New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Pointblank]

It's better than, "Hey look, Type 99 weighs fitty tonnes, it must be super protected!" :china:

Thank you for conceding your point, that is EXACTLY what I meant all this time. Relikt ERA will blow up, scratch the incoming M829A3 a bit, but will not severely degrade it's perforating abilities in a slightest bit. That's what I wanted you to understand all this time.

Exactly!

There is no evidence that the Type 99 is equipped with sprall liner as well, compared to the many Western tanks that have either had them installed at the design board or retrofitted later. So even then, if the round didn't penetrate the Type 99, it could cause major damage internally through the sprall that will get thrown up by the hit.

I remember during our Leopard C2 upgrades during the 1990's where we did retrofit a sprall liner in our Leopards to enhance protection. The upgrade did significantly cut back on space on the inside, but for the increased crew protection, this was an acceptable trade off. I would hate to imagine a already tight on the inside tank being fitted with a sprall liner which would eat into internal space again.

In the end, why does the West pay so much attention to crew survivability and usability? Easy. You can replace a million dollar tank very easily. You can't easily replace the crew that's inside, when you spent millions of dollars on the crew alone to train them and teach them how to fight. If you can make it so that if the tank they are in is knocked out but the crew are able to escape relatively unharmed, they can go immediately back into the fight with a replacement vehicle vs a tank that isn't that well protected. And if you design a tank so that it is easy to operate and maintain for the crew, the crew can spend less time fighting with the tank itself and more time fighting the actual enemy.

 

[Maggern]

I'm no armor expert, but wouldn't at some point, even if the armor was impenetrable, the crew inside be knocked out or die from the shock of the hit itself? I heard rumors that in modern western tanks nowadays, it's not a matter of a tank being penetrated or ammunition cooking it off from the inside, but rather that the crew inside is killed or immobilized from the forces involved.

 

[Lezt]

It's better than, "Hey look, Type 99 weighs fitty tonnes, it must be super protected!" :china:





Thank you for conceding your point, that is EXACTLY what I meant all this time. Relikt ERA will blow up, scratch the incoming M829A3 a bit, but will not severely degrade it's perforating abilities in a slightest bit. That's what I wanted you to understand all this time.

lets assume the M829A3 can penetrate... 1000 mm RHAe optimistically, and the old Kontakt-5 adds 200 mm RHAe; you call a 20% reduction in penetration reduction slightest bit? that is almost taking two standard deviations off.

now if the Relikt have a performance of 400 mm RHAe as claimed, that shaves off 40% of the penetration of a M829A3, and you call this slight?

I remember during our Leopard C2 upgrades during the 1990's where we did retrofit a sprall liner in our Leopards to enhance protection. The upgrade did significantly cut back on space on the inside, but for the increased crew protection, this was an acceptable trade off. I would hate to imagine a already tight on the inside tank being fitted with a sprall liner which would eat into internal space again.

In the end, why does the West pay so much attention to crew survivability and usability? Easy. You can replace a million dollar tank very easily. You can't easily replace the crew that's inside, when you spent millions of dollars on the crew alone to train them and teach them how to fight. If you can make it so that if the tank they are in is knocked out but the crew are able to escape relatively unharmed, they can go immediately back into the fight with a replacement vehicle vs a tank that isn't that well protected. And if you design a tank so that it is easy to operate and maintain for the crew, the crew can spend less time fighting with the tank itself and more time fighting the actual enemy.

The question is, have you been inside a Russian tank and operated it? Most of these things said about Russian tanks are from western sources. do we know that western tanks are much more survivable? probably, but history have not shown this. The battle of 73 Eastings for example IIRC did not have a T72 score any hit on the any Abrams and if so are only using half charge steel rod penetrators training rounds.

