New Type98/99 MBT thread


Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
Also, add to that its hardkill APS system against ATGMs.
No APS is actually actually installed on Pakistani tanks.
There is an endless problem with APS installations: they're necessary, but at the same time they're brutally expensive.

Maybe this equation will finally start to shift after Karabakh experience...

Also... the VT-4 is the sexiest looking MBT in the world
Type 99A is sexier
;)
 

Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
LOL i just gave higher frontal value to keep you lot happy.
Thanks, I'm very happy.

Lack of awareness about T 72 upgrades among Pakistani members is probably due lack of iodine in food which dampened brain development hence situational awareness.
Bold move, talking about diet... coming from an Indian, with all those special yellow drinks you guys love over there.

actually no. Svinets 1 will shatter VT 4 from front at 2km easily
Maybe check your own math.... and get some more iodine, and a little less... you know what.
 

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
I just need to clarify some stuff going around. DIscussing if VT-4 is better or worse than T-90MS is not entirely related as to which one has the advantage in a frontal combat.
In that respect, i would say that while T-90MS can resist frontally any APFSDS offered by the chinese, the russians DON'T OFFER Svinets 1-2 for export either (these can penetrate 700 and 600mm at 2km according to NIMI and can defeat ERA, making them equivalents to most of the newest western APFSDS, M829A3, DM53/63, etc.). The best APFSDS the russians are offering is Lekalo/Mango-M which like Svinets has special features to defeat 2nd gen ERA (Kontakt 5, FY-II) but has inferior penetration capabilities, being limited to less than 600mm (580mm to be precise, according to NIMI export catalogues) at 2km. While we don´t know the effectiveness of VT-4 base armor, i would be VERY surprised if it wasn't in the 600-700 range, without accounting for the ERA. So, while Lekalo/Mango-M can defeat the FY-II ERA featured in VT-4 sold to countries other than Pakistan, it most likely still won't be enough to completely defeat frontally the tank. If we are talking about the latest VT-4 as offered to Pakistan, the odds are even more in favor of this tank, as it features FY-IV ERA, which is classified as a 3rd gen type, just like Relikt and Duplet (however it is stated by the chinese to be a little less effective than these). Being a 3rd gen ERA (having a "double acting mechanism") it may be able to overcome all the APFSDS mentioned until now, which have capabilities to defeat the previous generation of ERA. This should answer the question as to which tank may have frontal overmatch: basically, no one as none of them are sold with projectiles capable of defeating the other.
Now about the stuff that makes also a difference in combat, who sees and shoots first. Both tanks have thermal sights and CITV, which makes them pretty comparable. T-90MS has 3rd gen thermal sight for the commander and 2nd gen for the gunner (with digital enhancer). I don't know about the specific capabilities of the sights of VT-4 but i would expect 2nd gen for commander and gunner at the very minimum and perhaps even 3rd gen for both. So, again very comparable.

Now, comparing other attributes of the tanks: VT-4 has much better mobility characteristics. Much more modern and powerful engine/transmission on par with the latest in western service. T-90MS still uses a modernized version of the T-34 engine and its transmission, while reliable and proven, doesn't provide mobility parameters on par with the world standard. On the other hand, T-90MS has much better side protection, as the russians offer a lot of ERA alternatives to be mounted on the sides (the Relikt+2S24 light ERA combo is excellent by nowadays standards) while the chinese don't even mount armor on the hull sides of their tanks. Likewise, the turret armor on VT-4 (again, comparable to T-90MS in effectiveness) covers a narrower frontal arc than the russian competitor. So, in my view overall both tanks are equal in firepower, VT-4 wins mobility and T-90MS wins in protection. The really classified aspects of C4I, networking, communications cannot be compared really but what is most certain is that in these areas T-90MS definitely differs from russian service T-90M.

As side notes, T-90MS has some ergonomic advantages over VT-4. For example, the placement of CITV is optimal as to not interfere with the visibility of the commander´s periscopes, unlike what we´ve seen in chinese tanks (and most western tanks as well). Likewise, the integration of the RCWS in T-90M/MS into the CITV is the best solution as to keep good visibility both from the periscopes and the CITV itself, any other tank in the world which has RCWS it ends up obstructing the field of vision one way or the other. Also, the internal arrangement of the commander´s station is excellent, very spacious, ergonomic and well laid out. So, a lot of kudos to the russians in that respect. Oh and T-90MS has air conditioner for the crew, so that's a definite advantage over other tanks. If only the russians had developed a modern engine/transmission for the tank...
 

Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
No APS is actually actually installed on Pakistani tanks.
There is an endless problem with APS installations: they're necessary, but at the same time they're brutally expensive.
Ah, I see, but if it is available then perhaps it will be equipped in the future.

