New Type98/99 MBT thread


MIGleader

Banned Idiot
Thanks, now I understand it. kinda like chobaum i see. I guess this is how this
is how it works for the 96 as well, except that theirs no ERA.

Why are their no armoured compartments or blow-out panels?
 

vincelee

Junior Member
Chobbham has nothing to do with this.

the composite is placed between the steel plates, and ERA covers the surface of the steel plate. Nothing complicated. Imagine your chocolate covered icecream. Chocolate being ERA and the vannilla (everything else sucks) being the passive armor.
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
I know how Choubham works, im just making a relation. In choubham(Very basic, it gets a little more complicated), you have the DU plates sandwhiching the ceramics, just like how you said the composite was sandwhiched between two plates on the 99.

i didnt mean to imply this WAS some form of choubham
 

vincelee

Junior Member
Chobbham contains no depleted uranium.

you're thinking of the M1A2 SEP's armor package, which has Chobbham covering a "fail safe" layer of DU.
 

darth sidious

Banned Idiot
MIGleader said:
I know how Choubham works, im just making a relation. In choubham(Very basic, it gets a little more complicated), you have the DU plates sandwhiching the ceramics, just like how you said the composite was sandwhiched between two plates on the 99.

i didnt mean to imply this WAS some form of choubham
Choubham is a type of composite armour its basicaly ceramic meshed on a titanium wire frame and support by steel nothing special just very tightly packed good aginst heat round but no so good against sabot
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
vincelee said:
Chobbham contains no depleted uranium.

you're thinking of the M1A2 SEP's armor package, which has Chobbham covering a "fail safe" layer of DU.
Oh right, it was steel sandwhiching the the ceramic composites.

Now, can anyone answer my second question? dont blow-out panels and armored compartments increase battlefield survivability for the crew? so why doesn the 99 have any of these features?
 

darth sidious

Banned Idiot
MIGleader said:
Oh right, it was steel sandwhiching the the ceramic composites.

Now, can anyone answer my second question? dont blow-out panels and armored compartments increase battlefield survivability for the crew? so why doesn the 99 have any of these features?
armoured compartment alone are of limited value if the main amno storge cooks off nothing can save the tank. this feture is also not promient among tanks these days why would china want them anyways.

as for blow out panels the simple answers its it cant. like the T-72/8-/90 etc the t-98 stores its rounds in a auto loader located in the tanks main hull a blow out panel is impossible to arrange. on the abrms the amno are located inthe back of the turtet and sealed off from the crew that way if the amno explodes the blast will be deflected out wards.

it importent to know even if teh blow out panel works the tank will be mission killed. such crew safty fetures are waste ful and use less only delaying up mass production in war time. like the t-34 the T-98 is ment to be mass produced, equal in armour and gunpower to the enemy's main MBT but can be chuked out at a superior rate to overwhelm teh enemy.

a goood tank should be simple to used require minial time for training e.g hours . Robust and affordable in large number and off course have adquiemt perfomance
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
Thats funny. i never felt the type 99 was ever meant to be mass produced. It's rather expensive. The type 96 is the one the PLA has set for mass production, while the type 99 is produced in limited amounts for elite units. Since these units contain china's best tankers, why not protect them?
 

RedMercury

Junior Member
Well, that's more a high-level question of doctrine. One of small, professional force (where survivability of crew is important) versus the "people's war" doctrine of mass production and easy-to-use equipment to be used by conscripted force. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The Soviet experience in WW2 left a legacy in favor of the latter, while Americans preferred the former. It's also a function of politics. How able is your society to contribute to war and bear losses? What kinds of conflicts (offensive in other people's soil or defensive on your own soil) do you envision your future conflicts to be? America, with its set of circumstances, finds the doctrine of small, professional force that emphasizes few human losses to be politically expedient. Other countries with other needs will find their own way to balance their requirements with their resources. Comparing military equipment in a one-size-fits-all, which is "better", kind of way is an over-simplification. Each user has its own set of goals, requirements, resources, and limitations. One model may be "better" for one country while another is "better" for a different country. It all depends.
 

RedMercury

Junior Member
MIGleader said:
Thats funny. i never felt the type 99 was ever meant to be mass produced. It's rather expensive. The type 96 is the one the PLA has set for mass production, while the type 99 is produced in limited amounts for elite units. Since these units contain china's best tankers, why not protect them?
The design decision was probably weighed carefully. I could think of a few arguments for each side:

More crew protection side:
More survivability, leading to more experienced crews, lower replacement cost for training new crews.
Better morale.
Less expense repairing vehicle.
and more I can't think of...

Less crew protection side:
Stay with proven, mature design, and not risk a new design.
Less development costs.
The crew are pretty much goners anyway if tank is penetrated by APFSDS anyway (but not necessairly small HEAT rounds, but then, perhaps HEAT are less likely to penetrate into the hull where the rounds are stored).
May be easier to adapt current autoloader with more protections (like armor protecting the rounds? who knows).
A bustle autoloader may be a difficult problem in the engineering sense.
and more I can't think of...

I'm sure the designers weighed the pros and cons and this is the decision they chose. If you want to get inside their head, you'll have to ask them...

Oh, a side note. There's been speculation about what exactly that "box" at the back of the Type 99 and Type 96 turret does. I don't think there's ever been a photo released of the actual autoloader, leading some to speculate that it may indeed already have a bustle-mounted autoloader.
 
Last edited:

Top