Drawing First Blood (Tank V.S Tank)

A BMP-2 mission killed a abram from the side. that has a 30mm cannon.

FriedRiceNSpice i had a picture of the T-72 blown by a Bradley. It was all blown but you could see where it was hit. But i didn't save that picture.The bradley has a 25mm chain gun

Wow, so many replies in such a short ammount of time! Thanks, you have all been very iluminating! Unfortunately, I dont know too much about modern tanks or modern tank warfare so your information has been very helpful for me in future discusions.

Now that statement about the BMP2 really suprised me. It must have been luck on the part of the BMP2. I also know that, asside from the 30MM, the BMP2 has a rocket option on top of it's turret, so I imagine that if it was stealthy enough and got accurate enough with that rocket, I imagine it could disable, if not 'kill' (destroy sounds too...extreme for this weapon) an Abrams.

And I had no idea bout that laser blinder ether. It sounds like it is quite an advancement over the T-72. Oh well, you learn something new every day!

YES YES. I have seen first hand my wingmans tank get the snot knocked out of it by a BMP-2 30mm. The rounds hit the right side from back to front. The rounds entered the battery box on the right side and started a small fire. Thus the big boy was mission killed.

The T99 has been greatly improved from it original design, but it still have a few weaknesses; given the amount of experience the designers had with western tank concept it is simply unrealistic to see it challenge a far more expensive tank on a 1 on 1 'ring fight'.

however in military operations, the doctine are always set to play to ones strength. and also no military hardware is invincible in battle. it is possible for a T99 to kill a M1A2 if conditions are favourable.

I would disagree: i see the T99 is not close to M1 level yet, but it is also not a sitting duck and can fight back. the development of better armor and chassis are still neccesary, however i see tank is of a lower priority as air and naval requirements seem to be more pressing matters of modernization.

well, i would say the type 99has an advantage over the m1 basic or m1a1, but not the m1a2. the later developmet of the 99 means that its electronics and sensors must be superiro to the m1a1, a late 80s/early 90s design. the m1a1s armor still is superior to the 99s. the L44 is more powerful than the 2a46, but this is lost because the type 99 can fire therefleks, which has a range of 5 km, more thna the l44s 1.5km. The jd-3 laser jammer is also an up. so the type 99 has first shot, but the m1 has a greater chance of surviving. im pretty sure that m1 crews have more experience and training than their type 99 counter parts.

utelore said:

YES YES. I have seen first hand my wingmans tank get the snot knocked out of it by a BMP-2 30mm. The rounds hit the right side from back to front. The rounds entered the battery box on the right side and started a small fire. Thus the big boy was mission killed.

Click to expand...

BMP2's 30 MM ?? I assume you know the 30MM Gun on the BMP2 right ?

If I recall, the Bradley kill on the T-72 was a (few) hit(s) on the turret ring.

Every tank, no matter how well protected, has vulnerable parts, even in the frontal arc. For example, the T-72 had a weakness at the driver's vision block, the T-99 redisgned the front hull to reduce this somewhat. However, one weakness many tanks have is the area right around where the gun sticks out.

The biggest strength for the Type-99, imo, is its modularity, specifically in the armour package. The design principle recognized it will not start out perfect nor ever be, but rather evolve as technology becomes available. Making upgrading the armor package easy will let it catch up/keep up far easier. You can clearly see those big lifting attachments on the turret's frontal arc armor. I bet, like the engine, it can be replaced in under 30 minutes in field conditions. Imo, FCS and electronics should be relatively easy to upgrade, as long as there is a standardized interface, hardware is just plug and play, and software upgrades are trivial. Now if they over-designed the gun mount in expectation of future gun upgrades, I'll be really impressed.

From, Mig leader:crew training is another main issue. how well trained would the abrams and type 99 crews be?

--------------------------------------------
Sukoi Freak:
Yes, I aggree, the amount of crew training is also a factor to the success, Im pretty shure the Abrams crew would be trained quite well, because the US has spent About 9999999999999999trilloin dollars on the Iraq war, but i dont now the chinese training methods, the laser blinder is a cool idea but will it work in real combat? Just asking

Sukhoi Freak said:

From, Mig leader:crew training is another main issue. how well trained would the abrams and type 99 crews be?

--------------------------------------------
Sukoi Freak:
Yes, I aggree, the amount of crew training is also a factor to the success, Im pretty shure the Abrams crew would be trained quite well, because the US has spent About 9999999999999999trilloin dollars on the Iraq war, but i dont now the chinese training methods, the laser blinder is a cool idea but will it work in real combat? Just asking

Click to expand...

about that laser, the question is can you do a manual control??? because when enemy laser is beaming at you, you could only destroy their laser optics, but how would you blind a person (from atgm) when there are 2 optics. (one for laser and one as a binocular)

The beam divergence at target range will probably mean the "spot" is pretty big anyway, and will cover the distance between different parts of optics.