Maybe this equation will finally start to shift after Karabakh experience...
I think cost is probably the only issue, as even the Americans delayed it, even though everyone does understand its benefits. I think the Israelis were the first to prove the concept in battle, with their Trophy system.

Type 99A is sexier
;)
No way !


I just need to clarify some stuff going around. DIscussing if VT-4 is better or worse than T-90MS is not entirely related as to which one has the advantage in a frontal combat.
In that respect, i would say that while T-90MS can resist frontally any APFSDS offered by the chinese, the russians DON'T OFFER Svinets 1-2 for export either (these can penetrate 700 and 600mm at 2km according to NIMI and can defeat ERA, making them equivalents to most of the newest western APFSDS, M829A3, DM53/63, etc.). The best APFSDS the russians are offering is Lekalo/Mango-M which like Svinets has special features to defeat 2nd gen ERA (Kontakt 5, FY-II) but has inferior penetration capabilities, being limited to less than 600mm (580mm to be precise, according to NIMI export catalogues) at 2km. While we don´t know the effectiveness of VT-4 base armor, i would be VERY surprised if it wasn't in the 600-700 range, without accounting for the ERA. So, while Lekalo/Mango-M can defeat the FY-II ERA featured in VT-4 sold to countries other than Pakistan, it most likely still won't be enough to completely defeat frontally the tank. If we are talking about the latest VT-4 as offered to Pakistan, the odds are even more in favor of this tank, as it features FY-IV ERA, which is classified as a 3rd gen type, just like Relikt and Duplet (however it is stated by the chinese to be a little less effective than these). Being a 3rd gen ERA (having a "double acting mechanism") it may be able to overcome all the APFSDS mentioned until now, which have capabilities to defeat the previous generation of ERA. This should answer the question as to which tank may have frontal overmatch: basically, no one as none of them are sold with projectiles capable of defeating the other.
Now about the stuff that makes also a difference in combat, who sees and shoots first. Both tanks have thermal sights and CITV, which makes them pretty comparable. T-90MS has 3rd gen thermal sight for the commander and 2nd gen for the gunner (with digital enhancer). I don't know about the specific capabilities of the sights of VT-4 but i would expect 2nd gen for commander and gunner at the very minimum and perhaps even 3rd gen for both. So, again very comparable.

Now, comparing other attributes of the tanks: VT-4 has much better mobility characteristics. Much more modern and powerful engine/transmission on par with the latest in western service. T-90MS still uses a modernized version of the T-34 engine and its transmission, while reliable and proven, doesn't provide mobility parameters on par with the world standard. On the other hand, T-90MS has much better side protection, as the russians offer a lot of ERA alternatives to be mounted on the sides (the Relikt+2S24 light ERA combo is excellent by nowadays standards) while the chinese don't even mount armor on the hull sides of their tanks. Likewise, the turret armor on VT-4 (again, comparable to T-90MS in effectiveness) covers a narrower frontal arc than the russian competitor. So, in my view overall both tanks are equal in firepower, VT-4 wins mobility and T-90MS wins in protection. The really classified aspects of C4I, networking, communications cannot be compared really but what is most certain is that in these areas T-90MS definitely differs from russian service T-90M.

As side notes, T-90MS has some ergonomic advantages over VT-4. For example, the placement of CITV is optimal as to not interfere with the visibility of the commander´s periscopes, unlike what we´ve seen in chinese tanks (and most western tanks as well). Likewise, the integration of the RCWS in T-90M/MS into the CITV is the best solution as to keep good visibility both from the periscopes and the CITV itself, any other tank in the world which has RCWS it ends up obstructing the field of vision one way or the other. Also, the internal arrangement of the commander´s station is excellent, very spacious, ergonomic and well laid out. So, a lot of kudos to the russians in that respect. Oh and T-90MS has air conditioner for the crew, so that's a definite advantage over other tanks. If only the russians had developed a modern engine/transmission for the tank...
Very good intel, but I wish you included a few sources/links e.g. are we sure that the Svinets 1-2 sabots are export restricted?

But it looks like the VT-4 may be a match even for the T-90MS on specs alone, which is awesome.
 

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
Very good intel, but I wish you included a few sources/links e.g. are we sure that the Svinets 1-2 sabots are export restricted?

