New Type98/99 MBT thread

[no_name]

Maybe not if the tank was hit from behind. M1s I think have a thin cover top above their ammunition storage area on the roof of the tank that is deliberately designed to be blown off in the event of ammunition ignition by enemy fire, to redirect energy of the blast upwards.

 

[Pointblank]

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.



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.



I think thats already been debunked by Vladimir.



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



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.



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



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.

1. The size to weight ratio for the Type 99 to be better protected does not make sense unless superheavy metals are used in the armour extensively.

2. That increased size means that it is EASIER to operate the tank for extended periods. Not to mention that Eastern bloc tanks make a number of sacrifices to achieve their smaller size, namely protection, survivability, and ergonomics.

3. The current generation Russian tanks use autoloaders because they compromised on a smaller size that doesn't leave much room on the inside. The same story can be said about the Chinese; they compromised to achieve a smaller size.

4. Unlike an autoloader, a manual loader never breaks down mechanically. And the manual loader can also be assisted by the gunner or commander if needed.

5. Not isolated examples. Many autoloaders can exhibit poor reliability due to a variety of mechanical issues. Even the most reliable systems (say the one in the Bofors 57mm) can mechanically break down or jam for a variety of reasons that take a long time to resolve.

6. All autoloader designs store their ammunition in the crew compartment. That's completely unavoidable due to the nature of the autoloaders. The best system that I've seen in terms of protecting the exposed ammunition is the one in the Israeli Merkava, which uses a rotary autoloader with each tube being armoured. Even then, the Merkava, despite having a autoloader, has a loader in the crew compartment.

Compare that to most non-autoloader equipped tanks. Most store their ammunition in armoured compartments separate from the crew compartment. The only exceptions to the rule are Soviet-bloc tanks, because they do not place much of an emphasis on crew survivability.

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

Not exactly, but there is a chance that people can get out, maybe injured, but get out alive. If there was ammunition stored in the crew compartment and it cooked off, then everyone is dead, period.

 

[Lezt]

1. The size to weight ratio for the Type 99 to be better protected does not make sense unless superheavy metals are used in the armour extensively.

That is not really true, where as the volume is a function of 3 dimensions, the amount of armour is a function of surface area unless the armour is horrendously thick that it becomes a significant volume.

what this means is that a smaller volume is inherently easier to be armoured within the limits of the mechanical systems can support.

Because if super heavy metal are utilized, the weight will go through the roof.

2. That increased size means that it is EASIER to operate the tank for extended periods. Not to mention that Eastern bloc tanks make a number of sacrifices to achieve their smaller size, namely protection, survivability, and ergonomics.

It is all relative right? a bigger heavier tank consumes more fuel, cost more to maintain, require more specialized alloys which can take the load etc. The leo2A6 is estimated to eat 5 liters/km and where the T90 is "supposed" to be in the vicinity of 3 liters/km.

The fact is, protection isn't bad on soviet-bloc tanks, I don't believe the most up to date hardware of the soviet union ever faced Nato's; I have not seen any western tank shrugging off AT11 refleks nor have I seen the missile hit a western tank at 6 km. But we have seen Merkava penetrated by Kornet of a similar claimed performance. And I havent seen any 120mm armed tank defeating the Kontakt-5 on a T90 as such that even on a T72, tests found that the original M829 DU APDS round cannot defeat the armour.

What we have seen is some modern western tanks defeating old export variants of soviet tanks.

Don't forget that the size of the bigger western tanks do also have maneuverability issues in tight spaces especially the small german and polish towns they were originally intended to fight in.

3. The current generation Russian tanks use autoloaders because they compromised on a smaller size that doesn't leave much room on the inside. The same story can be said about the Chinese; they compromised to achieve a smaller size.

4. Unlike an autoloader, a manual loader never breaks down mechanically. And the manual loader can also be assisted by the gunner or commander if needed.

5. Not isolated examples. Many autoloaders can exhibit poor reliability due to a variety of mechanical issues. Even the most reliable systems (say the one in the Bofors 57mm) can mechanically break down or jam for a variety of reasons that take a long time to resolve.

An auto loader is not necessarily bad, and automation have proven to be the more precise and accurate method of manufacturing. The question is, was the auto loader maintained properly? was it operated correctly? if you are looking at second world armies, like... Iraq.... I don't think that is representative of the technology; and it is definitely easier to train a person to press a button to load a round than be a loader.

For one, navel guns generally have auto loaders and they almost literally never jam. Destroyers can have their large caliber guns firing 30-40 RPM without jamming. And the technology is similar in the cassette type of auto loader. There is a lot of bad press for auto loaders, but if they are so bad, why would the Japanese use it in their Type 90? why would the French use it in the Lerlec? They have their benefit in being weight saving and allowing for more armour protection.

And don't forget that a loader can get injured, can emotionally breakdown, require food and is human. the benefits are not as clear cut.

6. All autoloader designs store their ammunition in the crew compartment. That's completely unavoidable due to the nature of the autoloaders. The best system that I've seen in terms of protecting the exposed ammunition is the one in the Israeli Merkava, which uses a rotary autoloader with each tube being armoured. Even then, the Merkava, despite having a autoloader, has a loader in the crew compartment.

