New Type98/99 MBT thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

read everywhere people claiming that those Leclercs, M1s, and Leopard 2s destroyed in the middle east in the last few years are all due to selling them sub-standard variants. These claims are garbage and come from the mouths of western stronkists who cannot take the ego hit. The truth is these sold tanks are nearly identical in armour package with the main difference being some sensors, electronics, software, and communication equipment. The mechanics are exactly the same because the production line will not be redeveloping an entirely new method of fabrication and manufacturing of parts just to sell another nation a monkey model.

Actually you are wrong. In regards to Russian export you are pretty close but The Abrams Export models have the same electronics save for differences in communications that are found in American Abrams. What is different is the armor package.
Modern tank armor is modular and for Abrams at least part of that modular design is a Depleated Uranium mesh. This mesh however is not put on export Abrams and is mostly mounted to the frontal arch any way.
In the case of Leopard2 lost in combat by Turkey these are older iterations of the leopard 2. More modern versions have moved to different armor systems with increased General protection.
The biggest problem though has been stupidity. That is deploying tanks without infantry support.
You will always have weak points in protection to the sides and rear of a tank. This is due to the fact that these are functional areas of the tank normally housing tracks and power pack.
Merkava has a different issue for the rear of the Tank though the space where one would normally find the power pack is a cargo bay. This bay can be used for either troops or more often Ammo. This is the biggest issue with the Merkava series in nonconvantional conflict storing ammo in the hull like that. It's part of the reason the Isrealis were mounting Cage armor, Era and chains on there tanks earlier than most western tanks. It's also part of the reason the Israeli military pushed hard for Trophy.
Following these trends the Abrams Leopard and Leclerc all add on Era and cage armor with work on APS. But most western tanks place there era to the sides of the tanks not the front

 

[ougoah]

Actually you are wrong. In regards to Russian export you are pretty close but The Abrams Export models have the same electronics save for differences in communications that are found in American Abrams. What is different is the armor package.
Modern tank armor is modular and for Abrams at least part of that modular design is a Depleated Uranium mesh. This mesh however is not put on export Abrams and is mostly mounted to the frontal arch any way.
In the case of Leopard2 lost in combat by Turkey these are older iterations of the leopard 2. More modern versions have moved to different armor systems with increased General protection.
The biggest problem though has been stupidity. That is deploying tanks without infantry support.
You will always have weak points in protection to the sides and rear of a tank. This is due to the fact that these are functional areas of the tank normally housing tracks and power pack.
Merkava has a different issue for the rear of the Tank though the space where one would normally find the power pack is a cargo bay. This bay can be used for either troops or more often Ammo. This is the biggest issue with the Merkava series in nonconvantional conflict storing ammo in the hull like that. It's part of the reason the Isrealis were mounting Cage armor, Era and chains on there tanks earlier than most western tanks. It's also part of the reason the Israeli military pushed hard for Trophy.
Following these trends the Abrams Leopard and Leclerc all add on Era and cage armor with work on APS. But most western tanks place there era to the sides of the tanks not the front

If a layer of depleted uranium mesh just in the frontal arc is all that separates the US army abrams from the export abrams, that is really not much considering the destroyed abrams operated by foreign armies were absolutely wrecked so convincingly, I doubt several layers of high density uranium will have sufficed. Plus it is also only on the frontal arc (supposedly) so makes no difference to side armour defence between export and domestic abrams. This is just for abrams. Leopards were older 2A4 models but their German turrets went flying the same way people made fun of Soviet autoloading tanks.... guess they laughed a bit early. Leclercs were embarrassed even more convincingly as expected for a lighter armoured tank.

All that aside, side armour should still be easy to penetrate for modern rounds designed to penetrate frontal arc. The advantage of western heavy MBTs with their thicker side armour is better protection against RPGs and other dated anti-tank rounds where "eastern" tanks may not be able to repel. This is perhaps another contributing factor why western armies do not see much need for APS at this stage.

Infantry support or not, the fact remains that heavy tanks are FAR from impregnable. Imagine highly trained and properly armed armies targeting these tanks. Thick side armour becomes even less of a necessity. Cost benefit analysis for sure and there are certainly benefits, I'm not denying this. But for PLA and their decision to go with very thin side armour on even their heaviest tank in the history of PLA, it makes perfect sense because the engine and transmission tech just cannot support the close to zero benefit of having thicker side armour. Certainly that is a luxury well beyond the means of PLA funding. Now considering their doctrine of fielding many times more tanks to cover the vast territories, it is perfectly understandable why they shaved so much off the sides but still emphasis similar levels of frontal armour compared to western heavy MBTs. They know frontal arc needs at least this much resistance to stand any chance against modern anti-tank rounds. If the Type 99's armour displacement is roughly proportional to western tanks and graded by its own side armour, its frontal arc will be about half the thickness (my guess to make the point) of a western tank's frontal arc and will stand zero chance against even M829A2 let alone more capable rounds.

