New Type98/99 MBT thread


FriedRiceNSpice

Senior Member
It doesn't make much sense to set an overly conservative estimate either though, it could lead to the development of strategies and tactics that are too defensive.

Also, if a tank can survive one frontal hit, won't it be able to survive many more than two? If the armor shatters or deflects a shell, only a small area around the target loses structural strength as the ceramic panels shatter and composites shred.
Wouldn't that not be case if it's ERA that is able to mitigate the effects of the first hit?
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
Wouldn't that not be case if it's ERA that is able to mitigate the effects of the first hit?
Only if you hit almost exact same spot twice, and only if base armour isn't sufficient. Possible, but can be reliably achieved only in ambushes, where there is no point aiming at main armor to begin with.

It's worth noting, however, that Non-explosive reactive armor - just like ERA - is degradable just as well. Size of degraded zone depends on the design.
 

steel21

Junior Member
Registered Member
Based on his wording I assume that the tank got outmaneuvered and took damage either from the side or the back, which makes me think that the simulation isn't a tank vs tank scenario but rather tank vs armored infantry or light tank for example. The solution for this, as I said multiple times already in this thread, is to quickly install the active protection system against these kinds of scenario. Side armor in general doesn't do anything, pretty much all modern ammunitions against tank would pierce it if it's hit from there. This is still the only possible option yet it's still hasn't been implemented.
As a former Abrams TC, when I read quote:

"We rushed with the Type 099A too close to the frontline, which did not optimize the use of the tank's combat capability,"

My interpretation is that they did not fully exploit the long stand-off capabilities of the vehicle, effectively sniping from afar. Instead they charged in, resulting in engagements within 1k range.

With current C4ISR and FLIR capabilities, you can sit back and call for fire on the enemy formations without any exposure. They don't necessarily have to take hits to realize their deficiencies during the AAR (After Action Review).
 

lgnxz

Junior Member
Registered Member
Side armor prevents instant destruction by the single most dangerous entity on the battlefield if anything. I.e. artillery fire, which in modern days all too often means 6" fire. That alone justifies significant steel thickness.
What is this supposed to even mean? You're trying to justify thick side armor to prevent a *direct hit* against artillery??? Makes zero sense.
Side armor ensures certain freedom of maneuver in MBT action, by allowing to actually maneuver with some certainty: shots to the side at oblique angles are just as dangerous, as shots in the front armor itself, because both long rods and ATGMs tend to work even at very sharp angles. Furthermore, side armor ensures, that at least light AT weapons - the ones which can be present on any hostile trooper you encounter - won't get you killed.

And, above anything - protection against all of those vastly increases willingness of your crews to take risks, and willingness of commanders to act bolder.
All these are a tangent on scenarios that's out of the original question; current side armor of type-99A is already able to prevent those feeble damages similar to other tanks, the question is whether additional armors are needed to prevent real targeted attacks like ATGM, which is best countered using APS since any protection you put on the side would still be penetrated given that tanks don't have even close of side thickness to prevent any piercement from that kind of attack using passive defensives like ERA or more armors.

Following your argument about giving the tank crew confidence from adding the side armor, it will just give them false sense of security because the aforementioned ineptness of side armor in preventing any proper anti-tank weapons. At least APS can prevent ATGM, which is already half if not most of the battle in solving the tank survivability question.
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
What is this supposed to even mean? You're trying to justify thick side armor to prevent a *direct hit* against artillery??? Makes zero sense.
Heavy splinters.
Direct 152-155mm hit will in most cases disable the vehicle anyway.

current side armor of type-99A is already able to prevent those feeble damages similar to other tanks
As far as we know(we have plenty of shots of 99A under construction), it can't, and those are in no way feeble.
The question is why it's so.

Following your argument about giving the tank crew confidence from adding the side armor, it will just give them false sense of security
I am stating real-world experiences. Tanks with clearly insufficient armor tend to stop being employed as, well, tanks by the crews, and turn into glorified disappearing guns. Or into static defense guns, which is even worse.

Many if not most manuals on proper use of armored formations directly name such use as misuse of valuable and precious assets(which armored formation is), but crews ultimately want to live.
 

Akame

New Member
Registered Member
How many Type-99A are in your inventory now? Also, is there any last development in the new generation tank project?
 

FishWings

Junior Member
Registered Member
How many Type-99A are in your inventory now? Also, is there any last development in the new generation tank project?
The estimate in 2020 placed the total number of ZTZ-99A at about 500 or even more (if I am remembering correctly from the post citing The Military Balance), and because production of the ZTZ-99A has not stopped yet, then now it is for sure over 500. Earlier this year, there was a report that all ZTZ-59 variants, including ZTZ-59D, have been phased out from active units, and following that would be ZTZ-88 series. Because only the ZTZ-99A and ZTQ-15 are produced for the army right now (and ZTZ-96A supposedly binned forever), eventually it can be expected to have a total count of no less than 800 in the PLA, possibly exceeding 1000 since the ZTZ-88 series needs to go too.

AFAIK the next-generation MBT program exists and that's all there is. All else is so far kept shut away from the public as far as I know. Try asking on the thread for specifically the future PLA MBT development and you'll get a better answer.

There does not seem to be a sense of urgency for developing/procuring a new super-tank in the PLA anyway, which is currently too busy trying to bury itself in new artillery systems rather than be concerned about a prospective MBT. The PLA seems more than satisfied with the ZTZ-99A for now, which means it will cling on to the platform for as long as it clinged on to the WZ-120. For certain the project won't be scrapped either, even if it progresses slow, though you can bet it will ramp up 1000% if there was suddenly a ground threat that has the PLA nervous (which can only be Russia ofc.)
 

alanch90

New Member
Registered Member
How many Type-99A are in your inventory now? Also, is there any last development in the new generation tank project?
There is a specific thread for the next gen tank under development. The little info we got so far suggests an Armata-like layout but with 2 crewmen and at a likely lower weight. If you want to discuss the implications of this, then i suggest you do it here:

 

DeXM

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Hello,

for some time I have been looking for information about the transmission and the ZTZ99A engine, but, unfortunately, I have just started learning Chinese, so it is rather difficult for me to search for information in Chinese sources.

As far as I could understand, the engine-transmission part of the ZTZ99A consists, in fact, of two components: the 150HB-2 engine and the CH-1000 transmission unit?

For example, the question of the number of forward and reverse gears, as well as the maximum reverse speed, is still not clear? In particular, I found references to the presence of 3 (?) Reverse gears?

Or about a scheme similar to the Leopard, since, as far as I understand, when developing ZTZ99A, Chinese engineers looked at German MTU engines?


ZTZ99A, CH-1000 real.jpg

ZTZ99A, CH-1000.jpg
 

Top