New Type98/99 MBT thread

TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
manqiangrexue said:
The Japanese, with a 50% pass rate moving a tank about 3 meters on flat concrete using a specially-mounted platform to hold a wine glass that is 60% full, do not appreciate your trivialization of the task LOL

They berry berry angry:
6e2654b43856c717b6fcc49f30d2f8ff.jpg
Click to expand...
It’s not a test it’s a demonstration. If it was a test there would be a formal method to it.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
@Viktor Jav
I am phoning this one in.

Okay no I am not the Chieftain.
But he makes two critical points here. That I absolutely agree with, and seem to go with your thinking.
  1. Speed is more a factor of the targeting than the loader but the Automaker loader is more consistent.
  2. Automatic loaders are complex machines that are dropped into complex machines loosing a man in the tank doesn’t necessarily mean loosing a extra man.
So lest address your points. First the BOG/Assistant Driver/Radioman the reason they went away was because they were absolutely unnecessary. The BOG position was Bow gunner basically he manned a firing port and his weapon was only aim able by turning the tank. Because he was in the hull his actual range of view was limited and as tanks moved beyond 90mm guns his usefulness vs extra ammo was deemed more to ammo.
Assistant driver is basically the same position in some old tanks with the same problem.
Radioman again same guy different job but as the Second World War closed the radios were more easily operated by the TC or loader because of improvements and moved to the turret. The larger shells dominate more space then the small caliber ww2 versions.

Optics wise the loader has the same vision blocks as the others where he shines as an extra pair of eyes is in non combat where he and the TC can stick there heads out for an unobstructed view. The gunner position is made for servicing the target the TC for finding it as such the gunner has a soda straw view the TC has a 360 view. Add a loader and you have two 360s even with modern optics that’s hard to match. But once the fighting starts he’s down below serving the gun. Even if you have an abrams with a extra turret MG he’s not using it if the main gun is in the fight.
Not vs an automatic loader the biggest nice point is that the loader can be doing remedial action if the gun doesn’t go Boom well the gunner and TC keep her in the fight.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
TerraN_EmpirE said:
@Viktor Jav
I am phoning this one in.

Okay no I am not the Chieftain.
But he makes two critical points here. That I absolutely agree with, and seem to go with your thinking.
  1. Speed is more a factor of the targeting than the loader but the Automaker loader is more consistent.
  2. Automatic loaders are complex machines that are dropped into complex machines loosing a man in the tank doesn’t necessarily mean loosing a extra man.
So lest address your points. First the BOG/Assistant Driver/Radioman the reason they went away was because they were absolutely unnecessary. The BOG position was Bow gunner basically he manned a firing port and his weapon was only aim able by turning the tank. Because he was in the hull his actual range of view was limited and as tanks moved beyond 90mm guns his usefulness vs extra ammo was deemed more to ammo.
Assistant driver is basically the same position in some old tanks with the same problem.
Radioman again same guy different job but as the Second World War closed the radios were more easily operated by the TC or loader because of improvements and moved to the turret. The larger shells dominate more space then the small caliber ww2 versions.

Optics wise the loader has the same vision blocks as the others where he shines as an extra pair of eyes is in non combat where he and the TC can stick there heads out for an unobstructed view. The gunner position is made for servicing the target the TC for finding it as such the gunner has a soda straw view the TC has a 360 view. Add a loader and you have two 360s even with modern optics that’s hard to match. But once the fighting starts he’s down below serving the gun. Even if you have an abrams with a extra turret MG he’s not using it if the main gun is in the fight.
Not vs an automatic loader the biggest nice point is that the loader can be doing remedial action if the gun doesn’t go Boom well the gunner and TC keep her in the fight.
Click to expand...

True, but during combat if the loader dies....who is going to do the loading and "remedial actions" now?
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
TerraN_EmpirE said:
@Viktor Jav
I am phoning this one in.

Okay no I am not the Chieftain.
But he makes two critical points here. That I absolutely agree with, and seem to go with your thinking.
  1. Speed is more a factor of the targeting than the loader but the Automaker loader is more consistent.
  2. Automatic loaders are complex machines that are dropped into complex machines loosing a man in the tank doesn’t necessarily mean loosing a extra man.
So lest address your points. First the BOG/Assistant Driver/Radioman the reason they went away was because they were absolutely unnecessary. The BOG position was Bow gunner basically he manned a firing port and his weapon was only aim able by turning the tank. Because he was in the hull his actual range of view was limited and as tanks moved beyond 90mm guns his usefulness vs extra ammo was deemed more to ammo.
Assistant driver is basically the same position in some old tanks with the same problem.
Radioman again same guy different job but as the Second World War closed the radios were more easily operated by the TC or loader because of improvements and moved to the turret. The larger shells dominate more space then the small caliber ww2 versions.

