Chinese 96-A

Broccoli

Broccoli

Senior Member
Shadow_Whomel said:
I disagree with your thoughts. I think it is more likely that the type 15 uses a tailstock loader because it uses a one-piece 105mm shell. The existing Chinese turntable loaders are for split shells and making one for the type 15 would probably result in an oversized body.

The tailstock loader offers no additional safety advantage and you will have to set up places in the hull to store shells, except for the M1, which can indeed carry all its shells in the tailstock (the remaining four rounds are generally too lazy to use and probably won't be carried), but this brings with it a hefty turret and turret weight. Despite this, you can still see M1 and Leopard 2 turrets being blown up in the Middle East.

The real problem with the T-72 ammunition layout is that the turret loader, which gives a very low projection area, can only carry 22 rounds (which is still more than most NATO tanks), so the Russians stuff the rest everywhere (forgive me for using a screenshot of the game so I can visualise it), which actually not only cancels out the advantage of the turret loader, but makes it an explosive effect Amplifiers.

View attachment 89158
Click to expand...

Bustle stored ammo is supposed to keep crew alive (if you care about that kinda stuff) if tank gets hit, not to save tank itself, i'd rather go to a war in Abrams or Lecrec than a tank with carousel autoloader right under the turret because when propellent charges get your gonna get cooked even if the tank doesn't explode.

Famous T-72 video where ammo doens't explode but propellant charges light up.

In Abrams that flame goes up and away from the crew.
 
Last edited:
by78

by78

General
Self-explanatory.

52096355833_b0490a119c_k.jpg

52096331466_d407e5e375_k.jpg
52096569294_20f76749c9_k.jpg
52096569314_f25961c627_k.jpg
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
If I were the PLA's procurement guy I'd start the process of phasing out all current Type 96/99 tanks and invest in the development of a scaled-up ZTQ-15. An MBT in the 50-60 ton range, 125 mm cannon, and based on the VT-5 is what a proper modern Chinese MBT should look like.

The carousel configuration will all but ensure that the ZTZ series will blow up like fireworks when facing enemy armor or modern ATGMs, as demonstrated by Russia's infamous "trial by fire" in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
It's shown time and time again that any tank where an atgm or shell penetrates inside will simply explode, its crew highly unlikely to survive.

NATO tanks were annihilated by Syrian rebel fighters when Turkey rolled in Leopard 2s by the dozen that got blown up by dozen as well, often with the turrets flying away. Likewise, many M1 tanks were destroyed facing outdated IEDS and rpgs.

It is a pervasive NATO propaganda myth, like the original "1 tiger for every 20 t-34s" myth from the Reich. Counted on an armor weight/soft protective measures per crew basis, the 99As are some of the most heavily protected vehicles ever designed. That will however not really help against saturation attacks using modern atgms from multiple directions.

Russian origin tanks were destroyed in large numbers in Iraq and Ukrainian tanks are being destroyed now in large numbers due to no air supremacy, no intel and poor doctrine.

Should China decide to attack a country with a mostly m1 abrams or leopard tanks, you'd see hundreds of blown out western tanks as well.
 
Broccoli

Broccoli

Senior Member
Biscuits said:
It's shown time and time again that any tank where an atgm or shell penetrates inside will simply explode, its crew highly unlikely to survive.

NATO tanks were annihilated by Syrian rebel fighters when Turkey rolled in Leopard 2s by the dozen that got blown up by dozen as well, often with the turrets flying away. Likewise, many M1 tanks were destroyed facing outdated IEDS and rpgs.

It is a pervasive NATO propaganda myth, like the original "1 tiger for every 20 t-34s" myth from the Reich. Counted on an armor weight/soft protective measures per crew basis, the 99As are some of the most heavily protected vehicles ever designed. That will however not really help against saturation attacks using modern atgms from multiple directions.

