There are quite some pictures showing the 99A’s turret without ERA but with base armor, in which its turret is still wedge shaped.I've never seen evidence that 99A's main armour is also wedge shaped. I still think the 99A's geometry is superior to the VT-4, 99, and 96A with its near horizontal upper section which stretches the distance to cover a maximum horizontal distance before the inevitable inflection and shape that accommodates for the driver. I assumed the main armour underneath is not too dissimilar to the Type 98/99.
Wrong in fact it doesn't. ZTZ 99 has it shortcomings. that's why ZTZ 99A was developed.Wrong. Type 99 has far superior frontal armour compared to the very best of "heavier" Russian tanks - modernised T-80s (no longer built) and modernised T-90s.
There are quite some pictures showing the 99A’s turret without ERA but with base armor, in which its turret is still wedge shaped.
View attachment 64765
While the 99’s turret without ERA but with base armor is like:
View attachment 64768
You can also get evidence from the shape of its naked turret without any base amour:
View attachment 64766
In comparison, a ZTZ99's turret is like this:
View attachment 64767
See the different shapes of that gudgeon area? It is in line with the shape of the add-on base armor modules.
I stand corrected, indeed the Norinco presentation featured those values. Meaning that in terms of KE protection, the total effectiveness of the turret can go from 880mm to 979mm. On the other hand, a senior PLA commander claimed on state television, that the total protection both against HEAT and APFSDS is over 1000mm.I believe it's 7xx KE and 1xxx CE.
Indeed there was a TV show claiming that 99A had 1xxx mm KE&CE but this was told by a soldier and there could be misinformation.
I don't know if i completely agree with your second part because during desert storm and battle of the bulge , tank were used to penetrate hard entrenched tank or bunker and in some cases with tank to tank fight. i understand where you philosophy is come and you do have a very strong point in that tank are a very strong mobile firepower and out maneuvering like in all war is a core philosophy. unfortunately in war their gonna be many cases where their is no option to out maneuver and the only course of action is atk head on with tank. I believe many people will think and prepare war on maneuvering but sometime the only way to get the job done is to atk head on. ( Battle of bulge might not be good example has the German lost by attacking head on but many other factor play into it and lets not start that discussion)Attributes such as weight, reliability, off-road performance, range, strategic mobility, and cost are all more important to a tank than firepower and protection. Tiger tanks were horrible investments when compared to T-34s. In proper tank doctrine, you do not use your main tank force to take on the enemy's main tank force in a head-on battle. Instead, you fight a war of maneuver, avoiding the enemy's strong points and concentrating against the enemy's weak points, attacking lines of communication and resupply, and isolating and cutting off enemy units. The goal is to neutralize the ability of the enemy's main force without actually having to engage it. All Russian tanks with the exception of Armata and the Type-96 exhibit the correct design philosophies. Whether tank A or tank B is better in a one-on-one situation is meaningless when it comes to evaluating tank design. Modern war is not fought in the same manner that medieval knights did.
In proper tank doctrine, you do not use your main tank force to take on the enemy's main tank force in a head-on battle. Instead, you fight a war of maneuver, avoiding the enemy's strong points and concentrating against the enemy's weak points, attacking lines of communication and resupply, and isolating and cutting off enemy units. The goal is to neutralize the ability of the enemy's main force without actually having to engage it.
It's worth noting that Russian tank sides got rather urgently updated after Ukrainian experience.The relatively thicker side armour of NATO and Russian tanks are rather meaningless in a conventional war to be honest.
Well, Russian tanks nevertheless managed to get tandem side protection(two layers of ERA). The outer layer is lightly made for sure("bags with ERA"), but proper side protection weighs really a lot(Ukrainian BM Oplot, for example, weights whole 51t at similar internal volume&layout!).The Chinese design choices really is a better optimised set for PLA's own circumstances and requirements. Russian side armour isn't much thicker if at all! A 45 tonne tank with thicker side armour than a 58 tonner? yeah those people are pulling shit our of their arse. Again Russian side armour is as abysmal as Chinese side armour.