New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Well, realistically, rubber side skirts have little chance to 'catch' the projectile, if I'm getting you correctly, while at the same time, rubber side skirts are resilient enough not to have something like a PG simply passing right through. The side skirt, as it is now, serves it's purpose fine, and provides enough material to pre-emptively detonate a PG before it makes contact to the vehicle's main armor.
And I'd like to state that armoring a MBT's side verses 'heavy' threats isn't unfeasible. You wouldn't want to use Heavy ERA for the sides because it's protection is diminished without the angle that's imparted to it if it were placed on the front vector. Heavy ERA on the side of a tank is rarely sloped, so it's protection is diminished. Despite this however, Western tanks in particular have proven that up-armoring their sides isn't unfeasible. But armor isn't the only necessity, crew survivability also is. From what we know of tanks to date, the most survivable tank of all time, the M1 Abrams, only became that way because of it's totally segregated section of ammunition. Other large western tanks, like the Merkava or the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2, also have a segregated ammunition section, yet they still retain ammunition in non-segregated parts. The Abrams therefore, remains to be the only tank in service to have a totally segregated armor section, which is crucial to preventing a complete destruction of the tank in case of a penetration.
And even so, penetration does not necessarily mean a kill. For example, a PG-29V warhead, with a penetration of anywhere between 750 mm to 1,000 mm of RHAe, was able to penetrate the side turret of an Abrams but was unable to detonate the ammunition stowed in the turret. This was due to the fact of the Abram's relatively thick side-turret, which is estimated to be more protective than the glacis of the T-72BM, without Kontakt 5, which is, considerable to say the least. Similarly, one can field Active Protection Systems to either stop or slow down a projectile, and have the main armor to receive the brunt of the force.
Depends on the RPG. Testing in the 70s and 80s of 'bar armor' (we call it cage armor) show that it's extremely effective to first generation PGs (your notorious PG-7V, for example). However, second generation PGs will but simply ignore the cage and continue as it were. I should note that the now-retired Swedish S-tank, employs cage armor on it's frontal sector. Tests have shown that the cage is effective versus period tank-rounds, like the 115 mm gun on the T-62. However, 125 mm APFSDS rounds simply ignored it.
very good comments gents/guys, much appreciated
pardon the ignorance, i have another question, is there any design/philosophical difference between Russian and Western tanks regarding non-frontal protection against medium caliber AP rounds? how about ZTZ-99, simple RHA, or composite along an arc, or thin composite throughout?
also regarding the turret, i have a feeling that this is a revolutionary dead end for the ZTZ-99, they can't go on and uparmor the turret endlessly can they?
it's probably time for a new class of MBT
pardon the ignorance, i have another question, is there any design/philosophical difference between Russian and Western tanks regarding non-frontal protection against medium caliber AP rounds? how about ZTZ-99, simple RHA, or composite along an arc, or thin composite throughout?
also regarding the turret, i have a feeling that this is a revolutionary dead end for the ZTZ-99, they can't go on and uparmor the turret endlessly can they?
it's probably time for a new class of MBT
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Quite so. There are two elephants, so to say, to talk about, in regards to design philosophies for Western and Russian, and in fact even, Chinese MBT's, along the non-frontal sectors.
As a preface, a large difference in, generally speaking, Western and Eastern (Russian/Chinese), tank designs is that Western tanks tend to be larger and heavier, whilst Eastern tanks tend to be smaller and lighter. This is illustrated today by the 10-15 tonne discrepancy between the main line Russian and Western tanks. But that doesn't neccessarily mean one tank was less protected than the other. In any arms race, the aggressor tries to overtake the defender, and vise versa. So depending on who was playing what role at which time, one side's tank was usually better than the other's at one thing, but weaker at another. That was true until the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russian tank designs lagged behind Western ones and had to play catch up since (thus far, they've redeveloped their equivalency to Western tanks). In any case, Western tanks were heavier, in large part to their heavier armor. This was because Western tanks generally had thicker arrays of high Thickness-efficient (TE) materials. This meant that for say, 100 mm of armor, that space of armor would provide for, perhaps, 150 mm of RHAe of armor. In contrast, Eastern tanks tend to be thinner, but utilized high Mass-efficient (ME) materials, in interesting and even revolutionary designs. However, the draw back of high ME materials was that they tended to be low TE too, thus they needed to add more of the material to achieve protection-parity with Western tanks for any given thickness of space. In fact, the Russians only kept innovating further. While the West kept developing and utilizing high TE materials, the Russians experimented with and eventually utilized composite armor designs, ERA and subsequent Heavy ERA, and eventually Active Protection Systems. I should note however, that though the Russians pioneered those technologies, they weren't the sole executives of it, and Western tank philosophies quickly adapted and utilized the same techniques, in unison with their one.