Optics wise the loader has the same vision blocks as the others where he shines as an extra pair of eyes is in non combat where he and the TC can stick there heads out for an unobstructed view. The gunner position is made for servicing the target the TC for finding it as such the gunner has a soda straw view the TC has a 360 view. Add a loader and you have two 360s even with modern optics that’s hard to match. But once the fighting starts he’s down below serving the gun. Even if you have an abrams with a extra turret MG he’s not using it if the main gun is in the fight.
Not vs an automatic loader the biggest nice point is that the loader can be doing remedial action if the gun doesn’t go Boom well the gunner and TC keep her in the fight.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with anything here but the points listed out merely highlights the passive advantages that a loader has rather than the active ones. While it is true that the gunner's view will be much more narrow compared to a 360 view the loader has out of his hatch the gunner is going to have view magnification and IR sights to play with and the TC with his Panoramic Sights is going to do even better. The extra MG gunner is most useful only in an urban setting wherein the tank would depend on infantry outside the tank for maximum support and efficiency, besides there is no reason why an extra soldier can't hop on the turret and man a extra MG. And as the Chieftain had pointed out the extra man out can be assigned to scout duties and do it much better than a loader.
As for the whole "Gun going boom" scenario, if you have a scenario wherein the enemy had managed to damage your gun to the point it is inoperable or it broke down on its own. Then problem isn't going to be solved with just a loader with a wrench.
We are already seeing a thread forming, with newer tanks like the T-14 sporting armor that makes the performance of preexisting guns doubtful and Armies are responding in kind like the German 130MM. Granted it is not going to happen overnight but in the near future like it or not the next US MBT is going to be dragged kicking and screaming to an autoloader system.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Yes a magnified soda straw which is limited again. If one set of eyes is good and Two is better Three then takes it beyond.
Optics have really limited views. This is why TC on western tanks still operate hatch open head out cavalry sword in hand demanding a charge so they can run the enemy through... okay maybe not. But the Commanders sight still is a bit of a soda straw. It wasn’t until iron vision that they had a system that didn’t have restricted view aspects and even that is in prototypes.

In the Korean War and Iraq there were cases in non urban where infantry swarmed armor. However only a few MBT with 4 man crews have the extra MG. Look at Challenger II and Leopard 2 both have manual loaders but no extra MG. Abrams and Merkava seem to be the stand out with that extra weapon but since they have the crewman why not?

There are more ways a gun can fail than the gun being damaged. Misfires, hang fires, failure to extract are real issues that can happen with a tank or side arm. An automatic loader today has no way to correct that. If it happens then the T14 is down to its secondary weapons. In the case of a tank like a T72 or K2 the gunner or TC has to resolve the issue. In a manually loaded tank that’s the loader.
T14’s crew capsule is impressive armor from the front but from the sides and rear it’s just as open as any other tank. The Turret has been armored but they skimped a bit which is fine they don’t have a crew in that part of the tank, as such the T14 it doesn’t at this point render the 120mm smooth bore obsolete. It also doesn’t hurt that the Russians haven’t been able to put them into massive large scale production like older tanks.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
You can pick 2 things out of 3: great armor, 4 man crew, decent weight

4 man crew is invariably an advantage, but PLA did an informed trade off, sacrificing it so the tank doesn’t become too heavy.

A 99A weighs 58 tons. That’s 19.3 tons of tank/crew member. If you want to have that level of protection for 4 crew members, the tank will weigh 77 tons. That’s 2 more tons than the heaviest modern MBT, the Challenger 2.

Such a tank would have issues on smaller paved roads, let alone the marshlands close to Vietnam, or the bridges in mountainous Tibet and Guangxi.
 
S

Shimakazerun

New Member
Registered Member
Rowdyhorse4 said:
Does the 99 not have Gun - Optic Independent stabilizer? from the video, the Gunner sight moves with the gun instead of having independent stabilization and movement like in most modern MBTs?

View attachment 52905

Image crop from a gif of a 99 in action from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...


Well the fire control system on type 99 and type 96 are quite diffirent between Type 99A and Type 96A.
the stabilize of the FCS on Type 99 and Type 96 is called “下反稳定”，witch means under reflector stabilize. the principle of 下反稳定 is to stabilize the relector behind the eyepiece witch is under the turret armor.that's why the gunner's sight seem like following the gun.

And on the Type 99A and Type 96A,they use a stbilize system calls “上反稳定”,witch mean upper reflectot stabilize.That system's principle is to stabilize the upper relector behind the object lens witch is out side the turret,Just like NATO tanks such as Leo 2 and M1.So the eyepiece won't move with the gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top