New Type98/99 MBT thread

[slithly]

Technically it could be true since penetration isn't as simple as LOS.
An inclined surface imparts a side force on the penetrator which redirects some of its energy and causes it to break up faster than it would otherwise. Modern sabot design means the effect is minimized but it still has an impact.

So it is indeed possible to penetrate more of a flat surface than the equivalent LOS thickness of an inclined surface.
But the effect is small and hardly matters beyond semantics. Whether it penetrates 515mm @ 2000m @ 0 degrees or say 564, it's still not enough to be reliable against (supposedly) 600mm. At most you'll get a lucky penetration once in a blue moon.

Remember also that definitions of "penetration" may also vary. In the past, different nations had different criteria on how often it had to happen (e.g. 80% of hits) and whether "partial" penetrations counted.
I'm also not sure how the various nations test armor penetration these days. I know some of them just test against flat plates and calculate raw inclined thickness from that.

very old message but modern long rod apfsds performs better against sloped plates than a flat one. the perpendicular component of the normal force does not affect the rest of the round in modern long rod designs unlike the much shorter and stubbier ap and apds rounds. the slope makes it so that the material at the front is moved out of the way as it breaks up and slows down as it erodes the plate. so using the example of 3bm60, 300mm @2000m @60 degrees does not mean it can penetrate 600mm @2000m @0 degrees. it is less than 600mm. do note though, sloping the armor is still better because the increase in LOS thickness outpaces the slight increase in penetration as the plate is sloped. furthermore, when used as part of a NERA array like the reflector plate design of the t72b - t90m, its even better.


you are correct that different nations use different criteria for penetration value. some nations may use an 80% threshold while others use a 50%. some nations may use perforation as the requirement, some use penetration. some could even use spall generation as the requirement for "penetration". its not very clear and intentionally so.

 

[...........]

https://imgur.com/a/UCGTIQ7

ZTZ-99B?

 

[FishWings]

https://imgur.com/a/UCGTIQ7

ZTZ-99B?

ZTZ-99A, because the commander's MG is still in front of the hatch instead of having a RWS behind the hatch.

 

[mlkoplm]

Is this image accurate to how the FY-4 ERA actually works? Is FY-4 actually shaped charges and not plates?

 

[96Bfanboy]

Is this image accurate to how the FY-4 ERA actually works? Is FY-4 actually shaped charges and not plates?
View attachment 174485

The only info on this that I am able to find is from andrei bt. Who, as usual, didn’t provide a source. GJB 2336A-2014 also talks about the FY-4 just like the other ERA in the same document, it still mentions an explosive launching an RHA plate. But I am not 100% convinced on anything yet.

 

[ztqfan1999]

Is this image accurate to how the FY-4 ERA actually works? Is FY-4 actually shaped charges and not plates?
View attachment 174485

It's a bit conflicting because the export page for FY-4E says it uses a flyer plate.

 

[Rina]

Both units of FY4 are available

 

[...........]

 

[96Bfanboy]

Both units of FY4 are available

Very interesting, is there any way to differentiate between this and the standard flyer plate variant just based on the container?

It's a bit conflicting because the export page for FY-4E says it uses a flyer plate. View attachment 174594

To be fair, that seems to be the export variant, and as such uses the more conventional and simpler method.

 

[Tanker_MG]

The images you posted are good, but the ZTZ99 has a very different hull that the ZTZ99A or ZTZ99B models;

Another image from the same set you provided shows the large gaps on either side of roadwheels 3 and 4, and the rear of the hull that is very different that a ZTZ 99A or B with the rear hull on the ZTZ99A-series being flat and almost 90° perpendicular to the ground while the older ZTZ99 plain jane hull is slanted at an angle:
I can't even get the a certain Army School to change the Vehicle ID charts for the ZTZ99A from the ZTZ99....
So to ensure features that ensure correct identification is crucial are important.

Or I guess I am being a stick in the mud for vehicle ID