New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
This is a diagram of the 99A which evolved from the 99, which in turn evolved from the "Type 98" pre-production prototype.
The part that you highlighted is just the applique add-on armor which is featured on the 99 but not on the 98. The 99A has ERA integrated onto the front of the applique modules.
My understanding is that the armor profile is more like this:
Base armor is in blue, inherited from Type 98. The applique add-on module is in red. ERA is attached onto the applique panel which is in yellow.
You can see this evolution starting from the Type 98 (no applique, no ERA):
Then the base model Type 99 with applique armor and ERA on the front glacis and turret sides, but strangely not on the front of the turret applique module. Keep in mind that the base armor from the Type 98 should still be there, just hidden by the applique:
Finally the Type 99A with ERA all over the applique module and everywhere else:
This example shows a Type 99A without the ERA, not without the applique armor. The ERA blocks are fitted to the screw-like protrusions but the non-reactive armor and the add-on modules are still there.
The Type 99A with ERA is quite well-protected. I don't know the thickness of the base Type 98/99 turret armor but if it's anything like contemporary Soviet armor it should be around 400-500mm effective against APFSDS. The applique is not solid so it should add just a little more, and the FY-4 heavy ERA could give around 200mm effective against APFSDS, but no way to verify this as details are classified.
So overall you are looking at 700mm RHAe vs APFSDS not taking into account the angle (which should help a lot if the sabot strikes the upper half of the turret). Against HEAT it should be much more effective, perhaps even invulnerable to most ATGMs. The ERA is enough to defeat a typical HEAT warhead, and if a tandem-charge triggers the ERA, the main charge will most likely be set off by the applique backing, after which it has a huge air gap to traverse before striking the base turret armor, negating most of its power. The composite base armor can then absorb any remaining energy that reaches it.
And all that is assuming the APS doesn't blow it up before it even reaches the tank... lol.
For its weight class (55t), the 99A's turret armor is not bad at all. Compared to some NATO tanks it is clearly inferior against KE projectiles, but the trade-off for those vehicles is that they are much heavier, like the M1A2 SEPv2 (65t) or Challenger 2 (75t). But against HEAT, I find no glaring flaw in its layered protection. The main weakness of Chinese MBTs is that they offer good protection in a very limited frontal arc, so they are more vulnerable to flanking enemies. But if you're a TOW gunner and one of these things are hull-down and looking at you, you will have a very bad day.
If this is FY-4 then it should be 85mm thick. It is 3rd generation ERA similar to Kontakt-5.
Yes i know thats the bare 99A I was point that out. 400-500mm's of armour would be on par with a T64 which is a no no and as far as i know they've switched from YF-4 to YF-5 which is on par with Relik and IIRC is a licenced produced Nozh.
What you forget is that the Abrams and CH2 are much larger than the ZTZ99A and the fontal ark fault is due to them being designed to fight in the open plains of Western China.
The ERA is FY-4? I remember someone(forgot where) said it's a new type, similar to Relikt.
Also, I found this a long time ago(might've been posted here before) commenters said that the turret has between 700-799mm KE protection without ERA, not sure if true.
iktThere are a good amount of things that we'd as western observers would find fault in, for the uses the tank is designed for they do make sense. Most of the issues can be fixed with simple addon packages which isn't a far reaching possibility but with the terrain China is fighting in i doubt they'd bother with any upgrades to the side protection.
With combat as it is things like terrain and foliage to hide the hull very well and the only reason that America and Britain have such things is due to urban combat.
With combat as it is things like terrain and foliage to hide the hull very well and the only reason that America and Britain have such things is due to urban combat.
Yeah, tanks like the Type 10, Type 90 are examples that trade side armor for decrease in weight. I don't think it's a defect as it can be rectified with upgrades.
Yeah i've seen that photo before but i don't know whats the range they're saying thats the armour level.
We say the ERA has 30-35%~ penetration reduction if it was Kontakt 5, and add that to the prior photo you mentioned earlier. We can give a solid base idea for the turret levels.
700mm 799mm
30% | 910mm | 1039mm
35% | 945mm | 1079mm
With the ERA it's on par with standard western MBT's but still don't know if thats at 2km or point blank.
Now if it's a more modern form of ERA either Relikt or Nozh that percentage would sky rocket much higher than stated above.
700mm 799mm
30% | 910mm | 1039mm
35% | 945mm | 1079mm
With the ERA it's on par with standard western MBT's but still don't know if thats at 2km or point blank.
Now if it's a more modern form of ERA either Relikt or Nozh that percentage would sky rocket much higher than stated above.
Type 99 that are in the service within PLA are currently only fitted with soft kill APS though. I don’t think they have any hard kill APS, even though it is available as an upgrade.
God knows what the APS is, 99A seems to be a soft kill system but the standard 99 there are so many sources that conflict some saying soft kill others saying hard kill. It's hard to say which is right.
I know there are photos of them up close out there but finding them in a real pain.