New Chinese Military Developments

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

King_Comm said:

==What if there is no ammunition stored in the turret? The turret would be smaller, and tanks won't be disabled as easily. I think having ammo stored in the rear of the turret is more about providing a counter weight to the barrel allowing faster and more accurate turret traverse than crew safety.

Click to expand...

that's an interesting view. but however wouldn't the turret traversal become affected as rounds become depleted, if they are relied for counter weight? or perhaps only the armor weight is significant

well the other reason for extra weight is difficulty with auto loader, then the need for loader crew. you need more room in the turret which increases the surface area to armor. another effect is the need for bigger engine, hence bigger engine compartment, hence more armor to protect it, hence more weight, hence bigger engine... almost like why space rockets get so big.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

ChinaSoldier said:

that's an interesting view. but however wouldn't the turret traversal become affected as rounds become depleted, if they are relied for counter weight? or perhaps only the armor weight is significant

Click to expand...

==The armour should be enough, the rounds in the compartment would only weigh around 500kg, much smaller than the armour.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

ChinaSoldier said:

that's an interesting view. but however wouldn't the turret traversal become affected as rounds become depleted, if they are relied for counter weight? or perhaps only the armor weight is significant

well the other reason for extra weight is difficulty with auto loader, then the need for loader crew. you need more room in the turret which increases the surface area to armor. another effect is the need for bigger engine, hence bigger engine compartment, hence more armor to protect it, hence more weight, hence bigger engine... almost like why space rockets get so big.

Click to expand...

On the otherhand, a 1500hp engine gives you a lot of leeway to add on additional weight without compromising performance too much.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

Russian tanks like the T-72 have a 22 round ammo carosel in the turret to feed the autoloader. If you look at how they behaved when hit, ammo carried in the tank was deadly. One hit would blow the turret off and blow the engine out the back. With the ammo in a bustle, the top of the bustle blows but the crew compartment is unaffected. This has happened in actual combat with M-1A2's. Here is why. You cannot armor the entire tank to withstand a direct hit, so carrying ammo in the tank will always result in the tank being destroyed. With an ammo bustle, even a shot that penetrates the side armor ( and this has happened in Iraq when an RPG penetrated the side and nicked the drivers seat, everyone walked away ) doesn't guarantee an internal explosion, plus if the ammo supply is hit, the bustle goes and saves the crew.
Russian autoloaders are not as practical as manual loading. The Russian autoloader takes 7-8 seconds to chamber a round. During that time the turret may not be rotated, and the gun barrel must be laid to a certain level while the autoloader works. During this time the tank commander is unable to aim at the next target. The US Army has quite a few Russian tanks and in actual field practice they have a failure rate exceeding 20%.
By comparison a manually loaded gun can fire at least every four seconds. That is a comfortable pace for the crew, but a really hot crew can speed that up some. Manual loading is nealy 100% fool proof. There is no mechanical reliability issue here. Loading is routinely accomplished as the gun is aimed at the next target. No ammo inside the turret means there is a low likelihood of a major explosion following a hit. The interiors now have spall linings so a hit does not create a fragmentation hazard for the crew.
Larger caliber tank guns are certainly possible but the US Army for example is reluctant to go this route. Number one, larger caliber shells means fewer rounds on board. This is already an issue with the 120mm gun. An Abrams only carries 40 rounds of 120 mm main gun ammo. The early version of the M-1 that carried the old 105 mm main gun could carry 55 rounds. Moving to something in the neighborhood of a 140 mm main gun would reduce the amount of ammo to what the US Army considers an unacceptable level. Instead the US is looking at ways to increase the energy of the existing caliber round through better propellants or possibly some combination of an electromagnetic railgun to pop the round out of the gun ( a very low energy rail gun ) followed by some sort of rocket propulsion. This is just one idea being tossed around, but for now the US Army doesn't think there is much more room for increasing the energy of the current round. There are considerations like heat and gun barrel erosion to think about. Also, going to a 140 mm round would require an autoloader, increasing the vehicle's weight and requiring a further increase in the size of the turret. I'm sure Russia and China are seeing the same limitations in their research.
Who is this Dutch soldier claiming a Rhinemetall 120 mm gun can hit anything at 6000 meters? Sounds like a fish story. The old rifled 120 gun the Brits used on the Challenger was good to 4000 meters using HESH rounds and on a good day an M-1A2 could hit something out to 2000 meters in the desert, but 6000 meters? Do you have any documentation of that?

