New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Lezt]

As I know it, Russia just buys the electronics and installs them upon customer's request. For example, India had Shtora removed from their versions and wanted an Israeli AC for their T-90s.

The main problem I see with T-90 tanks are in the Protection/Attack capabilities. You can fire ATGMs with it but those ATGMs aren't exactly effective against MBTs. Russian APFSDS rounds aren't too great either. Protection wise, if you slapped on Heavy ERA onto the front of an Abrams for example you can achieve even more protection, but the T-90 is limited to only that much. I don't think Russia has plans on fitting DU onto T-90s so T-90 isn't too competitive. Hell, there's people in Russia who are calling for the end to the current domestic tank industry and for the Russian Ground Forces to only procure Leopards.

Protection wise, no one knows the official figures for the Type 99 so no one should guess. What we do know is that the Type 99's hull is based around the T-72's or T-80s. The Chinese have apparently copy and pasted Russian ERA so you can expect similar or degraded performance in that regard. However, the Type 99 is several tonnes heavier than the T-80 so one would expect a big more protection.

I don't think someone within Russia calling for the end of the indigenous tank program to be a valid judgment to the tank itself - I recall that there are those in the US asking for the stryker to replace the MBTs as well right?

Ultimately, if you slap K-5 on a Abrams, it will have insane protection. But the same can be said if the T90 employ Leo-2 technology like applique armor etc. Hell, I think you should be able to arm the T90 with a Rheinmetall 120mm L55 gun if you wanted to, but it is really besides the point. DU isn't that magical, Russia being the largest producer of Titanium could use it in their tank, heck, maybe even cast the entire tank in it as they have done with their Akulas.

According to:A Ballistic Evaluation of Ti-6Al-4V vs. Long Rod Penetrators, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Weapons Technology Directorate; Using titanium alloy in armor will increase armor protection by around 60% with a 10% space detriment. The moral of the story is, nothing is set in stone and there are multiple ways of resolving an issue.

I am not sure if Russian ATGM are mediocre, if they are, why would the Israllies lose several Merkavas including the Mk. IV to Kornets? Which have a higher anti HEAT RHAe rating than lets say the M1A2 SEP? Surely, the Sniper and it's later variants might be a different weapon, but the technology is there.

I am not a Mahanist, I do not believe in huge armor clashes as much as I love them. They are too costly, too unpredictable. Why fight heavy tanks when you can out run them, cut their logistical supply and hit the support troop in the rear? A several T90 on a nato airfield will do much more damage than fighting Leos and Abrams?

 

[kwaigonegin]

I would love to know what is inside Relikt too.

So we agree that we don't know actually what will happen if the two meet?

The M1A2 is definitely a good benchmark for individual tank vis tank performance, I would question if the M1A2 is a good benchmark for massive collective campaign performance.

And I don't think anyone will dispute the combat prowess of the M1A2, but an important question is at what cost?

Saudi Arabia brought 58 M1A2 in 2006 for 1 Billion USD, for a market unit cost of 17.24 million USD per tank. Granted some will be for TOT and ammo/parts. Where they brought 150 T90S and some helicopters for 2 billion USD in 2009, Turkmenistan brought 10 T90S for 30 million giving it lets say a market unit cost of 3 million USD a piece assuming TOT and part/ammo is included.

So lets say a T90S is a fifth of the cost of the M1A2 SEP, How would 1 M1A2 SEP fare against 5 T90S?

Or if you are a poor country like... Uganda, would you prefer to operate 1 tank to defend your country or 5 to defend it?

And you don't need penetration to mission kill a tank, lets say the first shot goes to the M1A2 and a T90S is killed, and the 4 remaining T90s shoots the M1A2, three hit? what would happen to the M1A2? I would think mission killed, survivors jumping out of the hatches be machined gunned to take a HE-Frag or wait in the tank until the T90s were able to drive around the front and shoot up their ass?

Quantity have a quality of its own. I don't know how to quantify this quality. German Panzerkamphwagon III with their puni 37mm or 50mm guns were known to shot up KV1 tank barrels to disable them as their rounds cannot penetrate the heavy KV1. I would believe a T90S can manage such feats if necessary.

Another WW2 analogy would be, Sure the Panther is a great tank, but there were many T34/85 for every Panther.

I think you just answered your own question. Also as you probably know doing a tank vs tank comparison is pointless from a modern warfare standpoint.
Let's not also forget that quality of firepower and fighting capability is not linear with increasing numbers. (i.e 1 M1 against 5 T-90s is NOT the same as 5 M1's against 25 T-90s) and that's not even taking into account important variables like logistics, combined arms warfare, superior training, crew experience etc.
As for poorer 3rd world nations with limited expenditure obviously quantity still holds true over quantity.

