of the 96 are all significantly older and less effective than the much newer 99A. To give the 96 as much effectiveness as something newer (old tanks like even the 99) involves much more than just changing a piece of armour and eventually will become extremely painstaking and not cost-effective.

Besides, the old 99 has roughly the same UFP plate protection as the 99A, so why even bother improving the 96's armour if you already have something just as good? (laugh)

Newer tanks such as the 99A and VT4 have much more advantages compared to older ones other than just some certain values of specifications.
 

FishWings

New Member
Registered Member
Low lifetime. Chief designer 毛明 tried both increasing the barrel length to L54 and use composite material sabots but both turned out to be not as effective as using LTSC charges developed by Prof. 王泽山. Plus 毛明 managed to work out a composite material WHA penetrator that efficiently reduced the minimum penetration velocity compared to traditional penetrators with similar dimensions. Why the composite sabots was discarded, was, according to relevant papers, because that although the velocity was effectively increased, the maximum chamber pressure exceeded the required design limit, which was mainly caused by unsuitable charge structures after changing the dimensions of the sabot. However more advanced charges have long been developed and might have been used on a certain new munition, but that's not what us amateurs should or will understand.

All above information are from papers and interviews open to the public.
Makes sense, thanks.

Also, upon closer inspection, I believe the second image you posted on #2889 has the L/50 gun used on the production variant. I believe the one I post below is also a prototype with the L/54, and with different ERA type/layout

99a2-1.jpg
 

RichardGao

Junior Member
Registered Member
Makes sense, thanks.

Also, upon closer inspection, I believe the second image you posted on #2889 has the L/50 gun used on the production variant. I believe the one I post below is also a prototype with the L/54, and with different ERA type/layout

View attachment 60790
Yes, pic 2 is production version. However production versions use L48 instead of L50.
This one is just an earlier prototype (we call it the theoretical experiment prototype(原理样车), the one above the initial prototype(初样车)).
 

Top