But it looks like the VT-4 may be a match even for the T-90MS on specs alone, which is awesome.
It's a matter of time, i do have sources to everything i claimed but right now i'm busy with other real life stuff (but i didn't want the chance to write all of that pass by). However, much of what i said i pulled straight from manufacturers websites (try Nii Staly for example, the russian language version, for info on soviet/russian ERA). About the restrictions on ammo export, here's the deal: Svinets 1-2 require factory modifications of the tanks autoloader in order to fit in T-72/90 type. Most of the international customers won't have the chance of doing that (and traditionally, USSR and later the russians never exported their best in service ammo while its new). On the other hand, buying T-90MS new from factory will ensure that it can fit Svinets. However so far there is no indication that these rounds are cleared for export. On the other hand, Lekalo/Mango-M while having a similar projectile, features a shorter penetrator because it's meant to fit in T-72 autoloaders without modifications making for a very attractive round for T-72/90 operators not willing to send their tanks back to factory.

For Svinets-2 and Mango-M/Lekalo info:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

berserk

Junior Member
Registered Member
In that respect, i would say that while T-90MS can resist frontally any APFSDS offered by the chinese, the russians DON'T OFFER Svinets 1-2 for export either (these can penetrate 700 and 600mm at 2km according to NIMI and can defeat ERA, making them equivalents to most of the newest western APFSDS, M829A3, DM53/63, etc.).
Svinets 2 is up for export. indian T 90 will probably have them. Indian army RFI require a new APFSDS.
Credit DFI.
EQLMpKJUcAUXzVm (1).jpeg
The best APFSDS the russians are offering is Lekalo/Mango-M which like Svinets has special features to defeat 2nd gen ERA (Kontakt 5, FY-II) but has inferior penetration capabilities, being limited to less than 600mm (580mm to be precise, according to NIMI export catalogues) at 2km.
FY 2 ERA is not kontakt 5 ha ha!.
Mango M actual penetration is 560mm certified.

Credit: DFI
kghYli_KMcQ.jpg.03ff241704df9134329c912da2bf7d8d (1).jpg
.
While we don´t know the effectiveness of VT-4 base armor, i would be VERY surprised if it wasn't in the 600-700 range, without accounting for the ERA.
It's base armour is same as older Type 96A.
and even with FY 4 ERA it's protection level is same as T 72 being upgraded in indian arsenal. :)
.
So, while Lekalo/Mango-M can defeat the FY-II ERA featured in VT-4 sold to countries other than Pakistan, it most likely still won't be enough to completely defeat frontally the tank.
Well that's right even I don't think mango APFSDS penetrating VT 4 turret from 2 km.
.
If we are talking about the latest VT-4 as offered to Pakistan, the odds are even more in favor of this tank, as it features FY-IV ERA, which is classified as a 3rd gen type, just like Relikt and Duplet (however it is stated by the chinese to be a little less effective than these). Being a 3rd gen ERA (having a "double acting mechanism")
Odd are hardly in it's favour and FY-4 ERA is not in a league of Relikt or duplet, it has comparable performance to kontakt 5 at best.
.
it may be able to overcome all the APFSDS mentioned until now, which have capabilities to defeat the previous generation of ERA. This should answer the question as to which tank may have frontal overmatch: basically, no one as none of them are sold with projectiles capable of defeating the other.
Now about the stuff that makes also a difference in combat, who sees and shoots first. Both tanks have thermal sights and CITV, which makes them pretty comparable. T-90MS has 3rd gen thermal sight for the commander and 2nd gen for the gunner (with digital enhancer). I don't know about the specific capabilities of the sights of VT-4 but i would expect 2nd gen for commander and gunner at the very minimum and perhaps even 3rd gen for both. So, again very comparable.

Now, comparing other attributes of the tanks: VT-4 has much better mobility characteristics. Much more modern and powerful engine/transmission on par with the latest in western service. T-90MS still uses a modernized version of the T-34 engine and its transmission, while reliable and proven, doesn't provide mobility parameters on par with the world standard. On the other hand, T-90MS has much better side protection, as the russians offer a lot of ERA alternatives to be mounted on the sides (the Relikt+2S24 light ERA combo is excellent by nowadays standards) while the chinese don't even mount armor on the hull sides of their tanks. Likewise, the turret armor on VT-4 (again, comparable to T-90MS in effectiveness) covers a narrower frontal arc than the russian competitor. So, in my view overall both tanks are equal in firepower, VT-4 wins mobility and T-90MS wins in protection. The really classified aspects of C4I, networking, communications cannot be compared really but what is most certain is that in these areas T-90MS definitely differs from russian service T-90M.