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

I agree. That is a good post. This always strikes me one of the mysteries in the PLA, since the concept of the autoloader goes in fact against their basic principles of simplicity, cost, and straightforwardness. Its not like the PLA is short on people that can serve to manually load the guns. It does not sound like something that someone from the field in the PLA would recommend but imposed top down from a 'theorist' high up in the ranks.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

during the chenchen war, the T-72 tank auto loader suffer from frequent breakdown, and according to russian tanker (tranlated from chinese magazine)after firing the round, Chenchen guerilla armed with RPG-7 will charged the tank,knowing to well it take 7~8 second to load the shell.
giving this problem, the russian decided to replace t-72 tank with old but dependable T-55 tank in Chenchen theater.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

challenge said:

during the chenchen war, the T-72 tank auto loader suffer from frequent breakdown, and according to russian tanker (tranlated from chinese magazine)after firing the round, Chenchen guerilla armed with RPG-7 will charged the tank,knowing to well it take 7~8 second to load the shell.
giving this problem, the russian decided to replace t-72 tank with old but dependable T-55 tank in Chenchen theater.

Click to expand...

But yet the "new" T-90 is in reality a revised T-72 called initially the T-72BU. After the debacle of Desert Storm, the global image of a T-72 was a smoldering hulk, hence the new designation ( shades of Detroit ! ). Russian armor isn't really much more advanced than what the US confronted in Iraq. Sure they have better sighting and targeting systems, but that gun was not terribly effective against the Abram's armor ( anyone know if the Iraqi's ever managed to hit a Challenger and what the results were ? ) and the Russian tank is incredibly vulnerable to hits from that Rhinemetall gun. The latest "Silver Bullet" can reportedly penetrate the Kactus reactive armor on the latest Russian tanks. Those turrets and hulls are still just steel, not a layered composite, so Russian armor lives and dies on the strength of Kactus. Hmmmmm.
Now here is a question. My impression of Chinese tanks is that they are derivative of modern Russian designs. Not identical but same basic gun, same basic layout with an autoloader and that deadly ammo carosel inside the hull. Targeting systems of course are different but Chinese tanks share the vulnerabilities of Russian tanks. Spank me if I'm wrong on this, I have my trousers down
Hey, when is that Dutch Army tanker going to document that claim of a 6000 meter range on the Rhinemetall gun? I'm curious.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

The Russian tanks are basically cast turrets, and if they're using laminar armor, it has to be on the glacis, since multilayered armor requires a flat surface.

Other than having the same basic layout, Chinese tanks now use welded turrets, which allows the use of composite (and perforated) armor in the turret. Their gun barrels are also longer than the Russian gun, which means higher velocity for the shell. As for the ZTZ-99, its quite heavier than a T-90, so its likely to be better armored. My impression of the ZTZ-99 is that it has an extended bustle on the turret, and I'm really curious if it is using a bustle autoloader.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

in the post cold war eram you are more likely to see(or read) tanks in urban combat rather tank to tank battle.that why a lot of countries right now is investing in active defense system.
israel just up graded there merkava with Trophy (or iron fist) and jordan already selected SAAB LED-150 for there tank.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

challenge said:

in the post cold war eram you are more likely to see(or read) tanks in urban combat rather tank to tank battle.that why a lot of countries right now is investing in active defense system.
israel just up graded there merkava with Trophy (or iron fist) and jordan already selected SAAB LED-150 for there tank.

Click to expand...

Well, the Russians never quite figured out how to make layered armors like the Brits, Germans and Americans do, so they are forced to rely on reactive armor. For a while it was enough, and the first generation Silver Bullet could not defeat it. There are three newer iterations of the US DU round, all with higher muzzel velocities and a lot more impact energy. I have no access to Army stuff, just like everyone here, but from what you can read on-line the latest US Army round is credited with the ability to penetrate Kactus. Russia also has budgetary problems and was forced to choose one tank to produce, the T-80 or T-90. In light of their Chechen experience they chose the latter. So far the T-95 has not been brought into production. Money is certainly a consideration, and we don't know what technical hurdles the Russians are facing. One thing from the very few photos of it, that low turret will restrict the gun's elevation and depression angles. This is already a problem of their current designs, and something Chechen rebels exploited successfully. The great bulk of their auto loader further restricts elevation and depression. Does Russia ever learn?
The T-98 superficially at least appears to be a lot more along the lines of the best Western armor, not a rehash of the T-72. I still have to wonder about the gun and the targeting system. The Russian stuff cannot find western tanks at the ranges most Western tanks can score one shot kills on the Russian, nor can the Russian guns guarantee a one shot kill of a western tank. Are Chinese sensors known to be better? Also, does the Chinese tank use an auto loader and bustle carried ammo? Just curious.