It is not like the Russians don't care about the crew, their philosophy is that a tank that is not penetrated protects the crew better and it shows, Russia have deployed Drozd hard kill APS in 1977, and Shtora passive kill APS in 1995, the former being superseded by Arena. The west is now scrambling to develop their own versions and Quick Kill for the Abrams has not been fielded yet to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm no armor expert, but wouldn't at some point, even if the armor was impenetrable, the crew inside be knocked out or die from the shock of the hit itself? I heard rumors that in modern western tanks nowadays, it's not a matter of a tank being penetrated or ammunition cooking it off from the inside, but rather that the crew inside is killed or immobilized from the forces involved.

the tank is like an armored shell which can take sealed from the outside world - and is a very strong pressure vessel hence tanks are designed to operated in close proximity to tactical nuclear detonations. so a shell have several ways of killing the crew inside or to disable the tank. 1) penetrate it, 2) exert a large enough force to break things or induce sufficient acceleration to kill the crew. (1) is pretty standard, for (2) it is hard to acheive the latter as the tank is quite massive at 50~ tonnes, simple physics dictates that with F=MA, and the required acceleration of ~15g to kill a person, where g = 9.81 m/s2, you need a huge force of ~750 tonnes X g to kill the crew.

But to break the tank is easier, IS2 and IS3 with their 122mm guns were known to blow off Panther tank turrets during ww2 with their high explosive shells.

 

[Maggern]

the tank is like an armored shell which can take sealed from the outside world - and is a very strong pressure vessel hence tanks are designed to operated in close proximity to tactical nuclear detonations. so a shell have several ways of killing the crew inside or to disable the tank. 1) penetrate it, 2) exert a large enough force to break things or induce sufficient acceleration to kill the crew. (1) is pretty standard, for (2) it is hard to acheive the latter as the tank is quite massive at 50~ tonnes, simple physics dictates that with F=MA, and the required acceleration of ~15g to kill a person, where g = 9.81 m/s2, you need a huge force of ~750 tonnes X g to kill the crew.

But to break the tank is easier, IS2 and IS3 with their 122mm guns were known to blow off Panther tank turrets during ww2 with their high explosive shells.

That might be so. The rumor was related to direct fire from M109 howitzers, and we were told what I mentioned above. I don't know if 155mm HE artillery shells would be strong enough to perform as you say, but they do pack a lot more punch than most tank ammunition.

 

[plawolf]

It's better than, "Hey look, Type 99 weighs fitty tonnes, it must be super protected!" :china:

Ah yes, immature as well as ignorant. Making things up will not help you to win an argument. But perhaps thats a lesson you haven't learnt on the playground yet.

Thank you for conceding your point, that is EXACTLY what I meant all this time. Relikt ERA will blow up, scratch the incoming M829A3 a bit, but will not severely degrade it's perforating abilities in a slightest bit. That's what I wanted you to understand all this time.

You are either delusional or deliberately talking out of your butt.

All you have done is prove beyond a doubt you haven't the first clue about what you are talking about.

If you honestly think a 20+% degradation is nothing, you clearly need to finish first grade maths before you write any more here. Otherwise you are just talking nonsense.

I and Lezt have used numbers to demonstrate how that 20% (which is on the lowest side of estimating how effective modern ERA can be) could easily be the difference between a penetrating hit and just a hit. If you cannot grasp the difference that would make, you are more of a lost cause then my most pessimistic expectation.

 

[Pointblank]

The question is, have you been inside a Russian tank and operated it? Most of these things said about Russian tanks are from western sources. do we know that western tanks are much more survivable? probably, but history have not shown this. The battle of 73 Eastings for example IIRC did not have a T72 score any hit on the any Abrams and if so are only using half charge steel rod penetrators training rounds.

It is not like the Russians don't care about the crew, their philosophy is that a tank that is not penetrated protects the crew better and it shows, Russia have deployed Drozd hard kill APS in 1977, and Shtora passive kill APS in 1995, the former being superseded by Arena. The west is now scrambling to develop their own versions and Quick Kill for the Abrams has not been fielded yet to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan.