As side notes, T-90MS has some ergonomic advantages over VT-4. For example, the placement of CITV is optimal as to not interfere with the visibility of the commander´s periscopes, unlike what we´ve seen in chinese tanks (and most western tanks as well). Likewise, the integration of the RCWS in T-90M/MS into the CITV is the best solution as to keep good visibility both from the periscopes and the CITV itself, any other tank in the world which has RCWS it ends up obstructing the field of vision one way or the other. Also, the internal arrangement of the commander´s station is excellent, very spacious, ergonomic and well laid out. So, a lot of kudos to the russians in that respect. Oh and T-90MS has air conditioner for the crew, so that's a definite advantage over other tanks. If only the russians had developed a modern engine/transmission for the tank...
You wrote a lot of gibberish nothing more. Typical Chinese fanboy. VT 4 protection level is pathetic and is comparable to upgrade T 72( and i being generous here once more ). ammo is pathetic with 600mm DOP. FCS is also pathetic. china stonk is good for this forum and it's fanboys only lol.
It's a matter of time, i do have sources to everything i claimed but right now i'm busy with other real life stuff (but i didn't want the chance to write all of that pass by). However, much of what i said i pulled straight from manufacturers websites (try Nii Staly for example, the russian language version, for info on soviet/russian ERA). About the restrictions on ammo export, here's the deal: Svinets 1-2 require factory modifications of the tanks autoloader in order to fit in T-72/90 type. Most of the international customers won't have the chance of doing that (and traditionally, USSR and later the russians never exported their best in service ammo while its new). On the other hand, buying T-90MS new from factory will ensure that it can fit Svinets. However so far there is no indication that these rounds are cleared for export. On the other hand, Lekalo/Mango-M while having a similar projectile, features a shorter penetrator because it's meant to fit in T-72 autoloaders without modifications making for a very attractive round for T-72/90 operators not willing to send their tanks back to factory.

For Svinets-2 and Mango-M/Lekalo info:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Svinets 1 & 2 require bigger autoloader but can use same gun which will give less DOP though. For e.g svinets 2 with current T 90S gun has 600mm DOP but 660mm with upgraded gun due to higher muzzle velocity.
 

berserk

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ah, I see, but if it is available then perhaps it will be equipped in the future.



I think cost is probably the only issue, as even the Americans delayed it, even though everyone does understand its benefits. I think the Israelis were the first to prove the concept in battle, with their Trophy system.



No way !




Very good intel, but I wish you included a few sources/links e.g. are we sure that the Svinets 1-2 sabots are export restricted?

But it looks like the VT-4 may be a match even for the T-90MS on specs alone, which is awesome.
VT 4 matches T 90MS in your dream only. I hope it matches upgraded T 72 though in coming years lmao!.
 

Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
@berserk

Right, so everyone here is biased except you... the guy who claimed India was going to launch a massive counter-offensive to get all the land it lost back from China... like half a year ago. If your T-90MS is so amazing, maybe actually use it and go get your claimed land back. Even if the tank is great, your army is still useless, so...
 

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
the russians DON'T OFFER Svinets 1-2 for export either
They're listed&shown to customers at exhibitions from 2018 onwards, i.e. they're probably purchasable.
Irrelevance is only this particular case(We know that India continues to opt for new batches of Mango).


VT-4 has much better mobility characteristics. Much more modern and powerful engine/transmission on par with the latest in western service. T-90MS still uses a modernized version of the T-34 engine and its transmission, while reliable and proven, doesn't provide mobility parameters on par with the world standard.
V-92 is indeed a member of a huge V-2 family, but calling 1130 hp V-92S2F a modernized version of 500 hp V-2 is a stretch.
It's coupled with a new automatic transmission.

Hp/ton ratio is comparable to 1300 hp-powered VT-4(and significantly below 1500 hp one), since T-90MS and T-90M are lighter.
Nonetheless, both are still within the gauge of modern tank power2weight ratio.

For example, the placement of CITV is optimal as to not interfere with the visibility of the commander´s periscopes, unlike what we´ve seen in chinese tanks (and most western tanks as well).
Russian commander's sights are essentially the only ones in the world w/o a direct optical channel.
It's a hefty price tag for convenience...
 

berserk

Junior Member
Registered Member
@berserk

Right, so everyone here is biased except you... the guy who claimed India was going to launch a massive counter-offensive to get all the land it lost back from China... like half a year ago. If your T-90MS is so amazing, maybe actually use it and go get your claimed land back. Even if the tank is great, your army is still useless, so...
You like chinese fanboys here have given no evidence on your own but only opinion
( biased ofcourse , which is expected and you accuse other lol ) . Oh chinese tank is superior cause i said so. It is inducted by Pakistan , it must be superior, notice my tank senpai, notice it lol.
No buddy it's not superior. it's base armour is same old Type 96A with ERA , best it can achieve is 800mm of frontal protection( manufacturer rate it at 700mm though ). That's Less than T 90S , comparable to upgrade T 72 in indian arsenal. It's APFSDS penetration value are given as 220mm/68.5° at 2000 meters. slightly better than mango M nothing special. so no it's not jinni that Pakistani think it is.
 

Top