 

[Lezt]

I think you just answered your own question. Also as you probably know doing a tank vs tank comparison is pointless from a modern warfare standpoint.
Let's not also forget that quality of firepower and fighting capability is not linear with increasing numbers. (i.e 1 M1 against 5 T-90s is NOT the same as 5 M1's against 25 T-90s) and that's not even taking into account important variables like logistics, combined arms warfare, superior training, crew experience etc.
As for poorer 3rd world nations with limited expenditure obviously quantity still holds true over quantity.

Tank effectiveness is not linear with numbers, it first recedes and than increases exponentially. 1 Vs 5, the 5 generally wins, 5 Vs 25, hard to call, 1 tank army vs 5 tank army, 5 tank armies generally wins.

If 3 T90 tank armies can stall a single M1A2 army, for the same price, you have 2 T90 tank armies marauding behind enemy lines hitting the supply depots, logistic networks etc.

A tank which is cut off from fuel and ammunition is not much of a threat. And this is the soviet lesson from ww2. Where Tigers and Panthers were formidable, they are easily out driven and flanked by T34s. As such Many Tigers and Panthers were not lost to direct action but to being abandoned by the lack of fuel.

The same is true on the western front where during the second battle of the Ardene (battle of the bulge). German armor was abandoned due to lack of fuel.

Crew training, logistic, are a function of a nation; not of the tank. If untrained operators were in the M1A2s, how do you think they will fare against T90s with an elite crew?

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Type 99A2 a monster of tank

I've noticed that the type 98/99 tank thread has turned into a cannon comparing contest between the West and East.

Very little actual discussion is on the type 99 tank.

Type 99A2
The much-improved Type 99 variant, with many major upgrades and improvements. Some of the improvement and upgrades include a reaction improved aiming system, a digital battlefield information terminal, a newly designed arrow-shaped armor, a larger turret, an expanded tail chamber, an Active Protection System mounted on the turret with millimeter-wave radar, a new commander's periscope and an Integrated Propulsion System.

Please discuss the tank and post pictures.

Please do not let this thread degenerate into a T-72 comparison because these two tanks are not even in the same weight class.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Re: Type 99A2 a monster of tank

Not much reliable information about the Type 99 is actually known. Quotes from Wikipedia on the "mm of RHA" were generated by some Chinese fanboys apparently. Also, I'm quite sure there's a thread for this.

If you do want to compare Western Tanks v.s. this, I'll post some numbers for the M1A2 and Leopard 2A6.

M1A2:
Armor:
600 mm RHA v.s. Kinetic Energy on Glacis
1000 mm RHA v.s. Chemical Energy on Glacis

M829A3 round - Estimated 800+ mm RHA perforation at 2,000 m.

Night sighting range - 3,500 m.

Leopard 2A6:
Armor:
650 mm RHA v.s. KE on Glacis
750 mm RHA v.s. CE on Glacis

DM33 from L/55 Barrel - 750 mm RHA at 2,000 m.

Night sighting range - 3,500 m.


A study in 2003 showed that over 75% of Tank Rounds will hit the tank 1.5 meters above ground, which is roughly where the Glacis/Turret is.

 

[challenge]

Re: Type 99A2 a monster of tank

january 2011 issue of Ordance knowledge magazine,claim that ZPT-98 are compatible to 2A46M-6 gun same gun that armed the T-90S tank.
Type-98 tank was power by clone german diesel engine,unfortunately the engine prove to big and heavy (and complicate ) result Chinese engineer has to redesign the hull ,making the tank heavier.this was similiar echo by pakistani army, when they decided to select ukraine compact diesel engine.
the original 125mm APDSFS round for type-98 in there admission was based on israel M-711 round.
why they selected 125mm gun over NATO standard 45/120mm gun was 125mm 13.4 liter chamber while 120mm 9.8 L chamber,in there opinion 125mm tank gun has greater potential for growth.
most of the tank participate in parade was painted with IR and radar (MMW?) suppresssion paint.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: Type 99A2 a monster of tank

Please discuss the tank and post pictures.

 

[vesicles]

Re: Type 99A2 a monster of tank

I can't see the pic?

 

[rhino123]

Re: Type 99A2 a monster of tank

It is one fine looking beast. But somehow the pic seemed PS...

 

[IronsightSniper]

Re: Type 99A2 a monster of tank

Would you happen to know the chamber volume for the 120 mm L/55?