T-80 Tanks

I have to disagree with you kilo. Zraver has every right to point out his technological arguments and suspicions regardless of the claims and sources presented. What he said makes a lot of sense for me, and I don't think he should be faulted for that, or anyone else for that matter who have a contrary opinion that can back it up with good technological argument.

Yeas listen to crobato as he made a valid point.
I personally wont take a stand which one is right, as I'm not so familiar with the math Zraver presented. but this I would like to say...

...don't you kinds dare to keep internet based source a some sort of mythical grail that negelents all reason and laws of physics. Zraver has made his assumptions based on the known facts and physical limits of them but you guys are just arguing with him becouse some article published in some magazine indicates say that the chinese gun is so superior that the Zravers math just isen't right becouse it makes the gun being less miracleous. Comon, ever heard about objectivity?

The 125 mm gun in chinese tanks is derivation of the russian gun. There's no doupt about that. Its said so by the designers of that gun and us who have actually seen the russian gun alive have told (in the threads in the past when this issue raised last time) you that the chinese gun's critical parts (Breech mainly) are identical to the russian gun. So thus it gives Zraver every right to assume that the ammunition used is dictaded by the limitations of the gun which are somethat similar to the russian gun.

[/quote]type-98 is armed with a ZPT-98 125mm smoothbore gun with a length-diameter ratio of 50:1. the barrel is made of high-intensity PCrN13NoV, muzzle velocity is 45% higher than the russian 2A46M-1 type 125mm gun, 30% higher than RH-120 type 120mm gun on leo2A5 and M1A1/A2.[/quote]

Not possible and i don't care what the article claims

Ek or Em is both 1/2MV^2

120mm on Abrams is around 12 million joules. A 30% increase would psh the Jules to around 15,600,000 joules. The only way to achieve that level of energy is to push a 10kg object at over 1700m/s. One major problem, no 125mm round is that heavy. Mass is a function of size and the materials used in construction. The HUGE penetrator on the M829A3 is already DU. What mateiral exactly is 50% shorter thus 50% heavier by volume?

assuming the 30% figure in the article is correct, the corresponding velocity is 2021.5 m/s. A 6.5kg projectile at such speed has a muzzle energy of 26.56 million joules. If the rumor about the tradeoff between barrel life and propellant charge is true, then the article is not without merit.

Also, to just look at muzzle energy for penetration data is a bit naive. Let's be honest, Rheinmetall hired material science engineers for a god damned reason.

eecsmaster said:

assuming the 30% figure in the article is correct, the corresponding velocity is 2021.5 m/s. A 6.5kg projectile at such speed has a muzzle energy of 26.56 million joules. If the rumor about the tradeoff between barrel life and propellant charge is true, then the article is not without merit.

Also, to just look at muzzle energy for penetration data is a bit naive. Let's be honest, Rheinmetall hired material science engineers for a god damned reason.

Click to expand...

That guy just makes thing up, he doesn't have any information. Chinese gun is 125/L50, he said it's 125/L48. And nowhere mentioned it's 6.5 kg weight, he said it is, where is the proof?

Also the penetrating power not only depends on the KE, it also has a lot to do with the explosive. It's cleary said Chinese shell as "high-explosive type with extra explosive material packed inside", he ignored anything he doesn't want to see.

no, actually it's just that you don't know anything. We're talking about sabots, you're talking about heat. Different penetration mechanisms, different ratings.

Zraver takes the 6.5kg figure from the closest Russian analogue, not exactly a wrong thing to do. If he has any faults, it's that he is very confident about his position even when the evidence is not conclusive.

eecsmaster said:

no, actually it's just that you don't know anything. We're talking about sabots, you're talking about heat. Different penetration mechanisms, different ratings.

Zraver takes the 6.5kg figure from the closest Russian analogue, not exactly a wrong thing to do. If he has any faults, it's that he is very confident about his position even when the evidence is not conclusive.

Click to expand...

Refering to Russian shell has no credit for 99 type gun, as it's said its R&D started in 70s, and continue to evolue. Like that real 99 developer said, even 99 gun is different from 96, although both 125mm guns.

99 gun has to go through the new anti-rust test so it's a brand new canon, you don't need to do that if reusing 96 gun.

There isn't more than one way to skin a cat in tank armaments. Despite the sorry state the Russian armed forces is in today, their R&D is still very much ahead of China incertain areas.

As for the rust test, perhaps it's just that PLA became a bit more selective.

See, you also do not have direct evidence to support your position, so why don't us all just be cordial and agree to disagree? Afterall, let's not devolve this into another penis contest.

eecsmaster said:

There isn't more than one way to skin a cat in tank armaments. Despite the sorry state the Russian armed forces is in today, their R&D is still very much ahead of China incertain areas.

Click to expand...

You talk about things 20 years ago. They have been short of money for quite a long time.

In early 1990s, Russian troops drove their T72 tanks to the Chinese border, and offered to sell it for as low as 20,000 USD.

I've seen too much absurd western logic. They saw a 125mm gun so that's a Russian gun, they saw J10 with canards so it's a copy of Lavi. They don't make sense at all.

I've found 3 independent sources about 99 tank spec, all have same data and with pretty much details. And the credit person states that 99 is 3 times of 96 cost, a brand new tank, including the gun, which is new development.

Talking about 99 tank, according to all these spec, it has the same strong fire power and the protection as the most modern western tanks, clearly said. The only drawback is that it's ammunation chamber is not separated, well that will add the weight.

And since 99 debut 8 years ago, you don't see any sign that China is going to roll out another tank soon, and not much improvement and upgrade neither. It shows that Chinese military are pretty happy with this tank, so the tank R&D is much slower than the previous 10 years before 99 debut.

The only reason some guy disputed it is that they don't believe Chinese can roll out a good tank in such a short time, what a joke is that an evidence?