New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
I wasn't comparing tanks, I was comparing munitions to ERA. The slope of armor is always incorporated into these estimates.
And yes, Swiss engineers were reportedly working on a 140 mm gun variant of the Leopard II. It fired a massive APFSDS round that had an estimated 1,000 mm RHAe penetration. Too bad they shut that down for now.
You have to compare tanks, if not, how can we use the date for the M829A3 as it is coming out of a Rheinmetall 120 mm L44 mated to the Abrams? would the performance be the same it it came out of another gun on another tank?
So inherently ERA packages were never meant to defeat projectiles alone, thus you have to look at the entire package, and therefore add the 550mm to the total armor.
The tests done in germany showed that the M829 did not penetrate the T72, but it did not say it didn't go through the ERA.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
I was comparing Munitions v.s. ERA because there is some inherit belief that you can just throw Kontakt-5 onto a BMP and call it Tank-proof.
As for the tank platform, people generally use data of M829A3s fired from an Abrams and the data of German APFSDS rounds from Leopards and etc.
In any case, the T-72 doesn't have super thick Glacis armor. According to , the Glacis of the T-72BM has about 510 mm RHAe. With Relikt that estimate goes to over 1000 mm of RHAe.
Technically speaking, the numbers don't add up, 850 mm perforation v.s. 1000 mm protection, protection wins. However, as APFSDS rounds come, the M829A3 is the best there is. Asides from that, I wouldn't say I know if T-99s use Relikt anyways.
As for the tank platform, people generally use data of M829A3s fired from an Abrams and the data of German APFSDS rounds from Leopards and etc.
In any case, the T-72 doesn't have super thick Glacis armor. According to , the Glacis of the T-72BM has about 510 mm RHAe. With Relikt that estimate goes to over 1000 mm of RHAe.
Technically speaking, the numbers don't add up, 850 mm perforation v.s. 1000 mm protection, protection wins. However, as APFSDS rounds come, the M829A3 is the best there is. Asides from that, I wouldn't say I know if T-99s use Relikt anyways.
I don't think it is fair to assume that the majority of forum goers here is uneducated to the point where they think ERA solves everything. I would believe most will expect the said ERA being mounted on its country's contemporary main battle tank.
I don't think that anyone is trying to claim that the T series of Russian tanks are invulnerable. As Plawolf had said, a tank struck is pretty much mission killed if not considered destroyed. The reality check is that the updated, professionally manned T series are still formidable opponents in the field.
I don't think the Type 99 uses any Relikt, nor do we know the ERA suite it will receive. but lets go back to basics, the Type 99 is 58 tonnes, A T90 have a non ERA RHAe of 550 mm vs APFSDS at 46.5 tonnes, A M1A2 have a non ERA RHAe of 960 mm at 62.1 tonnes, while the Leo2A6 have a non ERA RHAe 940 mm @ 62.5 metric tonnes.
So assuming the designers of the tanks have access to similar material and similar technologies, are equally as bright, and have optimized the armor as per the laws of physics and common sense, we can easily expect the RHAe of a Type 99 to be around.... 800 mm by interpolation? lets assume that is true, and we throw on some ERA from dated technologies, such as the Kontakt-5 ~200mm~ and again, we are in competition even against the M829A3.
Ofcourse it is only an rough estimation, but it is like putting Relikt on a M1A2, ERA just makes it tougher and you will get a very hard tank to kill.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
800 mm for a Type 99? Based on no evidence other than weight? No.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
That 800mm figure would likely be an understatement if based purely on weight. As I have explained earlier, western tanks have a far larger internal space, thus would need considerably more armor (weight) to achieve the same level of overall armor thickness.
No-one here has ever claimed ERA alone would be enough to stop tank rounds. It might be wise for you to not assume everyone else here are ignorant idiots.
And as Letz has already pointed out, your insistence on comparing sabot to ERA alone makes no sense, and your explanation just looks like you are setting up a strawman, and to not state that massive assumption from the start looks very suspect and is not in the spirit of having an open, honest discussion.
Last edited:
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
That 800 mm figure is not an understatement, it's a guess. There's no hard proof, just pure speculation, not even a single analysis as to materials used or positioned or etc. What you're neglecting to say is that the extra weight that Western tanks get (in particular, Abrams) is from the DU armor, which adds considerable amount of protection (600 mm RHAe v.s. HEAT) to any section of the tank. So no, you can't simply assume that more weight for less space means more armor, it depends on what material is used.
My insistence was based on my question of, "What ERA is used on the Type 99", to which someone responded by showing a picture of Russian ERA to which I responded that they will do no good against M829A3. I never explicitly said that the M829A3 would go through ERA + whatever happens to be behind it so please straighten that fact out with yourselves.
My insistence was based on my question of, "What ERA is used on the Type 99", to which someone responded by showing a picture of Russian ERA to which I responded that they will do no good against M829A3. I never explicitly said that the M829A3 would go through ERA + whatever happens to be behind it so please straighten that fact out with yourselves.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Well if you have proof, the spy agencies of many a western country would be very keen to speak to you.
You do realise that Letz stated pretty clearly that his estimate is based on the assumption that the Chinese/Russians are using similar materials and technology for their tank armor right?
You do realise that DU is not some magical substance that only the US can make right? Hell, its not even the Americans that invented chobham armor.
It is as much of a baseless assumption to presume that in 2010 the Chinese could not make something similar to chobham armour that was first invented in the 60s as it is to assume that they have something similar.
What more, you really should brush up on your reading. Heavy metal layers were added to chobham armor primarily to counter improving soviet KE rounds. Ceramic basic chobham armor was pretty effective against HEAT rounds to start with.
Well thats clearly a wrong statement and does not make any sense the way you explained it. I, and I dare say the vast majority of others, took that as you saying M829A3 will defeat the Type 99's armor with or without ERA.
I have never encountered anyone who has ever claimed that ERA alone would be able to stop any tank round. Their entire purpose is to add that little bit more protection that makes the difference between mission kill and vehicle killed.
That fact of the matter is that ERA does make a whole world of difference against M829A3, because with ERA, a penetrating hit suddenly becomes a non-penetrating hit. A pretty massive difference I would think.
