New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Maggern]

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?

They can't run as fast

PS: To plawolf and ironsightsniper: can you two please have a proper discussion, I have no interest in reading about how moronic and ignorant you think each other is...

 

[Red Moon]

They can't run as fast

PS: To plawolf and ironsightsniper: can you two please have a proper discussion, I have no interest in reading about how moronic and ignorant you think each other is...

But they can play football better.

 

[Pointblank]

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.

1. If you haven't payed attention, the average height of a human being in the West has increased significantly. Back in the 1930's and 40's, 5"10 was actually quite high for a person. The height restriction is mentioned in the book Soviet Armour Since 1945, and this height restriction was common throughout the Soviet Armoured Corps.

2. And we see that to achieve the smaller size of the Russian tanks, there are a number of significant compromises made to achieve that small size. For example, Russian tanks can't fight in a hull-down position because of the limited gun depression caused by a smaller turret.

Do note that the Russians have never been able to cover the entire tank with ERA. For example, on the front aspect of the T-90, only 60% of the tank is covered by ERA. The rest is exposed passive armour.

3. Most likely do not care to install it because it would make a already small interior even smaller. I think when we installed the sprall liners in the old Leopard C2's, we lost roughly (don't quote me on this) 10-20% of the internal volume. But whatever it was, it made the Leopard C2 a tighter vehicle to work in.

The West has the advantage in developing and implementing enhanced protection because we take crew survivability more seriously. For example, in the LAV LORIT, as part of the upgrades to the LAV III for operations in Afghanistan, we have installed Armatec energy-absorbing seating for crew and dismounts, along with thick slabs of blast-absorbing and dissipating composite armour mounted directly beneath the rear troop compartment. The Soviets and the Russians have never taken their lessons learned from their various operations and rolled them into their armoured vehicles.

 

[Lezt]

1. If you haven't payed attention, the average height of a human being in the West has increased significantly. Back in the 1930's and 40's, 5"10 was actually quite high for a person. The height restriction is mentioned in the book Soviet Armour Since 1945, and this height restriction was common throughout the Soviet Armoured Corps.

2. And we see that to achieve the smaller size of the Russian tanks, there are a number of significant compromises made to achieve that small size. For example, Russian tanks can't fight in a hull-down position because of the limited gun depression caused by a smaller turret.

Do note that the Russians have never been able to cover the entire tank with ERA. For example, on the front aspect of the T-90, only 60% of the tank is covered by ERA. The rest is exposed passive armour.

3. Most likely do not care to install it because it would make a already small interior even smaller. I think when we installed the sprall liners in the old Leopard C2's, we lost roughly (don't quote me on this) 10-20% of the internal volume. But whatever it was, it made the Leopard C2 a tighter vehicle to work in.

The West has the advantage in developing and implementing enhanced protection because we take crew survivability more seriously. For example, in the LAV LORIT, as part of the upgrades to the LAV III for operations in Afghanistan, we have installed Armatec energy-absorbing seating for crew and dismounts, along with thick slabs of blast-absorbing and dissipating composite armour mounted directly beneath the rear troop compartment. The Soviets and the Russians have never taken their lessons learned from their various operations and rolled them into their armoured vehicles.

1) Soviet Armour Since 1945 Blandford Press (March 1988), western book, written prior to the break up of the soviet union, I was asking for a Russian source. - Indeed it might be true that there is a height restriction, but the question is, do we know what it is?

2) according to the soviet offensive doctrine, do you think the tank fight hull down when performing offensive maneuvers behind enemy lines? Do western tanks have a dozer blade attached to dig their own firing positions? why are you penalizing a tank for being optimized for offense while that doesn't suit your liking?

Yes, ERA does not cover the entire tank, nor does DU and Chobham cover the entire tank? so what is your point? That since each and every tank out there taking an ass shot with a decent AT weapon is if not mission killed being killed; that western tanks are better?

3) How do you know what the russian/soviet designers were thinking to install spall liner or not; do you have the work order infront of you or do you have some info we forum goers do not know?

And besides I did say that some sources said that the T72 have spall liners? such as:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

4) again, you are taking a page out of a book to determine the book; do you know the latest developments of russian armor? I don't read russian, do you? and are the russians as transparent as the west is?

