New Type98/99 MBT thread

[PanAsian]

Production pics:
[qimg]http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1316/1292428798267598.jpg[/qimg]

Just wanted to note that the 3rd picture from top, where a tank chassis is hanging in midair, is one of the Type 96 with the driver's hatch on the side. This is different from all other pictures in the series where you can see the chassis is that of the Type 99 and the driver's hatch is in the middle.

 

[vladimir1918]

The most dense common element that is relatively stable is uranium, and unless the Chinese happened to build their tanks out of uranium, not possible.

Western tank designers place a lot of emphasis on crew fightability. The crew need to be comfortable in their tanks because they spend hours in their vehicles. Otherwise, crew mental and physical exhaustion and fatigue will build up rapidly leading to less effective crews in their tanks. A tired, fatigued crew is not combat effective, especially in extended combat.

Furthermore, the West have placed a lot of emphasis on ease of operation. Visibility is excellent out of most Western tanks, and the three person turret allows for more eyes on the battlefield, while still allowing people to operate radios, weapons, or commanding. The commander of the tank, for example, in a three-man turret, can concentrate on commanding, while in a two man turret, that commander will have to manage a task on top of commanding a tank, and that will distract the commander, and prevent him from operating the tank effectively.

The only argument against the 2 two man turret in the old day is the autoloader is not reliable enough. I believe the technology today is advance enough to eliminate the loader in the tank.
Many new "western" tanks such as Type 90, Leclerc, K-2, and Type 10 have autoloader, and we didn't hear any horror story about them.

The loader can't provide more eyes on the battlefield, since there are only two hatches on the turret. One for the commander, one for the gunner. You argument about commander in a two man turret also can't concentrate on commanding is only apply to tank without autoloader, since the commander is also the loader.

 

[mzyw]

Just like to add:
First Asian people compare to the western people are generally physically smaller in size. Thus the internal space of Chinese tank can be smaller yet still provide enough space for the crew to be confortable.
Second, material technology today means you can have armour lighter than the older ones yet may be stronger. So please don't dismiss the idea of light tank can't have same armour protection as the heavy ones. China is quite advanced in the field of Nano tech so it is entirely possible for them to develop a light yet strong material to match the western heavy armours, it i just a possibility I'm not saying that is the case.

 

[Pointblank]

The only argument against the 2 two man turret in the old day is the autoloader is not reliable enough. I believe the technology today is advance enough to eliminate the loader in the tank.
Many new "western" tanks such as Type 90, Leclerc, K-2, and Type 10 have autoloader, and we didn't hear any horror story about them.

Autoloaders are still not dependable enough to provide a net benefit on the battlefield. The practical firing rates for a autoloader-equipped tank and a manually loaded one are almost identical for the same caliber of weapon.

Additionally even today, autoloaders can be hit or miss in terms of reliability. For example, the autoloader on the M1128 Mobile Gun System is known for being particularly troublesome. If an autoloader breaks down, then the crew will have to work around the autoloader to load ammunition, which is a difficult enough task to do already in a cramped turret, while being a man short. Even if there is more room, say on a naval ship gun, autoloaders are known for being hit or miss. As an example, the autoloader on the Otobreda 76 mm is known for being unreliable at the higher fire rates, and it has been demonstrated that the autoloader on the Otobreda 76mm could in fact self-destruct at such higher fire rates.

Furthermore, all that ammo, stored in the open isn't good for crew survivability. With every single tank that is using an autoloader, the ammunition is stored in the open, compared to most tanks that are not equipped with an autoloader. With crew-loaded guns, the ammunition can be stored deeper in the tank behind armoured doors, giving better protection.

The loader can't provide more eyes on the battlefield, since there are only two hatches on the turret. One for the commander, one for the gunner. You argument about commander in a two man turret also can't concentrate on commanding is only apply to tank without autoloader, since the commander is also the loader.

The loader can take some of the jobs away from the commander so he isn't multitasking as much; for example, the loader can take over the radio while the commander can observe the area around him more carefully and command the vehicle. Furthermore, there is more crew redundancies in case a crew member becomes incapacitated.

 

[Geographer]

You're forgetting the main advantages of an autoloader. It reduces the logistics needed to support soldiers in the field by 25 percent, as well as training and salary costs. It also allows the turret to be smaller.

 

[Pointblank]

You're forgetting the main advantages of an autoloader. It reduces the logistics needed to support soldiers in the field by 25 percent, as well as training and salary costs. It also allows the turret to be smaller.