I'm definitely wrong on many small details so please correct me, but the general idea is no matter how much armour you want to pack on, your tank can and will be destroyed. Therefore the game shifts to deliverying firepower quickly and effectively. Firepower and Mobility factors therefore completely outweigh Defense beyond a certain point. This certain point lies near where the probability of common and expected enemy munitions can get to a place where they can take high P(H) shots at your most exposed areas. Survivability calculations will be extremely complex but you can optimise your entire armoured force if you know what enemy you may be fighting in the near future. PLA does not have the luxury of adding weight, on many levels. Western armies did and still do. So in response to the original question as to why 99 has such thin side armour as well as all Chinese tanks, this is the line of thinking more or less. At least it's the only one that makes sense to me.

 

[FishWings]

ougah, I am going to reply to all your posts together. 4S24 ERA is what they refer to as Relikt. It is mounted on T-80BVM and T-90M. 4S22 is Kontakt-5. This is on the website of the company which sells it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is claimed FY-4 (on ZTZ-99A and ZTZ-96B) is reversed Relikt, while older FY-2 (on ZTZ-99 and ZTZ-96A) is reversed Kontakt-5, although probably improved. There might also be intermediate generation 4S23 mounted (believed to be mounted on some T-90A and T-72B3), but I don't know if the 4S23 is Kontakt-5 or Relikt, or if it even exists.

You have a good point of side armor being weak, so reinforcing it is futile if it cannot save the tank from AT weapons such as Kornet, TOW, or equivalent ATGM, nor the latest kinetic tank rounds. Especially when there is next-generation ATGMs capable of top-attack, such as HJ-12 and Spike. That said, tanks are an integral component of urban combat, and will be critical when capturing cities. Even if PLA does not find itself in a position to invade and capture cities of other countries, Chinese cities captured by the enemy won't recapture themselves. This is why M1 Abrams even has TUSK in case it finds itself in that position. It is also why all Russian T-72, T-80, and T-90 have at least some side ERA to protect against at least basic AT weapons when it finds itself in a urban combat position, such as seen in Syria, Iraq, and Chechnya (1995-6). There are some videos of Syrian T-72 shrugging off multiple RPG, some which hit the sides, and it was its ERA that defeated it. The video of T-90 being hit by an ATGM (and abandoned by crew) was not destroyed, and it is pretty clear that it was saved from being blown up owing to its ERA.

As for export Abrams, Iraq does indeed have slightly downgraded armor, although the Abrams used by KSA and destroyed in Yemen are probably a lot closer to what the US Army uses. There is no evidence to suggest that KSA receives heavily downgraded armor, but evidence to support the opposite is how KSA is generally seen as stable and a key US ally in the Middle East. The mixed DU hesh in the composite armor is mostly in the turret front. Everywhere else where there is DU is generally speculated to have an almost negligible effect. An ATGM destroying even an Iraqi export Abrams, at least from the side or rear, is just as possible to happen to even the latest US Army Abrams. This is not even to say that DU mostly works against kinetic rounds, and only marginally so for HEAT.

When it comes to export tanks, nationalists get blinded by sheer nationalism and their arguments are heavily biased. Americans who have an instinct to shout out export models when their beloved Abrams gets destroyed, conveniently forget that the T-72s during the Gulf War were also downgraded export models from non-USSR WP states, such as Poland. Russian nationalists are the same, exaggerating Iraqi T-72s but laughing at KSA/Iraqi Abrams when they are destroyed. Those arguments are very unproductive and get heated quicker than a T-72 turret when it is cooking off.

Also, apparently the rounds used by the ZTZ-99/99A is still pretty effective. This is supposedly a APFSDS shot from the ZTZ-99 cannon (please correct me if I am wrong):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is 1040mm RHA, but it is speculated that the ZPT-98 can penetrate at least 850-900mm RHA equivalent, especially with the newer rounds (and modified 50-caliber gun) for ZTZ-99A. Latest gun and ammunition used by Abrams is probably going to be just as good, if not even better. When it comes to modern tank vs tank anyway, electronics, positioning, and sighting are going to be more of a concern than just gun or armor. Both tanks have third generation thermal imaging, I believe.