Compare that to most non-autoloader equipped tanks. Most store their ammunition in armoured compartments separate from the crew compartment. The only exceptions to the rule are Soviet-bloc tanks, because they do not place much of an emphasis on crew survivability.


Not exactly, but there is a chance that people can get out, maybe injured, but get out alive. If there was ammunition stored in the crew compartment and it cooked off, then everyone is dead, period.

That is true, but a tank not being penetrated is better. We need to remember for what war the tanks were designed for. it is 1990, western Europe is a nuclear wasteland with chemical and biological agents in the air. a few thousands western MBT tries to hold a half a million soviet MBT trying to cut off the supply routes and rout the western tanks. Any tank that was penetrated can have its crew written off.

And the soviet tank was designed to fulfill this role well, it requires less crew so more tanks could be manned. it can use its longer range and mobility to strike deep into enemy territory cutting off supply lines and hitting at the soft targets.

Again; if a of era soviet T72 with the Russian defensive package can surge off hits from a M1A2 with DU rounds as tested in germany after the reunification; why is the internal stowage of ammo an issue?

Of course, in today's non nuclear battlefield where Russian technology have stagnated after the dissolution of the soviet union, the wars being fought have changed and with it, the requirement of the equipment have changed as well.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Again; if a of era soviet T72 with the Russian defensive package can surge off hits from a M1A2 with DU rounds as tested in germany after the reunification; why is the internal stowage of ammo an issue?

Because the U.S. doesn't use M829s any more but M829A3s. Some of my tank nerd friends tell me that the A3 will definitely go through Kontakt-5 ERA too.

 

[challenge]

typ-98 (or 96)applique armour appear to slope at 60 degree,that's still can not "deflect" the kinetic rd. according to lakowski from tanknet, one need at minimum of 70 dge. for the sabot rd. to ricochet.
if you look at applique armour on leo-2A4 or merkava-4 all of them carry 70deg. slope armour.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Applique armor is useful but it won't be the main kill mechanism for an APFSDS round. Those ERA blocks on the Glacis of the T-98 look interesting though, any info on them? inb4 Kontakt-5 copy and paste

 

[Baibar of Jalat]

BTW Soviet K-5 armor is decades old. Newer ERA packages are offered by the Ukrainians and Russians. The Chinese are offering an ERA that is capable of defeating tandem warheads and Kinetic attacks. See attachment.

 

[Lezt]

Because the U.S. doesn't use M829s any more but M829A3s. Some of my tank nerd friends tell me that the A3 will definitely go through Kontakt-5 ERA too.

Note I did say of era, meaning a 1990 M1A2 vs a 1990 T72 deployed. Brushing economy aside (as if the Russians have enough dough field their latest technologies). Can the M289A3 go through Relikt on a T90 which is the current version of Kontakt-5 and "claimed" to be twice as effective? We honestly don't know.

 

[IronsightSniper]

BTW Soviet K-5 armor is decades old. Newer ERA packages are offered by the Ukrainians and Russians. The Chinese are offering an ERA that is capable of defeating tandem warheads and Kinetic attacks. See attachment.

Yes, Kaktus and Relikt. But all literature that I have read in regards to modern Russian ERAs put their main kill mechanisms in a duel plate sandwiching an explosive layer, where upon contact, the first plate is pushed against the projectile and sent moving in a lateral motion (i.e. left or right), this is all happening in milliseconds by the way. That lateral motion "feeds" ever more plate to the projectile and when the projectile reaches the second plate, I can't remember what happens exactly, but the second plate eventually would guillotine the first 2-3 cm off the APFSDS round. That's how Kontakt-5 works. I don't see a lot of ways for the Russians to "improve" on this other than thicker plates, more explosive, ect. In context, the M829A3 has been designed to counter that completely, with a super DU round (more resistant to the guillotine), longer and slimmer round, etc.

Note I did say of era, meaning a 1990 M1A2 vs a 1990 T72 deployed. Brushing economy aside (as if the Russians have enough dough field their latest technologies). Can the M289A3 go through Relikt on a T90 which is the current version of Kontakt-5 and "claimed" to be twice as effective? We honestly don't know.

But if you were to put the Penetration and Protective estimates to it, the M829A3 still comes out. Nii Stali estimates give I think 500 mm RHAe protection for Relikt (250 mm RHAe for Kontakt-5), while tank nerds who have analyzed the M829A3 and threw it through the Odermatt formula gave the round's perforation at about 850 mm RHAe at 2,000 meters. So, science aside and if you put the two comparatively, the M829A3 wins.

 

[plawolf]

But if you were to put the Penetration and Protective estimates to it, the M829A3 still comes out. Nii Stali estimates give I think 500 mm RHAe protection for Relikt (250 mm RHAe for Kontakt-5), while tank nerds who have analyzed the M829A3 and threw it through the Odermatt formula gave the round's perforation at about 850 mm RHAe at 2,000 meters. So, science aside and if you put the two comparatively, the M829A3 wins.

You do realise that there is also at least another 500mm of armor plating behind those ERA plates right?

Add that to the score and suddenly the M829A3 looses...

The slope of the armour will also effect its effectiveness as well as its composition. It would be foolish to think that the Chinese and Russians are still using simple steal only armour for their tanks.

But all this is pretty much academic, if a tank takes a tank round full on, its done fighting whether the rounds penetrates or not.