The Russians like the Israelis, chose to use heavy APC instead of light ones like the LAV III for crew survivability. Does that mean that the israelis and russians do not care about crew survivability? is the protection offered by a BTR-T or a Achzarit worse than the LAV LORIT?

so did the soviet learn from afghanistan? I would say yes, just like how the Israeli found that a heavy troop carrier is preferred in anti guerrillas setting, they have went along that route.

5) it is true that russian equipment does not perform western role, sure, it is also true that western equipment does not perform russian roles. but does it mean one is better than another?

p.s. the low deviation of soviet tank guns is not due to the small turret, it is due to the breach of the cannon hitting the roof of the turret or the mantle of the gun hitting the roof of the drivers hatch/front armor plate.

 

[challenge]

which glacis plate provide better protection, M-1 abrams 70 degree slope armour plating or T-72/64 composite (steel/fibre glass) 60 dg. slope armour plating?

 

[Lezt]

Challenge,

modern tank estimates are against RHAe values which have already incorporated the slope in its calculation/estimation.

according to this estimate:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

M1A2 SEP Vs KE = 560-590 mm RHAe on the Glacis,

according to this estimate:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

T72B/T90 VS KW = ~510mm on the Glacis.

so the M1A2 is 10% better?

 

[Pointblank]

1) Soviet Armour Since 1945 Blandford Press (March 1988), western book, written prior to the break up of the soviet union, I was asking for a Russian source. - Indeed it might be true that there is a height restriction, but the question is, do we know what it is?

2) according to the soviet offensive doctrine, do you think the tank fight hull down when performing offensive maneuvers behind enemy lines? Do western tanks have a dozer blade attached to dig their own firing positions? why are you penalizing a tank for being optimized for offense while that doesn't suit your liking?

Yes, ERA does not cover the entire tank, nor does DU and Chobham cover the entire tank? so what is your point? That since each and every tank out there taking an ass shot with a decent AT weapon is if not mission killed being killed; that western tanks are better?

3) How do you know what the russian/soviet designers were thinking to install spall liner or not; do you have the work order infront of you or do you have some info we forum goers do not know?

And besides I did say that some sources said that the T72 have spall liners? such as:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

4) again, you are taking a page out of a book to determine the book; do you know the latest developments of russian armor? I don't read russian, do you? and are the russians as transparent as the west is?

The Russians like the Israelis, chose to use heavy APC instead of light ones like the LAV III for crew survivability. Does that mean that the israelis and russians do not care about crew survivability? is the protection offered by a BTR-T or a Achzarit worse than the LAV LORIT?

so did the soviet learn from afghanistan? I would say yes, just like how the Israeli found that a heavy troop carrier is preferred in anti guerrillas setting, they have went along that route.

5) it is true that russian equipment does not perform western role, sure, it is also true that western equipment does not perform russian roles. but does it mean one is better than another?

p.s. the low deviation of soviet tank guns is not due to the small turret, it is due to the breach of the cannon hitting the roof of the turret or the mantle of the gun hitting the roof of the drivers hatch/front armor plate.

1. We do know because the median height of an average Russian tanker is around 1.6m. In other words, smaller than me, and I'm average height for a Western male.

2. A hull down position is highly advantageous in offensive combat. It allows for a tanker to better take advantage of the terrain to shoot and scoot. It also cuts down on the exposed time when fighting on a slope, especially for the extremely vulnerable underbelly of a tank. It also allows for one group of tanks to provide overwatch for other group of tanks without excessively exposing them to the enemy.

Why am I penalizing a tank for being optimized for the offence? Simple. A tank that was designed for the defence can go on the offence very easily without much in the way of a penalty in fighting characteristics. A tank that was designed for the offence isn't much good in the defence, and for a tank, having balanced attributes is essential to survival.

Western tanks have faired better because in the vast majority of instances where a Western tank has been hit and disabled by enemy fire, THE CREW WAS ABLE TO GET OUT ALIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY. That's the MOST important issue! Who cares if you loose a tank, as long as you don't loose the crew, they can get back into the fight in a new tank.

3. It's more difficult to install a sprall liner in a tank that already has a very small interior dimension. You have to make the trade off between increased crew protection and internal size.

4. In the West, we have a complete circle in terms of weapons development and upgrades, as we listen to the end user's complaints and suggestions and try to integrate any suggestions and eliminate the identified deficiencies. The LAV LORIT is an example of this; we've managed to increase protection, improved storage space, parapets for air sentries, and lighter wheels.