Anyway, my original point is that the ZTZ-99/99A and ZTZ-96A/B should have at least some countermeasures when it needs to get into an urban environment. Somehow, even the VT-3 (sold to Tanzania) mounts ERA on the sides. Maybe once the PLA has to actually fight, then ERA will be emergency-mounted on the chassis sides.

 

[ougoah]

I think 99 and 96s both have ERA on side. It's just that the actual armour is paper thin but there is a layer of ERA separating the turret and surrounding cage. It may be enough to prevent RPG-7s like T-72 ERA was able to protect many vehicles from RPGs. We haven't seen PLA tanks receive APS or specialised urban packages. That's not to say these don't exist, but at least training photos show they don't seem to place any emphasis on urban combat or providing crew some training experience with urban combat upgrades and routine, so i'd assume it's not something the PLA thinks is too important for the time being.

As long as MAD status quo does not change, we will not see any serious conflicts between major military powers, unless some leaders go nuts and something like PRC invades ROC or USA declares war on NK etc. PLA is not too worried about a conventional military force occupying its cities because I just can't imagine such a scenario. No one would have anything to gain. A more realistic urban scenario would be terrorism or internal social unrest. Neither of which play to an MBT's strengths.

At this point, I believe MBTs are a bit of an afterthought compared to amphibious assault vehicles and ground based vehicles which overlap in operation with air and strategic assets like drone control, C4ISR, anti-helicopter/drone etc. It's obviously still important for China to keep developing these tanks and keeping up with evolving technologies but the thin side armour reveals quite a lot about PLA expectations from how they will likely use their tanks (if ever) in the next few decades. I remember reading somewhere ages ago that Chinese and Russian sabot rounds were less capable because they had to be made shorter due to the propellant and round loading design from those carousel autoloaders? That makes them less effective compared to an equivalent which is longer and carrying more weight and penetration.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

If a layer of depleted uranium mesh just in the frontal arc is all that separates the US army abrams from the export abrams, that is really not much considering the destroyed abrams operated by foreign armies were absolutely wrecked so convincingly, I doubt several layers of high density uranium will have sufficed. Plus it is also only on the frontal arc (supposedly) so makes no difference to side armour defence between export and domestic abrams. This is just for abrams. Leopards were older 2A4 models but their German turrets went flying the same way people made fun of Soviet autoloading tanks

In this case there is more going on. First the TUSK or Tanks Urban Survival Kit comes into play it adds reactive armor to both the Skirts and sides of the turret of Abrams with the eventual addition of Trophy coming in the next few years.
As for the Leopards again the 2A4 version which features an older turret type. These were optimized for cold war tank on tank scenarios. Both early leopard 2 and the Leopard1 tank family were designed for fast movement rather than heavy defence as such they have even thinner armor.
The A5 onward would change turret designs to counter ATGM. However a number of the Abrams and Leopard2 list in both cases especially in cases where the turreturret came off were not ATGMs but IEDs.
Detonate a large enough bomb under the tank and the force will separate the turret.
Now no they did not go flying the same way as Soviet Autoloading tanks as Soviet autoloader equipped tanks have suffered the Jack in the Box effect where an IED tank is losing its turret as much like a battleship the only thing that holds the turret in place is gravity. As a large IED detonated the force will move the turret and hull with such energy that they separate.
Ammo storage in the leopard 2 is a hybrid system with some in the hull with blast funnels that direct the energy of a cook off out the sides and some in a bustle rack with blow out panels. This is different from the Soviet system where the only place for a cook off to go is up through the crew compartment. A number of Turkish Leopard 2 crews survived failures of their tanks.
As to Leclerc it's actually done pretty well in Yemen. Only one event where the tank absolutely failed, where an ATGM penetrated the drivers compartment killing the drivers and sending fragmentation into the legs of the commander.
There were other times where the tanks were damaged or disabled but all reports are that they were returned to service after repair.

 

[ougoah]

I made the claim on turret separation from an image.



There are other examples of the Leopard tanks getting destroyed.



Yeah these are older models. Sorry I'm well off topic here but I think tank survivability improves with total mass of tank until a point it just becomes too cumbersome for most operational requirements. Same generation tanks are more or less equal in the Defence and Mobility balance with the main improvement factor being engine and transmission quality. This is why western MBTs can afford to pack on so much more armour. Firepower is really where tanks are separated. Western tanks are claimed to have better sensors, sights, and ammo. The rest is just figuring out what geographic environment each individual army needs to fight in, how quickly they need to get somewhere and how far away that somewhere is.

