Not sure how correct this is, but the recoil difference to me seems due to the fact that Soviet/Chinese tanks turn off the stabilizer or don't keep them functional during a shot, therefore the barrel follows a natural gun recoil motion. It's much less noticeable on the 99A than the regular 99s or 96s probably also due to weight, heavier turret, more rigid suspension. Another faction could be that the gun on the 99a is more powerful than the 120mm that western tanks use. If designed to have the stabilizer on, I'd reckon the barrel would recoil more, but only backwards in a straight line. However it could be possible that this would put too much strain on the stabilizing systems so that isn't implemented. Simply as a lot more weight or balance is added to the turret, like composite plates and armor, that seems to improve visual gun recoil. So I'd guess it's just due to the typically smaller and lighter turrets.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
My main question, then, is whether the barrel takes more wear and damage from the increased shaking and how it affects aiming and subsequent shots.
This is not how the recoil systems and tank gun stabilization systems of modern tanks operate. Recoil of the a tank's main gun is usually accomplished through a hydraulic oil dampen recoil cylinders attached to the gun and mount.
The image above show this old style. The ZTZ-59 100mm gun uses a similar approach. The ZTZ69 that uses the British 105mm L7 gun uses a concentric recoil spring around the maingun to accomplish the same purpose. The gun and it's recoil mechanism is a major assembly while the stabilization system is another major assembly with the purpose of keeping the maingun assembly on target.
I would imagine that the ZTZ99A 125mm ZPT-98 smoothbore gun function of ejection of the spent cartridge is independent of the tank's stabilization system function.
The 'bounce' is the function of the ejection of the spent cartridge and the recoil effect on the recoil mech operation.
The main point is not the 'bounce' but repeatable first round on target on the move or stationary. Everything else really does not matter.
Does anyone know about the 2 unknown sensors marked on 99A's turret?
Well unknown Antenna 1 is a radio antenna mount. Something like the old AS-1729 as it is a very close copy.
AS-1729
As far as i know it is only the Type 15 that use the 5.8mm coaxial, being a light tank there may be space constraints but i am just speculating..
Their MBTs use 7.62 coaxial and a 12.7 externally mounted.
I don't think there are any vehicles with 5.8 mm MGs. I think this comes from an annotated picture of the new 8x8 AFV where it is erroneously said to have a 5.8mm coaxially mounted machine gun which there is no evidence for. I believe this was a mistake but unfortunately it has caught on.
All ZBD04A IFVs are using QJT88/ aka QJY88T for sure （ CCTV reports on Youtube ）
ZTQ as well
The weird thing is that the 99 series tanks, including the latest 99A, has two machine guns （QJT88 and Chinese PKT）working at the same time.
ZBL also uses both calibers
I assume that the PLA infantry is still debating whether to equip 7.62×54R or 7.62×51.
After all, the former has stopped being equipped, and although the latter has been adopted by snipers only（QBU203 and CS/LR4）
Seems that the PLA has no real plans to adopt these two ammunition on a large scale.（QJY201 still no evidence of mass production as standard equipment and no more old type 67 on serving）
pic: 99A crew maintain QJT88 5.8 COAX
Do you mean they are debating 5.8x42 or 7.62x51? Because it is pretty clear the PLAGF does not see a future with the 7.62x54R with their recent weapon adoptions.
This is also the first time I am hearing that the QJY-201's adoption rate within the PLAGF is in a similar scope to the QJY-88, is there any source beyond lack pictures?