The vast bulk of the Russian APC force is primarily lighter APC types, not the heavy tank-based APC's. The Russians likely don't have the budget to field vast numbers of tank-based APC's, and be able to provide the strategic mobility to move them around. The Israeli's don't have the concerns regarding strategic mobility that the Russians do and can field more tank-based APC's.

5. Russian tanks can't fight very effectively on the defence, but Western tanks are able of not only fighting defensively, but also fight offensively as well. Not to mention the improved crew survivability and ergonomics in a Western tank, which makes it a more effective vehicle to fight in. When you are in your tank for 24-48 hours on end, being relatively comfortable is no longer a luxury, its a necessity.

6. Which is caused, by, you guessed it, an design compromise for a low profile. They shrunk the turret in order to get the lower profile, which causes limited gun depression.

 

[Lezt]

1. We do know because the median height of an average Russian tanker is around 1.6m. In other words, smaller than me, and I'm average height for a Western male.

2. A hull down position is highly advantageous in offensive combat. It allows for a tanker to better take advantage of the terrain to shoot and scoot. It also cuts down on the exposed time when fighting on a slope, especially for the extremely vulnerable underbelly of a tank. It also allows for one group of tanks to provide overwatch for other group of tanks without excessively exposing them to the enemy.

Why am I penalizing a tank for being optimized for the offence? Simple. A tank that was designed for the defence can go on the offence very easily without much in the way of a penalty in fighting characteristics. A tank that was designed for the offence isn't much good in the defence, and for a tank, having balanced attributes is essential to survival.

Western tanks have faired better because in the vast majority of instances where a Western tank has been hit and disabled by enemy fire, THE CREW WAS ABLE TO GET OUT ALIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY. That's the MOST important issue! Who cares if you loose a tank, as long as you don't loose the crew, they can get back into the fight in a new tank.

3. It's more difficult to install a sprall liner in a tank that already has a very small interior dimension. You have to make the trade off between increased crew protection and internal size.

4. In the West, we have a complete circle in terms of weapons development and upgrades, as we listen to the end user's complaints and suggestions and try to integrate any suggestions and eliminate the identified deficiencies. The LAV LORIT is an example of this; we've managed to increase protection, improved storage space, parapets for air sentries, and lighter wheels.

The vast bulk of the Russian APC force is primarily lighter APC types, not the heavy tank-based APC's. The Russians likely don't have the budget to field vast numbers of tank-based APC's, and be able to provide the strategic mobility to move them around. The Israeli's don't have the concerns regarding strategic mobility that the Russians do and can field more tank-based APC's.

5. Russian tanks can't fight very effectively on the defence, but Western tanks are able of not only fighting defensively, but also fight offensively as well. Not to mention the improved crew survivability and ergonomics in a Western tank, which makes it a more effective vehicle to fight in. When you are in your tank for 24-48 hours on end, being relatively comfortable is no longer a luxury, its a necessity.

6. Which is caused, by, you guessed it, an design compromise for a low profile. They shrunk the turret in order to get the lower profile, which causes limited gun depression.

1) so you agree that finding men to man these tanks are not an issue? As Friedricenspice have questioned, why is it disadvantageous if you can find shorter crew to man these tanks? are 5'6" crew less efficient than 5'10" crew in a smaller tank?

2) I don't think there had been any major hull down offensive battles nowadays, the M1s of 73 Eastings were continuously on the move during the offense against dug in Lions of Babylons during 1991.

Nor do I think there were any hull down action between Russian tanks and Georgians ones during the invasion of Georgia - of course you will note that in this instance it is soviet hardware vs soviet hardware

Nor were the Merkavas dug in during the lebanon offensive in 2006.

I think it paints a vivid picture that modern tank offensives are mobility based. I think you should give credit to the smaller and shorter size of the Russian tanks in making them smaller targets during an offense.

3) You point was that spall liners cannot be installed in Russian tanks due to space restrictions. My point is that someone already claim that is was installed.

You have to realize that some volume inside a tank is dead volume which cannot be used for anything productive or being too small for anything important, the space loss in these areas do not hinder the operation of the crew.