Sacrificing armour for mobility makes total sense when your engine abilities are somewhat weaker. But as we have seen through middle eastern conflicts, heavy armour does not guarantee protection even at the face of relatively weak opposition. PLA is smart to not pay the price of having heavy armour (60T+) knowing that they could get knocked out almost as easily as Type 96s while not being able to cross many landmasses and if so, at a slower pace with lower range. For the weaker opposition they might face like civilians and terrorists with small arms, even the light tank offers enough protection. For any serious opposition, only Type 99 will stand a chance and then, only the frontal arc. So the favoured strategy is numbers and high mobility. If PLA can quickly put huge numbers of tanks with decent enough firepower anywhere in China, it is better than small numbers of high quality, high protection tanks that may or may not show up.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

separation from an image.

There are other examples of the Leopard tanks getting destroyed

and I made my counter pointing to that image. You can clearly see the hull of the tank has been virtually blown apart. This was an IED event.

Firepower is really where tanks are separated. Western tanks are claimed to have better sensors, sights, and ammo. The rest is just figuring out what geographic environment each individual army needs to fight in, how quickly they need to get somewhere and how far away that somewhere is.

Actually it favors western tanks to. Remember that although Russian and Chinese tanks pack a 125mm smooth bore vs the western 120mm smooth bore. With the exception of the British, NATO spec is unitary where Russian and Chinese are Binary. This means that western ammo has more room in the cartridge for a longer projectile and propellant where Russian and Chinese rounds were designed to seat them separately in order to build a smaller autoloader.

MBT like Leopard2A4 were designed to face off against Soviet tanks. They were bought by Turkey as Turkey was more worried about it's neighbors, and figured if they had to deal with any insurgency it would be armed with rocks and AKs.
I mean if all the other guy has are AKs a T55 would be more than enough over match heck a world war 2 era panzer would do the job. But as ATGMs have proliferated throughout the Middle East they need armor upgrades.
Explosive Reactive Armor was proven as a means of adding armor that is far superior in it's protection vs weight. The Russians realized in there armor schemes that in the event of war they would be facing far more broken bridges and assaults up defended embankments than the western forces who decided that they were more likely to be firing from fighting positions and then drawing back. This lead to the two main schools of thought on tank design. Russian and adapted by the Chinese of smaller lighter tanks using ERA and reduced crew to get a weight advantage. And the western of more armor protection and more focus on protection from cook off as well as integration of better sensors to get one shot one hit capabilities.

 

[ougoah]

Yes I have always maintained that western MBT firepower is superior owing to better ammo (one piece vs two) and electronics+software components. The contention in this whole discussion is whether attention paid to the design and bulking up of side armour is worthwhile enough to offset the costs; complexity, weight, lower range, lower accessibility, and more expensive. For the PLA, it does not because the most likely tank fights it would find itself in will be against either low end (separatists) or high end (India, Japan, Korea, or USA) adversaries. They will either require little side armour or so much side armour such a tank will not be able to move around the country.

 

[FishWings]

Must be why the PLA is investing more into the ZTQ-15 light tank. I would say back when China had major concern about massive tank battles in a large and flat terrain, it would have to be around the 1970s or 1980s when the threat of massed Soviet tanks (T-72 and even some T-80) was at its highest. The light tank can operate in areas which are inaccessible to bigger main battle tanks. Although I still do not understand the point of it. Seems redundant, when heavier IFVs can already serve that role.

Anyway, how much greater is Western firepower? I had read somewhere that the ZPT-98 does indeed have long rod ammunition, which (I think) would negate the claims of the two-piece ammunition being a major drawback of the gun

 

[gelgoog]

The Leopard 2 tank has a major weakness in that if you hit the tank on one of its sides (where is one of the ammo racks) you can easily disable the tank. The sides have really thin armor too. There are armor upgrade packages for the Leopard 2 but Turkey hasn't bought these.

Any modern tank has weak armor in the back so a shot there can disable a tank if the engine or fuel tank is located there.

The Leclerc seems to be a better but more expensive design than the basic Leopard 2. Also the versions the oil rich Middle Eastern countries got are likely much more upgraded with night vision blocks and enhanced armor than the tanks Turkey has. Germany has under invested in their military for a long time and were it not for sales to Singapore and other countries lately these Leopard 2 upgrade packages wouldn't likely even be available right now.

I think with the modernization of the Chinese armed forces the Army has gotten the short end of the stick thus far. Just look at what the South Koreans can field as an example of what I'm talking about. The K2 is quite likely the most advanced tank in service right now.

Even a design like Omsk's Black Eagle Prototype would be an improvement over the Type 99 IMHO.