1. Yes, I have been in a Russian tank. I'm 5"10 and it's a tight squeeze on the inside for me. In a Leopard II, I fit just fine. Russian tanks are designed for midgets, which explains why the Russians have placed a height restriction on their crews.

2. In a straight up comparison between Russian tanks and Western tanks of the same era, a Western tank usually has more passive armour compared to the Russian tank. It is only when the Russians add ERA does the protection increase slightly above that of a Western tank. In combat, passive armour is often more effective than reactive armour because multiple shots against a target with reactive armour will strip away that extra protection, while passive armour will still reliably protect.

3. The Russians still haven't installed sprall liners in their tanks while the West have already installed sprall liners in our tanks. Any hit against a tank will create a shockwave through the tank's armour and hull which is then is reflected at the free surface as a tensile wave breaking (tensile stress/strain fracture) the metal on the inside. The resulting spall is dangerous to crew and equipment, and may result in a partial or complete disablement of a vehicle and/or its crew. Imagine what thousands of pieces of metal flying off the surfaces of a tank at very high speeds can do to the crew or equipment in a tank.

I will also note that in the West, we have also taken crew protection to a higher level; for example, in our new Leopard II's, the driver seat is no longer bolted to the floor; it is suspended from a number of anchor points off the floor, which is more survivable in a IED or mine hit as the shockwave is no longer transmitted through the floor into the driver seat.

And on a secondary note; you guys are are arguing using the wrong RHAe comparisons. You are all using RHAe numbers for protection against HEAT rounds, not against APDSFS rounds. And difference can be quite high; anywhere from 10-40% difference. So make sure you are comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges!

 

[challenge]

the contend for Chinese armour /composite plating already open text, it was published on Sept/oct 2009(?) issue of Defense international (taiwan).
but trying to translate the chinese into english is big problem, a lot of technical mumbo jumbo.
but some are familiar, ceramic tiles/block is sandwitch between layer of kevlar,ceramic material is identified as alumna.although other material is mention such fibre glass,and other type of ceramic also mention.such as boron carbide.

 

[Lezt]

1. Yes, I have been in a Russian tank. I'm 5"10 and it's a tight squeeze on the inside for me. In a Leopard II, I fit just fine. Russian tanks are designed for midgets, which explains why the Russians have placed a height restriction on their crews.

2. In a straight up comparison between Russian tanks and Western tanks of the same era, a Western tank usually has more passive armour compared to the Russian tank. It is only when the Russians add ERA does the protection increase slightly above that of a Western tank. In combat, passive armour is often more effective than reactive armour because multiple shots against a target with reactive armour will strip away that extra protection, while passive armour will still reliably protect.

3. The Russians still haven't installed sprall liners in their tanks while the West have already installed sprall liners in our tanks. Any hit against a tank will create a shockwave through the tank's armour and hull which is then is reflected at the free surface as a tensile wave breaking (tensile stress/strain fracture) the metal on the inside. The resulting spall is dangerous to crew and equipment, and may result in a partial or complete disablement of a vehicle and/or its crew. Imagine what thousands of pieces of metal flying off the surfaces of a tank at very high speeds can do to the crew or equipment in a tank.

I will also note that in the West, we have also taken crew protection to a higher level; for example, in our new Leopard II's, the driver seat is no longer bolted to the floor; it is suspended from a number of anchor points off the floor, which is more survivable in a IED or mine hit as the shockwave is no longer transmitted through the floor into the driver seat.

And on a secondary note; you guys are are arguing using the wrong RHAe comparisons. You are all using RHAe numbers for protection against HEAT rounds, not against APDSFS rounds. And difference can be quite high; anywhere from 10-40% difference. So make sure you are comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges!

1) I am 6' 1", and i have been in the Vickers MBT, T55, T34, M48 - not operating them but in different museums, I find all of those tanks cramped none the less. the worst one I found was a ww2 Japanese tanklet. Does Russians places height restriction on their tank crew or is that a western fable? The thing is, ww2 European tanks are normally quite cramped and no height restriction was applied; why would the Russians suddenly apply such a restriction? If you can show us a Russian tank force conscription manual great, but I just don't feel that that is true.