4) You have stated that the Russians did not learn from their experiences

The Soviets and the Russians have never taken their lessons learned from their various operations and rolled them into their armoured vehicles.

what I did was show you that they did in the form of Heavy APCs. How many of them were deployed is another matter as I have questioned the validity of the russian economy

Brushing economy aside (as if the Russians have enough dough field their latest technologies)

I agree with you that the russians cannot deply their latest technologies, but it does not mean that they did not learn?

And talking about strategic mobility, shouldn't you give credit for russian tanks being lighter, have better fuel economy than western ones and therefore have better strategic mobility? You are being very selective of your arguments. I am not claiming that Russian hardware is better, I am just saying they took a different approach to the same problem.

5) Why can't the russian tanks fight effectively in defense? It is designed for Russia's vast regions, you can fight up to the gates of Moscow, Russia can give ground and counter attack when the lines of supply for the enemy is weak. Napoleon failed this way, so did Hitler, and in this type of warfare, range and mobility plays an important role. The synergy of vast space and mobility is the Russian tank's most effective defence.

this again falls into different philosophy, Russia can give ground, Europe cannot.

 

[challenge]

around 1977,French military delegation paid official visit to Soviet taman guard in moscow,among the new hardware displayed was the T-72 tank, the soviet red armies that greet french delegation were the soviet tank crews,making salute and shake hand,there are all midget! either 5.2~5.5

 

[Pointblank]

1) so you agree that finding men to man these tanks are not an issue? As Friedricenspice have questioned, why is it disadvantageous if you can find shorter crew to man these tanks? are 5'6" crew less efficient than 5'10" crew in a smaller tank?

2) I don't think there had been any major hull down offensive battles nowadays, the M1s of 73 Eastings were continuously on the move during the offense against dug in Lions of Babylons during 1991.

Nor do I think there were any hull down action between Russian tanks and Georgians ones during the invasion of Georgia - of course you will note that in this instance it is soviet hardware vs soviet hardware

Nor were the Merkavas dug in during the lebanon offensive in 2006.

I think it paints a vivid picture that modern tank offensives are mobility based. I think you should give credit to the smaller and shorter size of the Russian tanks in making them smaller targets during an offense.

3) You point was that spall liners cannot be installed in Russian tanks due to space restrictions. My point is that someone already claim that is was installed.

You have to realize that some volume inside a tank is dead volume which cannot be used for anything productive or being too small for anything important, the space loss in these areas do not hinder the operation of the crew.

4) You have stated that the Russians did not learn from their experiences what I did was show you that they did in the form of Heavy APCs. How many of them were deployed is another matter as I have questioned the validity of the russian economy I agree with you that the russians cannot deply their latest technologies, but it does not mean that they did not learn?

And talking about strategic mobility, shouldn't you give credit for russian tanks being lighter, have better fuel economy than western ones and therefore have better strategic mobility? You are being very selective of your arguments. I am not claiming that Russian hardware is better, I am just saying they took a different approach to the same problem.

5) Why can't the russian tanks fight effectively in defense? It is designed for Russia's vast regions, you can fight up to the gates of Moscow, Russia can give ground and counter attack when the lines of supply for the enemy is weak. Napoleon failed this way, so did Hitler, and in this type of warfare, range and mobility plays an important role. The synergy of vast space and mobility is the Russian tank's most effective defence.

this again falls into different philosophy, Russia can give ground, Europe cannot.

1. It will be or is an issue; the average height of an adult is increasing, mostly due to better nutrition. It will be very difficult to find people that are 5"6 or shorter in the immediate future. For example, the average height of a Canadian male is 5"9.

2. Gun depression is a major issue when fighting on hilly terrain. The sooner I can point my gun down before cresting a hill, the sooner I can engage a target hiding in defilade.

3. What one claims and what is in reality are often quite different. The Russians haven't installed sprall liners in their tanks.

And there is often no dead space inside a tank; a tank designer does its best to make use of all of the space inside a tank for equipment, ammunition, or crew storage.

4. The Russians haven't rolled in upgrades into their existing armoured fleets that have significantly upgraded crew protection.

Lighter, but less useful in performance. Their tanks are more deadly to their crews, and the performance of Russian tanks in the past demonstrate this. Not to mention the poor ergonomics of Russian tanks that hinder fightability. A tank should focus on protection, ease of use, firepower, and lastly, mobility.

5. Their inability to fight in hull down position except from well prepared positions. A Western tank is able to fight from improvised positions created through the terrain, where the enemy can't reply while it hammers the enemy on the thinner side and top armour in kill zones.