The next large difference is turret designs. Western turrets have a tendency to be rectangular and box-like, providing the best frontal protection in the game, and providing impressive side-turret protection for the 'front part' of the box, tapering and weakening as we go down the turret and finally reach it's rear. Eastern (predominately Soviet and Russian) tanks have a very round turret, and feature heavy ERA for about the top half of the circle. This means that, RHAe to RHAe, the Russian tank turret provides similar levels of protection over similar arcs of fire. Chinese tanks on the other hand, appear to try to take both design philosophies and meld them together. The ZTZ-99 for example, doesn't have a traditional round-Russian turret, but isn't much bigger than those. They however, take the shape of a Leopard 2 turret, and even features similar turret add-ons. In any case, all three design philosophies's turrets have a similar armoring pattern, extremely protected front, weakening as you go to the back of the turret. Turrets however, are usually thick anyways. From what's available, some speculate that even the side-turret may feature "special armor" instead of plain RHA. However, no one really knows.
The hulls are a different story. From what we can tell, the majority of tanks have thin, plain RHA, hulls. However, not much is known about Western tanks (at least to me), in this regard. The ZTZ-99, for example, is said to have but only 80 mm of RHA at it's hull. The T-72BM, is said to have 60mm of RHA at it's hull. Not a lot of tanks mount any type of special armor along the entire hull of the tank, as that would require far more space than adding special armor to the tank's turret. For example, the T-80U has NERA (probably rubber and metal mix) over the frontal half of the hull, which would provide substantial resistance against HEAT attacks, but as you'd notice, it's only over the front half of the hull, and not the entire hull. I'd say that adding special armor on the hull, in considerable thicknesses, would simply cost too much.
RedMercury
Junior Member
Really the differences which underlie the different designs is from different doctrines. The Soviets took their lessons from WW2 to heart and designed the bulk of (land) military equipment to be easy to manufacture, rugged, and with a short life expectancy (since they will be lost in battle anyway). This in contrast to Western procurement systems which incentivised arms companies to gold plate their offerings with all the latest and greatest so they can demand a higher price.
Another doctrinal difference was how the tanks would have been used. The grand contingency for both sides was an armored attack through Europe, in places like the Fulda gap, with massive tank armies of the soviet union. The Soviets designed their tanks for the attack, using a hi-low combination of T-64 (high) and T-72 (low). The T-64s were more advanced, with the best sensors and equipment the Soviets could offer, and were to spearhead the attack. The T-72 were supposed to exploit the breakthroughs made by the T-64 tank armies and wreck havoc behind the front lines of the western armies. Hence, the T-64s were designed with better protection and firepower, while the T-72s were supposed to be cheaper, numerous, and mobile. It had less protection (and emphasized side protection and protection from infantry anti-tank weapons more) because it was supposed to be confronting the opposition's non-front-line forces (logistics, bases etc).
The West designed their tanks for the defense. Hence the massive frontal armor and massive turrets. The tanks were to sit in prepared entrenched positions and pick-off the soviet armor as it advanced, and then retreat to the next line of prepared positions, to deny the Soviets the breakthrough they were seeking. The tanks didn't have to be as numerous, since they had only a few strategic choke points to guard, but they had to be individually difficult to destroy. They didn't have to be as strategically mobile, hence mass was not as big of an issue.
Attached is a 3-view blowup of a T-72BM
You can see the hull front armor is substantial and composite. The hull side armor at the vertical part is the standard 80mm. At the angled part it is thinner.
