New Type98/99 MBT thread

[paintgun]

no. But China did developed a smooth bore 120mm anti-tank gun in the 80s that was reputedly more powerful than the L44 120mm gun.
It was probably too heavy for the Chinese tank at the time, so it was mounted on an chassis as an self propelled anti-tank gun (type 89 if I remembered correctly).

thank you for the swift and superb reply

better than 120mm L44 was (is) pretty good, add to that modern one piece ammo and storage
but the way they upgrade the ZTZ-99, i think it's pretty solid now, showing maturity

 

[challenge]

NORINCO developed new gen. of 120 /45 smooth gun that can fired standard NATO round.but can not fire from PTZ-89's 120mm L-44 gun.
likely the origin of the 120mm/45 gun come from israel,on the other hand ,the design of PTZ-89's 120mm/44 gun may have come from T-62 115mm tank gun.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
more photo 152mm tank .

 

[kroko]

but the way they upgrade the ZTZ-99, i think it's pretty solid now, showing maturity

The skirts dont seem to be much effective. Looks like they are rubber skirts, to protect from dust. Western/russian skirts are much more effective.

 

[paintgun]

The skirts dont seem to be much effective. Looks like they are rubber skirts, to protect from dust. Western/russian skirts are much more effective.

skirt should be no problem for PLA/Norinco factories, they can fit out a heavy skirt anytime like the ones on Bangladesh ZTZ-59, it's probably maintenance cost saving/component life saving

and yea, people everywhere are pointing this out about ZTZ-99's last most visible shortcoming

 

[CottageLV]

Type-99 at this stage is somewhat an overkill. 96 is more than enough for this decade. If it's something even type96 cant even handle, then you need heavy duty gunships rather than type-99. Although I do think advancement in R&D and testings are necessary, but the number of type-99 is more than enough.

 

[plawolf]

Type-99 at this stage is somewhat an overkill. 96 is more than enough for this decade. If it's something even type96 cant even handle, then you need heavy duty gunships rather than type-99. Although I do think advancement in R&D and testings are necessary, but the number of type-99 is more than enough.

So is everyone wasting their time and money with the likes of the Abramas, Leo-IIs, Challenger IIs etc?

The Type 96 is good enough for most of China's needs, which is why the PLA bought and continues to buy so many of them, but it would be foolish to not have something that has a good chance of being able to go toe-to-toe with the top dogs of the tank world if the need arrises.

The Type 99G was a decent enough design to order, but the Type 99A2 seems more like what the PLA wanted to start with.

 

[Blitzo]

The skirts dont seem to be much effective. Looks like they are rubber skirts, to protect from dust. Western/russian skirts are much more effective.

I wouldn't say we have any indication of that.

M1A2:

T-90:

They might be metal "skirts" but their reach is far less than the new 99A2s. Then you have to wonder if the Type 99A2's skirts are rubber at all. If we're judging visually it could be armour for all we know given its simiar textue to the rest of the tank. It also reaches far lower and protects more of the wheels.

The new MBT-2000 for export even has "western" style "skirts"
If that was so superior why give the PLA's new gen front line tank an inferior armour set?

 

[IronsightSniper]

Skirt armor really isn't that important to fuss over about. You're seldom to get noticeable thicknesses from it, and their effectiveness against say, a shape-charge is morso dependent on the distance the skirt armor is from whatever it's protecting. Protection against kinetic energy attacks are minuscule. In my opinion, the largest deficiency in Chinese armor design comes from it's Soviet roots of relatively thin amounts of mass-efficient armor augmented by integral or applique armor (ranging from simply slapping on a 25 mm HHS plate to integrating ERA packages). ERA, even the likes of Relikt, are fine and all, but they in themselves have a serious deficiency v.s. KE projectiles, namely, depleted uranium long-rods. Studies have shown that the effects induced by 'heavy' ERA, is mitigated by rounds like a DU long rod, such as the M829A3 and future M829A4.

@regards to an earlier post which I forgot to quote, the M1 Abrams' side turrets are actually thick enough not to require applique armor. I would not know the estimates for the Type 99, but for reference, the T-72BM's side turret has a RHAe of 120 mm to 460 mm, from the back to the closest to the front of the turret. I also do not have formal estimates for the M1A2 Abram's turret, but from combat experience of it taking a PG-29V warhead (stated to be able to penetrate 750 mm of armor, though in combat, it penetrated the lower hull of the Challenger 2 and burnt the toes of the driver, for reference, the Challenger 2's lower hull, which has ERA, is estimated to have a RHAe of 860 mm) to the side turret, the PG-29V was able to penetrate the side turret of the Abrams, and kill the gunner. I would not know of any information in regards to the killing effects of a shape charge warhead after it penetrates an armor array such as the side turret of the Abrams, but because it only killed the gunner, I conclude (with grains of sand) that the side turret of the Abrams is at least 600 mm RHAe v.s. HEAT warheads. Thus you can see the differences in regards to main armor arrays. Of course, if the Abrams had 'heavy' ERA installed, it'd be even better.

 

[RedMercury]

Posted by GarryB on

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The T-80 has its ammo stored with the projectiles horizontal and its stub propellent charges vertical in the turret ring. The stub rounds are made of propellent impregnated cardboard except for a small metal stub that is all that remains after the round is fired. The smallest spark on the cardboard surface will ignite the propellent charge and all the charges next to it leading to catastrophic explosions. The T-72 has a different autoloader arrangement where the stubs and rounds are stored under the armoured floor of the autoloader. The problems of Soviet tanks exploding in combat was the loose rounds stored in the crew compartment as only 22 rounds fit in the under floor autoloader. Combat experience in Chechnia showed that a T-80, when penetrated will almost always explode because the propellent stubs in the autoloader are exposed. In the T-72 and later T-90 as long as the loose rounds in the crew compartment were left behind and the tank went into battle with the 22 rounds in the auto loader there were no explosions when the tank was penetrated.

That is why the T-90AM upgrade has a small armoured box behind the turret in front of the engine for 8 rounds and further rounds are carried in the turret bustle and there are no loose rounds in the crew compartment.
The Black Eagle removed the underfloor autoloader and moved all the ammo to an autoloader in the turret bustle.

This is also a clue of what is in the bustle of ZTZ-99

 

[paintgun]

via mpleio @mp.net (he reports it's a prototype)
driver hatch (and compartment) slightly off-center to the left? (as opposed to old centerline ZTZ-99)
hull escape hatch??

good front shot of the tank, very bulky turret