New Type98/99 MBT thread

dawn_strike

New Member
Registered Member
Simply from common sense and observation of PLA tank doctrine.

Do we really think PLA tanks numbering in their thousands designed to be used in mass sweeping attacks will have the exact same design specifications as NATO tanks and doctrine?

For one clearly observable fact, PLA tanks do not use much side armour at all. pretty much anything anti-tank will penetrate PLA MBT side armour. It is literally about 10cm thick at an absolute maximum for the heavier ones like 99A. Compensated with very capable ERA for sure but this is revealing of their requirement specs and doctrine.

I admit I'm carrying this over to powertrain but my assumption there is based on the price and production rate of 96A and 99A (as the only two PLA used MBTs). You simply cannot have the same requirement specs for a fifth of the price and produced at a rate that is many, many times greater than any other existing production line. I'm sorry but a Type 10 at let's say 20 units per year and $8M each for Japanese themselves is simply going to have higher specs and requirements than a Type 96 at $1M each and 200 units produced a year. Even if we account for differences in value, purchasing power of the currency, efficiency and scale of workforce and production facilities.

With any assumed relative "deficiency" in engine lifespan, it isn't a matter of engineering or industrial capability. This stuff is easy and was easy 10 years ago for Chinese industry. The reason for any difference in lifespan is going to be due to design specifications that come from client's requirements, in this case PLA where they want xyz product for $1M each and at an acquisition rate of let's say 200 a year for example. To meet these, the suppliers give them abc conditions and they both agree on xyz product with such and such requirements out of the design and subsystems. This would also include things like how many times the barrel can fire a particular type of shot before needing replacement.
I do not think we need to find excuses for issues like engin reliablity or side amour ... I think they just had to compensate.
E.g. Because of their level of industry development and their budget, they tried to make their engin and transmission system as reliable as possible but still not as good
Or: Because they required their MBTs to be less than 55tons but still have > 700 mm KE protection on the front, they had to give up side protection and put the weights on frontal protection.
In other words: Chinese tank industry is simply still backward in techniques (either in designing or manufacturing).
 

Chavez

Junior Member
Registered Member
Majority iraqi t72 tank use older steel round,one abrams tank survive hit from t72 at 550 -meter .
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I do not think we need to find excuses for issues like engin reliablity or side amour ... I think they just had to compensate.
E.g. Because of their level of industry development and their budget, they tried to make their engin and transmission system as reliable as possible but still not as good
Or: Because they required their MBTs to be less than 55tons but still have > 700 mm KE protection on the front, they had to give up side protection and put the weights on frontal protection.
In other words: Chinese tank industry is simply still backward in techniques (either in designing or manufacturing).

Let's say you're given x hours, $10,000, and 1T of material to make a 1200hp engine. A very reliable one would cost you 1.5x hours, $20,000, and 1.5T of material. This is the engineering compromises involved that mean the tank's engine designer and maker has to deal with. They offer the best they can do for those requirements and allocated resources.

Chinese tank designers and builders have a different task compared to Chinese 6th gen fighter designers. One has a lot more leeway, understanding, and resources to use.

Tank design is so bloody easy a person with a half decent grasp of high school physics and geometry can understand the concepts of tank design (in terms of armour relating to mobility and protection domains). You want a well protected tank from frontal only or frontal and 15 degrees? or 20 degrees? No <80T tank can take a direct side shot from a 120mm or 125mm... whatever the ammunition as long as it is a modern one it is going to shred through. The question is what degree of protection you want, pun intended.

For PLA planners and doctrine, they do not care for side protection. Maybe 5 degrees off frontal will effectively have to go through so much rha of effective angled side armour that it is sufficient protection but maybe anything over that is a certain kill. All this is is basic stats and geometry to create a "perfect" or "ideal" turret geometry. This is a simple task and should take any tank designer about 3 hours of data collection and crunching to do. It is literally harder to determine the ideal amount of time to let a certain traffic light remain green at 8am in the morning. Tank design is possibly the easiest thing. The hard part is engineering compromise. You can't have a lightweight engine in an 80T tank that offers excellent trinity with a 105mm rifled gun. Nor can you have a $1M MBT with excellent trinity and a reliable engine that can deal with urban settings, armour division clashes, and be comfortable for a crew.

What we need to realise about tanks is that the army using them has a varying emphasis on how many they want and they types they employ.