Russian origin tanks were destroyed in large numbers in Iraq and Ukrainian tanks are being destroyed now in large numbers due to no air supremacy, no intel and poor doctrine.

Should China decide to attack a country with a mostly m1 abrams or leopard tanks, you'd see hundreds of blown out western tanks as well.
Click to expand...

Most NATO tanks (Leopard 2A 4 used by Turkey store ammo in the hull) after 1980s are generally made so crew has better change of survival when tank get's hit. When Type-99A gets hit from side (no armor at all) it's likely that PLA tank crew become taikonauts... ZBD-04 has same problem as BMP-3 what have been exploding in Ukraine when their 50 100mm HE shells are hit.

Russian tank crews in Ukraine have begun going into battle with only 10 shells on carousel because it decreases changes of whole tank blowing up, and we can surely pretend that carousel autoloader in a fine design, but i'd rather ride on Abrams than T-72/90 or Type-96/99.
 
Last edited:
M

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
Broccoli said:
Most NATO tanks (Leopard 2A 4 used by Turkey store ammo in the hull) after 1980s are generally made so crew has better change of survival when tank get's hit. When Type-99A gets hit from side (no armor at all) it's likely that PLA tank crew become taikonauts... ZBD-04 has same problem as BMP-3 what have been exploding in Ukraine when their 50 100mm HE shells are hit.

Russian tank crews in Ukraine have begun going into battle with only 10 shells on carousel because it decreases changes of whole tank blowing up, and we can surely pretend that carousel autoloader in a fine design, but i'd rather ride on Abrams than T-72/90 or Type-96/99.
Click to expand...
I rather ride in the type 96/99 since that means I be part of the PLA, which I would give my back to compared to US or Russia's military.

Not to mention, in reality it's not really likely that the 96/99 is gonna see combat (outside of Taiwan, but the stuff Taiwan has is uh...).

Besides that, not like any of those tanks are really that resistant in the face of any modern ATGMs, and they would basically all get destroyed from a side shot from their peer.
 
Broccoli

Broccoli

Senior Member
Michaelsinodef said:
I rather ride in the type 96/99 since that means I be part of the PLA, which I would give my back to compared to US or Russia's military.

Not to mention, in reality it's not really likely that the 96/99 is gonna see combat (outside of Taiwan, but the stuff Taiwan has is uh...).

Besides that, not like any of those tanks are really that resistant in the face of any modern ATGMs, and they would basically all get destroyed from a side shot from their peer.
Click to expand...

There are big difference between ATGM and M72 LAW.

M72 LAW fired from side most likely won't take out Abrams with ERA on while it goes straight trough Type-96/99 side because there is literally nothing protecting it from that kinda shots.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Broccoli said:
Most NATO tanks (Leopard 2A 4 used by Turkey store ammo in the hull) after 1980s are generally made so crew has better change of survival when tank get's hit. When Type-99A gets hit from side (no armor at all) it's likely that PLA tank crew become taikonauts... ZBD-04 has same problem as BMP-3 what have been exploding in Ukraine when their 50 100mm HE shells are hit.

Russian tank crews in Ukraine have begun going into battle with only 10 shells on carousel because it decreases changes of whole tank blowing up, and we can surely pretend that carousel autoloader in a fine design, but i'd rather ride on Abrams than T-72/90 or Type-96/99.
Click to expand...
And guess what, the exact same happens to abrams and leopard 2s that hit IEDs or even just normal RPGs. Nothing has shown in practice that it worked better to protect the crew.

I'd rather ride in a 99A over a M1A2, since the former at least has active protection system, its also a smaller target that has a lower chance of getting stuck in mud or at bridge crossings without compromising armor design, since room is saved by having less crew.

You get hit by an atgm in weaker areas in either you will die 100%. No amount of Nato propaganda copium will make a human being survive from their leopard 2's turret flying away while the entire interior of the tank gets superheated from the projectile.
Check how many of those Turkish tank crews that drove in unsupported came back alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top