You however increase the support costs as you need to service the autoloader regularly to ensure reliable operation, and that means more highly trained technicians with their tools in the field. Furthermore, crews do many basic maintenance on a tank, and having a body short is a hassle at times.

And that's in addition to the crew survivability issues that current autoloaders face.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Yes, unless the Chinese used DU to supplement their armor, they wouldn't be able to get great protection for small size. In regards to ERA, of course a Tandem-charge would defeat it, nonetheless the fact that the M829A3 was designed to counter anti-KE ERA. Laser dazzlers won't do crap against unguided tank rounds.

Now, anyone have RHAe estimates for the Type-98/99? Preferably the Glacis or the Front turret would be where I'd like those estimates too.

 

[challenge]

originally plan for M-1 abrams included auto loader,but after analysing the arab israel conflict realized trying to maintain and service a tank is very physical demanding,3 man crews simple not enough,4th man is require to maintain the tank,the plan to install auto loader finally scrap.
brit. may also arrived with same conclusion,so do israel.
the problem is that as calibre of gun grew bigger,so do the need of auto loader.example was the 140mm armed M-1 tank.end of the cold war killed the project.

 

[plawolf]

The most dense common element that is relatively stable is uranium, and unless the Chinese happened to build their tanks out of uranium, not possible.

How would that make sense? If the Chinese did, just for the sake of argument, make a tank out of uranium, then it would be far heavier than all other tanks.

Maybe I wasn't very clear, but in armor density, I was referring to the ratio between overall volume and weight. Western tanks are heavier, but they are also far larger, so the weight to volume ratio between the two might not be that different.

Western tank designers place a lot of emphasis on crew fightability. The crew need to be comfortable in their tanks because they spend hours in their vehicles. Otherwise, crew mental and physical exhaustion and fatigue will build up rapidly leading to less effective crews in their tanks. A tired, fatigued crew is not combat effective, especially in extended combat.

Yes, thanks for the sales pitch. But my point was that the cost of that comfort is a far larger volume of space to protect, which in turn required a lot for armor to achieve the same level of protection as would be the case for a far smaller turret.

Furthermore, the West have placed a lot of emphasis on ease of operation. Visibility is excellent out of most Western tanks, and the three person turret allows for more eyes on the battlefield, while still allowing people to operate radios, weapons, or commanding. The commander of the tank, for example, in a three-man turret, can concentrate on commanding, while in a two man turret, that commander will have to manage a task on top of commanding a tank, and that will distract the commander, and prevent him from operating the tank effectively.

I think thats already been debunked by Vladimir.

Autoloaders are still not dependable enough to provide a net benefit on the battlefield.

Oh, so the Russians and Chinese are just idiots then?

The practical firing rates for a autoloader-equipped tank and a manually loaded one are almost identical for the same caliber of weapon.

Well that's not actually true. One of the main advantages often used to justify manual loading is that a loader is faster than currently deployed autoloaders. However, that is only turn initially, because after a short time of combat, the rate of fire from a manually loaded gun will start to drop off exponentially as the loader gets progressively more tired. A problem an autoloader does not face.

Additionally even today, autoloaders can be hit or miss in terms of reliability. For example, the autoloader on the M1128 Mobile Gun System is known for being particularly troublesome. If an autoloader breaks down, then the crew will have to work around the autoloader to load ammunition, which is a difficult enough task to do already in a cramped turret, while being a man short. Even if there is more room, say on a naval ship gun, autoloaders are known for being hit or miss. As an example, the autoloader on the Otobreda 76 mm is known for being unreliable at the higher fire rates, and it has been demonstrated that the autoloader on the Otobreda 76mm could in fact self-destruct at such higher fire rates.

Those are just isolated examples. All modern warships use autoloaders and the vast majority are working just fine.

Furthermore, all that ammo, stored in the open isn't good for crew survivability. With every single tank that is using an autoloader, the ammunition is stored in the open, compared to most tanks that are not equipped with an autoloader. With crew-loaded guns, the ammunition can be stored deeper in the tank behind armoured doors, giving better protection.

Again, selective examples with one particular autoloader design. There are other designs that provides similar levels of safety as manually loaded tanks.

What more, a modern autoloader would be far better for combat durability since they can easily ignore being hit by shrapnel that would have shredded a person.

 

[dingyibvs]

Furthermore, all that ammo, stored in the open isn't good for crew survivability. With every single tank that is using an autoloader, the ammunition is stored in the open, compared to most tanks that are not equipped with an autoloader. With crew-loaded guns, the ammunition can be stored deeper in the tank behind armoured doors, giving better protection.

If a shell gets into the crew compartment, everybody's toast anyway regardless of whether it ignites the ammunition.