For example the thinking behind Turkish army could be that the MBT is some sort of special forces behind enemy lines with a lot of self reliance and requires the mobility and protection to deal with multiple threat directions. The PLA want the 99A as the heavy weight high end tank to deal with high end threats in regards to armour vs armour. They want 96A to flood through and overwhelm far inferior forces.

There is no situation where the PLA intends to use tanks like 96A and Type 15 where they would be dealing with 120mm or significant anti-tank ability at all. The worst case is they intend these protection levels to deal with frontal only.

Whenever an enemy sees a Type 96A or Type 15, they do not have tanks around or significant anti-tank ability. The purpose of PLA using 99A and 96 as numbers filler is to have 99A deal with any threats that require more protection and better firepower to take care of enemies while 96 in their vast numbers fill in after the enemy is worn to a crisp and when they do see 96, they are beaten black and blue already with barely a few shots left from only one or two angles.

PLA tank doctrine is simple to understand. NATO tank doctrine is also simple to understand. One is far superior overall (PLA/Soviet doctrine) but they are both designed and intended for different conflicts and situations. The Turkish one simply aligns more with NATO's and it is unsurprising they have similar requirements and product performance specs.
 
Last edited:

dawn_strike

New Member
Registered Member
Let's say you're given x hours, $10,000, and 1T of material to make a 1200hp engine. A very reliable one would cost you 1.5x hours, $20,000, and 1.5T of material. This is the engineering compromises involved that mean the tank's engine designer and maker has to deal with. They offer the best they can do for those requirements and allocated resources.

Chinese tank designers and builders have a different task compared to Chinese 6th gen fighter designers. One has a lot more leeway, understanding, and resources to use.

Tank design is so bloody easy a person with a half decent grasp of high school physics and geometry can understand the concepts of tank design (in terms of armour relating to mobility and protection domains). You want a well protected tank from frontal only or frontal and 15 degrees? or 20 degrees? No <80T tank can take a direct side shot from a 120mm or 125mm... whatever the ammunition as long as it is a modern one it is going to shred through. The question is what degree of protection you want, pun intended.

For PLA planners and doctrine, they do not care for side protection. Maybe 5 degrees off frontal will effectively have to go through so much rha of effective angled side armour that it is sufficient protection but maybe anything over that is a certain kill. All this is is basic stats and geometry to create a "perfect" or "ideal" turret geometry. This is a simple task and should take any tank designer about 3 hours of data collection and crunching to do. It is literally harder to determine the ideal amount of time to let a certain traffic light remain green at 8am in the morning. Tank design is possibly the easiest thing. The hard part is engineering compromise. You can't have a lightweight engine in an 80T tank that offers excellent trinity with a 105mm rifled gun. Nor can you have a $1M MBT with excellent trinity and a reliable engine that can deal with urban settings, armour division clashes, and be comfortable for a crew.

What we need to realise about tanks is that the army using them has a varying emphasis on how many they want and they types they employ.

For example the thinking behind Turkish army could be that the MBT is some sort of special forces behind enemy lines with a lot of self reliance and requires the mobility and protection to deal with multiple threat directions. The PLA want the 99A as the heavy weight high end tank to deal with high end threats in regards to armour vs armour. They want 96A to flood through and overwhelm far inferior forces.

There is no situation where the PLA intends to use tanks like 96A and Type 15 where they would be dealing with 120mm or significant anti-tank ability at all. The worst case is they intend these protection levels to deal with frontal only.

Whenever an enemy sees a Type 96A or Type 15, they do not have tanks around or significant anti-tank ability. The purpose of PLA using 99A and 96 as numbers filler is to have 99A deal with any threats that require more protection and better firepower to take care of enemies while 96 in their vast numbers fill in after the enemy is worn to a crisp and when they do see 96, they are beaten black and blue already with barely a few shots left from only one or two angles.

PLA tank doctrine is simple to understand. NATO tank doctrine is also simple to understand. One is far superior overall (PLA/Soviet doctrine) but they are both designed and intended for different conflicts and situations. The Turkish one simply aligns more with NATO's and it is unsurprising they have similar requirements and product performance specs.
You do have a point here. Only, I do not really think tanks like 96A are simply 'numbers fillers'. The 96 family is indeed an ‘economic’ choice, but even if we put that aside , given the diversity of terrains in China, they still do have a reasonable demand for 40~50 ton MBTs.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Basically NATO and Turkey's tank thinking (and eventually also the requirements and performance specs along with costs) is more Tiger tank while China's and Russia's (before T-14) is T-34.