2) Again, we have discussed this in this thread before, a tank which is hit by a large caliber anti tank weapon will most likely be mission killed if not destroyed. so in terms of the combat mission, passive and active armor suits achieve the same thing. Is passive armor more resilient? yes, and it is much heavier too meaning a penalty will need to be paid for logistics such as fuel. Thus going back to the idea, Russian tanks are offensive tanks, they are designed to cut through the enemy line and strike deep into enemy territory, western tanks see warfare is mainly defensive and while russia can give ground when attacked such as from Napoleon and Hitler, Germany, France and other european countries cannot. at the end of all this, passive armor is not necessarily better in the grand scheme of things.

3) for spall lining, is it because the russians do not have the money to install them or do they not care about their tankers to not install them? Some people claim Indian T90 to be equipped with them from Russia?

you are really nit picking about the seats, it is such a low tech, that if necessarily will be done. Arena was introduced as the main threat to soviet tanks in Afghanistan is RPGs and LAWs, where western tanks faces IED nowadays. how is your statement about the seats conclusive that western tanks are better protected and care more for their crew? do you even know what is done to the latest Russian tanks which isn't even publicized to make such a comparison?

and hold your horses, I used HEAT RHAe values? according to this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The T90 Vs KE penetrators = 54-56 cm RHA, while against HEAT is 80-90 CM RHA, I definitely did not use a base armor of 900 mm for my example.

and according to this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the Kontaht-5 Vs APFSDS is 250 mm, against heat is 600 mm
And I believe I have used 200mm in my calculation, do check your claims prior to assuming that we the forum goers are uneducated.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Ah yes, immature as well as ignorant. Making things up will not help you to win an argument. But perhaps thats a lesson you haven't learnt on the playground yet.

]

Lets put it in a logical manner to which you won't understand.

I know what Steel is. I know what Steel does. Alright?

Now, lets up it a bit.

I know what Kevlar is, and I know what Kevlar does. Alright?

A bit more maybe?

I know what Depleted Uranium is, and I know what Depleted Uranium does. Alright?

Now, for a kicker, lets say I also know how much there is, and what obliquity it's at.

Difficult enough?

That's a very simple thought pattern when one is thinking of armor calculations.

Your's was, "HURR DURR, TYPE 99 WEIGHS 50 TONNES, IT BEST!"

Yes, don't try to pin the ignorant card on me buddy.

You are either delusional or deliberately talking out of your butt.

All you have done is prove beyond a doubt you haven't the first clue about what you are talking about.

If you honestly think a 20+% degradation is nothing, you clearly need to finish first grade maths before you write any more here. Otherwise you are just talking nonsense.

I and Lezt have used numbers to demonstrate how that 20% (which is on the lowest side of estimating how effective modern ERA can be) could easily be the difference between a penetrating hit and just a hit. If you cannot grasp the difference that would make, you are more of a lost cause then my most pessimistic expectation.[/QUOTE

No, you don't understand. Relikt supposedly adds 400 mm of RHAe. But that's it, it's RHAe. This isn't numbers we're simply talking about, M829A3 isn't your regular APFSDS, and as I said before it's built to withstand shear forces (which if your memory can help you, is the main defeat mechanism of Kontakt-5/Relikt). So therefore, that 400 mm RHAe is a lie, or at least, you won't be getting that much "estimated" protection.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

1. Yes, I have been in a Russian tank. I'm 5"10 and it's a tight squeeze on the inside for me. In a Leopard II, I fit just fine. Russian tanks are designed for midgets, which explains why the Russians have placed a height restriction on their crews.

Well, do you think a crew of 5'2'' Chinese would be as comfortable in a Type 99 as a crew of 5'10'' Americans in an Abrams? Is there any disadvantage to having a shorter crew?