---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------
Really, until the M1 appeared, the Soviets did not have worse tanks. The T-62,64,72 were clearly superior to the M-60. The M1 and the T-80 (its contemporary) compared quite closely. Only with the M1A1 and later did the US have an arguable advantage over Soviet Union/Russia.
Another doctrinal difference was how the tanks would have been used. The grand contingency for both sides was an armored attack through Europe, in places like the Fulda gap, with massive tank armies of the soviet union. The Soviets designed their tanks for the attack, using a hi-low combination of T-64 (high) and T-72 (low). The T-64s were more advanced, with the best sensors and equipment the Soviets could offer, and were to spearhead the attack. The T-72 were supposed to exploit the breakthroughs made by the T-64 tank armies and wreck havoc behind the front lines of the western armies. Hence, the T-64s were designed with better protection and firepower, while the T-72s were supposed to be cheaper, numerous, and mobile. It had less protection (and emphasized side protection and protection from infantry anti-tank weapons more) because it was supposed to be confronting the opposition's non-front-line forces (logistics, bases etc).
The West designed their tanks for the defense. Hence the massive frontal armor and massive turrets. The tanks were to sit in prepared entrenched positions and pick-off the soviet armor as it advanced, and then retreat to the next line of prepared positions, to deny the Soviets the breakthrough they were seeking. The tanks didn't have to be as numerous, since they had only a few strategic choke points to guard, but they had to be individually difficult to destroy. They didn't have to be as strategically mobile, hence mass was not as big of an issue.
Attached is a 3-view blowup of a T-72BM
You can see the hull front armor is substantial and composite. The hull side armor at the vertical part is the standard 80mm. At the angled part it is thinner.
---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------
Really, until the M1 appeared, the Soviets did not have worse tanks. The T-62,64,72 were clearly superior to the M-60. The M1 and the T-80 (its contemporary) compared quite closely. Only with the M1A1 and later did the US have an arguable advantage over Soviet Union/Russia.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Though it's true ceramic armor preforms worst when sloped, a turret does not need to be "boxy" to utilize ceramic armor. From what we can tell, the front part of the Abram's turret armor (the sloped part) is of hard steel and perhaps NERA. Behind that, are vertical 'plates' of ceramics backed by depleted uranium, and probably encased in more steel. The ceramic section does not, and isn't sloped.
To be honest, I wouldn't argue that the Abrams' turret shape comes from necessity, rather, practicality. I'm not 100% sure, but IIRC, the Abram's turret has more space than the Leopard 2's and plenty more space than the T-90's. This can be attributed to the extra height of the turret, thanks to the not-slopeness of the armor. More turret space would explain why the Abrams is the only tank to store 100% of it's ammunition in a single armored place, as compared to every other tank.
do russian tank or chinese tank lined with anti spalling kevlar?judging from large number of iraqi T-72 tank ,(not to mention t-80 tank destroyed in grozny) suffer from catastrophic explosion ,ripping the turrent and powerpack 20 feet into the air.may indicate the absent of anti spalling lining.
spalling behave like shotgun,when ammo non metal combustion cartridge hit by the spall it will detonate.
latest version of T-90MS are lined with kevlar,but I am not sure on type-99 ot Type-98.But I am sure MBT-2000 may have kevlar lining.
spalling behave like shotgun,when ammo non metal combustion cartridge hit by the spall it will detonate.
latest version of T-90MS are lined with kevlar,but I am not sure on type-99 ot Type-98.But I am sure MBT-2000 may have kevlar lining.
those catastrophic explosions are the hallmark of the carousel style and Russian hull ammo storage, also like you said the combustible cartridge
if we have to make a guess, 99 is probably kevlar lined, it is PLA's top line tank and the tech/method is already accessible to them, as it is also used in aircrafts and helos
is the MBT-2000 also kevlar protected? did the recent pictures show anything? the kevlar would be coated and embedded in resin, covered under paint layers
i'd imagine there is no way to know for sure, there is just so few photos on interior, CDF maintains a good record on various AFV pictures, but IIRC there are probably only a couple shot, and that's even close up on consoles and optics, also several years old/outdated by now
with the mystery shroud over this tank (i think one of the most guarded PLA secret from public), people in the know (tank watchers) tend to be prudent commenting on it, and those who really have information probably prefer to keep it to them