In China's case it isn't even just the T-34 with numbers 20x what the enemy has but T-34 + high end. China's basically picked the best of both worlds. For example, compared with India, China spends less on a similar sized tank force. Or in another way to look at it, with both China and India spending the same amount on their respective tank forces, for every India's 5 T-90 and 3 Arjun Mk.2, China has 3 ZTZ-99A, 10 Type 96, and 5 Type 15. It has something for every conflict and situation. Each can be fitted with required armour packs and equipment such as APS and machine guns or RWS. Scale those numbers up proportionally, India would have a force of 50 T-90, 30 Arjun Mk.2 against China's 30 ZTZ-99A, 100 Type 96A, and 50 Type 15.

If we consider tanks in the context of the armies they serve in, PLA seems to place a huge emphasis on attack helicopters, air superiority, drones, and "artillery" forces (which includes cruise missiles, rockets, ballistic missiles, and now also HGVs). By the time the enemy is within firing range of 99As they and all their supporting assets have been attacked by PLAAF, drones, PLARF, and attack helicopters while they then face 99As that are well supported. It is a top down thing not a bottom up one. It starts with information, electronic, cyber, air, space superiority and when you have that, it barely even matter if your tank has side armour or not.

Would you rather waste intelligence and resources on designing tanks or developing high tier offensive weaponry?

The PLA's tank doctrine ties in with its overall doctrine. This obviously differs depending on the conflict. For example, defending against an indian push is different to military reunification is different to fighting in the Korean peninsula is different to going head to head against Russian armour divisions.

That's where different modular tanks come in. 96, 99, and 15 are all modular tanks and each have taken a step further towards being more modular. The 96 is meant to be a contender against low tier threats on its own OR used in a way where a peer or near peer level opponent (ignoring size and scale) would be half way to surrendering by the time they meet 96s. Let's say an Indian division of 2000 men, 100 Arjun Mk2, 100 IFVs and various vehicles are against 1000 PLA, 50 ZTZ-99A, and various IFVs (for some hypothetical) and the Chinese side is lost while the Indian side come out with 500 men, 20 Arjuns, and some IFV, then they get attacked by drone swarms, MALE UAVs, WZ-10s, and 100 Type 96A. Where does the side armour and engine longevity of 96A become an issue? This hypothetical is a worst case scenario as well considering India has barely 10% the modern armour forces of China and even less than 5% the number of UAVs and helicopters to say nothing of the huge technological and capability gap between those as well - think Rustom vs GJ-11 or any CH or WL series.

And then we realise than Chinese MBT engines are almost just as good as NATO ones in performance and maybe half the longevity. That's pretty good overall balance of capability and covers PLA's requirements for the sorts of conflicts they prepare for. Again engine longevity is a function of requirements rather than capability. It isn't hard anymore to build a long lasting MBT engine. It would just cost a lot more and mean you have fewer tanks in service.

Nothing about the basics of good MBT engines can be considered advanced science or challenging for any modern industry. Turkey struggling with engines for the time being is more an issue of funding. With time and the right funding, there is no chance they can't develop great MBT engines. The problem is that'll cost a significant amount of national resources.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
You do have a point here. Only, I do not really think tanks like 96A are simply 'numbers fillers'. The 96 family is indeed an ‘economic’ choice, but even if we put that aside , given the diversity of terrains in China, they still do have a reasonable demand for 40~50 ton MBTs.

You are missing half the picture again.

China do have plenty of requirements for 40-50 ton MBT but that DOESN'T mean it has to be a "compromised" MBT. Compromised in comparison to top tier 40-50 ton MBTs like Type 10 but the 96 is the right tank for PLA as it is. Would PLA rather have 3500 Type 96 in total over the years or would it rather have 1200 Type 10 level light weight MBTs?

I insist to you all that there is absolutely nothing challenging about developing a 1200hp engine that is as reliable and long lasting as they come from Germany. This is a science, not an adventure in racism. This shit is so easy that a grad in material science can form the basics to do this.

The industrial ability to do this in China has been around since the 1990s. The processes and theories have been there even longer. There is only details in implementation and the differences in procedural and operating standards that would set apart a novice with all the right knowledge and tools (but not the experience) and the experienced pro that's done it for decades. That and of course minor details and technology improvements that I'm sure are higher level industrial and proprietary secrets which I am not including in that assessment. Suffice to say, China could build a super engine if it wanted or needed to. It just simply doesn't because it needs a lot of very cheap tanks it can build, maintain, make parts for, and repair very quickly and cheaply.

The choice to have "compromised" (relative to highest performers) performance and requirements comes from military doctrine.

