New Type98/99 MBT thread


dawn_strike

New Member
Registered Member
And I forgot to mention that the frontal protection sector of all Chinese MBTs so far still covers only 15°left/right rather than 30°left/right on most NATO MBTs and the T90MS.
 

dawn_strike

New Member
Registered Member
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.
There are quite some pictures showing the 99A’s turret without ERA but with base armor, in which its turret is still wedge shaped.
a8986831gy1gjkgut5cs5j20iv05pt8x.jpg

While the 99’s turret without ERA but with base armor is like:
3e28012dd42a2834b627427454b5c9ea14cebfb9.jpg


You can also get evidence from the shape of its naked turret without any base amour:
a8986831gy1gjisr9cps2j21hc0u0u0x.jpg
In comparison, a ZTZ99's turret is like this:
0e10d43c44418664b2fb1ce8dd6cdb72_720w.jpg
See the different shapes of that gudgeon area? It is in line with the shape of the add-on base armor modules.
 

berserk

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
Wrong in fact it doesn't. ZTZ 99 has it shortcomings. that's why ZTZ 99A was developed.
It come close but with added weight ( it's a good tank nontheless though ). That higher weight does not mean it's better protected or its frontal protection is superior to upgraded russian tanks lol.
Tank turrent geometry along with ERA placement is a better measure of protection capabilities. ERA( kontakt 5 copy ) arrangement are poor and are again not placed away from base turret armour( except in back side ) but are attached to it. Frontal side armour is again poor , slight flanking and this tank is a done deal.
ERA are also angled less than Kontakt 5 and Relikt on russian tanks.
Type-99A-Tank-Turret-Armor-1.jpg

ERA arrangement upgraded T 72B3 for e.g
223c5da40263121bb99b36f3e6e5eea0.jpg

This will directly affect performance. russian ERA arrangement allow maximum performance utilisation , compared to one attached to the base armour. Which have to be made thicker+ heavier ( weight increase ) more explosive charge lol.

turrent armour and rear hull is bigger than type 99 which has increased weight but again there are problems here to.

Type-99A-Tank-Differences.jpg
Type-99A-Tank-Without-armor.jpg

Frontal base turrent armour is modular. Which is good but it takes 50% of armour module volume. It will directly affect it's effectiveness.

new T 90M Proryv 3 has 800mm+ frontal base armour alone without ERA.
EbX89qeXsAULNs5 (1).jpeg
T 90A on left and T 90M on right notice the new bigger welded turrent in front ( driver hatch is completely covered in T 90M and no it's not due to Relikt alone).

ERA arrangement is again superior , away from turret and better angled in front.
Relikt is superior to kontakt 5.

Fire power wise it at best is comparable to upgraded T 72 , T 80U , T 90A in russian service. Protection wise i would put it same as new T 90S with welded turret at best. nothing special about this tank either.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
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 always thought those images of the "naked" 99A is just a welded wedge shape or removable block a la ztz-99. But thinking about it, it definitely wouldn't be a welded edge shape, they would be better off going the same method as ztz-99.
 

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
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 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.

1603299525087.png

Clearly both sources contradict each other. If i had to choose, i would go with Norinco. However, no matter if the total protection goes near or over "1000mm" both cases the base armor must be around 700-800.
 

Inst

Senior Member
The problem with the ZTZ-99 is more obvious if you look at its turret geometry in comparison to the ZTQ-15. The ZTQ-15 has far superior frontal side armor, while the ZTZ-99 seems more designed for defensive operations as its turret can't really maneuver without exposing the thin frontal side armor (and more importantly, the section underneath the smoke launchers) to enemy fire.

You have to remember, the ZTZ-99A is a late 90s / early 00s design, while the ZTQ-15 is a more modern design for the 21st century. The ZTZ-99A is not going to be improved much further; its successor will likely be more in the vein of Armata than just an up-armored / up-gunned ZTZ-99A.

And claims that the ZTZ-99A's gun penetration is bad are likely false. The ZPT-98 is a 50 caliber gun, the 2A46 and its descendants are 48 caliber guns, meaning that the ZPT-98, using similar ammunition, should achieve higher barrel energies than the 2A46.

The ZTZ-99A2, on the other hand, is using a new gun and autoloader system with ability to support 1-piece ammunition that the ZTZ-99 and T-90s can't. The caliber, likewise, is now 52, making it theoretically superior to the ZPT-98 and increasing its performance further vs the T-90.

===

Where Chinese tank design really shines is with the engine. Chinese tanks tend to have far better power to weight ratios than Russian-manufactured tanks, which grant better strategic mobility. The ZTZ-99 line is between 24-27 HP / ton, which puts it in the Leclerc range in terms of power to weight, almost to the level of the ZTQ-15 / VT5 light tanks. The older T-90s are in the 18 HP / ton range, the newer T-90s are around the 23.5 HP / ton range.

Of course, if you look at the Armata, that's in the 31 HP / ton range but that's a next-generation tank on a whole different paradigm.
 

FriedRiceNSpice

Senior Member
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.
 

noone536

Junior Member
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.
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)

also on the side note i can be complete wrong as i don't know much about anything.
 

Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.

That's the schwerpunkt concept in Guderian's doctrine, but it was established before the realities of WWII set in. And yes, in theory, it works. But a lot of things need to go right for it to work e.g. as Rommel found out in North Africa, none of this matters unless you have air superiority over the battlefield. Also, the enemy gets a vote in your war plan. If you can't hide your intentions, your schwerpunkt/'main tank force' will be countered by the enemy's own, thus resulting in massive armor vs armor showdowns (which happened a lot.) Additionally, these days, massed armor is a very juicy target for cluster munitions, which can take out an entire armored division in a single strike (and they have.) Nevertheless, yes, in theory, you never want to attack head on, even when everything is in your favor, because it's inelegant, lazy and prone to avoidable risk. But as Moltke the Elder originally said, and Mike Tyson later paraphrased: "Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face."... So basically: You can't be designing MBTs hoping they won't encounter other MBTs.

p.s. The original Moltke quote for the hardcore mil-history nuts: “No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength”. (The oft-shortened "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" misquote is an inaccurate representation... What he meant, was that you should have plans B, C, D and E ready, in a branching Decision-Tree sort of way, because Plan A will not survive.)
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
The relatively thicker side armour of NATO and Russian tanks are rather meaningless in a conventional war to be honest.
It's worth noting that Russian tank sides got rather urgently updated after Ukrainian experience.
That's the latest(and arguably the only proper) example of relatively massed armored combat.

Reliable protection against light infantry AT&good chance to withstand sharper angle hits is actually useful.
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.
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!).

A significant part of the weight difference b/n modern chinese and russian tanks comes from larger internal volume of the former: type 90(MBT-2000/VT-4) and type 98/99/99A lineages are simply significantly longer than t-72xxx tanks.
 

Top