This isn't just armour distribution and engine but on the 96A even very evident in equipment. The 96A uses some very obsolete equipment and that's because it's so expensive to equip all of them with the latest night vision, thermal cameras, barrel reference sensors, laser rangefingers, optics and so on. The opportunity cost for the PLA in terms of monetary and fighting capability is simply not worth it. For that time, material, and money, they can much better spend it on developing and fielding top tier weapons like HGVs, electronic attack systems, new cruise missiles, stealth bombers and so on. Sure the measly sum of a thermal camera isn't going to cover that but it is a management of resources and allocating them efficiently.

PLA knows it doesn't want to fight those kinds of wars that require their MBT to be equal performance to the adversary. It also needs more numbers. Hence 96 is in many ways a numbers filler just by virtue of being PLA's backbone MBT which has to be positioned all around China.

It isn't just an economic choice but as much a military one which I keep explaining and emphasising. It is a compromised tank intentionally not given the best and latest or allowed its designers and builders to use the most time, money, and material consuming designs and processes. This is an engineering problem at that level where the developers and builders need to satisfy a list of requirements for a cost. Same reason a $10K Indian made car is not going to be comparable to a $100K German one. It isn't designed to be nor does it fill the same role and purpose!

96 is a shabby tank no matter how one assesses it but it is a tank and it brings a 125mm with all those rounds to a fight. The important, big brain question is how you engage and shape the fight. Thinking about that reveals why PLA uses those specific war fighting doctrines. Then remember that 96 lineage and the condition of China's heavy industry from the 1970s to 1990s.

Personally I think this generation of tanks is being stretched so much longer because tanks are becoming increasingly invalid. They definitely will continue to hold an important role but that role is eroding and the remnants of it are so low in requirement that most top tier militaries have barely made effort in even upgrading MBTs, let alone redesigning and introducing a new generation of them. Russia's an outlier in this because they anticipated (well it was obvious from 20 years back) tensions that require armoured warfare to be in top shape.



PLA's aim is to gain and hold air, space, information, cyber, and electronic superiority. By way of which firepower can be delivered more effectively and efficiently. By way of which superior positions and strategic maneuvers and actions can be gained and made with minimal costs. By way of which tactical advantages can be manipulated out of even using inferior tanks for example. A massive horde of Type 96A with very little side armour and lower longevity engines is going to be FAR superior to a few super Leopard 2A7 that has all its supports knocked out, blinded, and dead.

A military of arbitrary number of soldiers and 100K *insert preferred NATO tank* is not going to have a chance against a military with hundreds of gunships and drones and 100K crappy MBTs. Crappy MBTs with all variables equal mean some more important domain have better capabilities. PLA not giving tanks much funding speak volumes about what they think of warfare.
 
Last edited:

Maikeru

Captain
Registered Member
TL;dw: Type 99 pretty meh, 99A much improved and competitive with western MBTs, still a couple of flaws (e.g. lack of blowout panels, hard kill APS).

 

LCR34

Junior Member
Registered Member
TL;dw: Type 99 pretty meh, 99A much improved and competitive with western MBTs, still a couple of flaws (e.g. lack of blowout panels, hard kill APS).

You can't install blowout panels on carousel loader type tank. Hard kill APS are mainly targeted at defeating ATGMs and Shoulder launched ATs. Only iron fist has demonstrated APFSDS intercept capability, but Trophy seems to be winning all the contracts so far.
 

sequ

Captain
Registered Member
Turkey struggling with engines for the time being is more an issue of funding
Great post but allow me to correct this small misunderstanding, there is no funding issue afaik. The BATU project is a one of the 'priority' projects among hundreds of 'regular' projects in the defence industry. Another example of a priority project is the TF-X. These priority projects are, well the name says it, a priority and will be the last project to be victim of defunding.

The BATU project is currently on schedule and if there are any issues, it would be more because of technical issues rather then financial. The previous head of BMC Power, Osman Dur said recently in a conference that when he started the BATU project when he was heading BMC Power, he got approached by various industrialists in Turkey saying we can help with this or that and he basically told them, "I don't need engineering help but materials- and precision engineering help" ->
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

KampfAlwin

Junior Member
Registered Member
TL;dw: Type 99 pretty meh, 99A much improved and competitive with western MBTs, still a couple of flaws (e.g. lack of blowout panels, hard kill APS).

I remember reading somewhere(not sure which forum) one of the members mentioned the newest 125mm rounds have propellents that contain a chemical which can extinguish itself if it gets pierced. Anyone here can confirm?
 
Top