New Type98/99 MBT thread

[SinoSoldier]

Is there any more concrete information about the 140mm or 155mm gun that was rumored to have been tested on a prototype type 99 tank?

The 140mm isn't a rumor; the 155mm is, however:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[nabil_05]

The gun on the new tank is probably still the same base design, but it has probably been upgraded.

There are many Chinese APFSDS rounds and it really depends on which on you are referring to.

The gun can penetrate 1100 mm of armor using a HEAT round and has a muzzle velocity of approximately 1760 m/s. The AK on the other hand probably uses the same gun on the Type 96G with a Russian-style autoloader.

AFAIK, AK and Alzarrar both use the 48 cal version of zpt-98 with some indigenous modification conducted at HMC/ PSML corp. The gun of Type-85IIAP is a 2a46 variant.

What i want to ask is whether the zpt-98's 45% additional muzzle energy due to a tight bore and stiff barrel technology is a real thing or just media hype? Because if its true, it gives a tep-2M apfsds round a very good penetration ability at 2000m range.

Thanks

 

[chuck731]

The 140mm isn't a rumor; the 155mm is, however:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think that photo shows a standard 125mm gun, perhaps with a nonstandard thermal sleeve, and not a 140mm gun.

Judging from the photos of a Leopard 2 that was experimentally equipped with a 140mm gun during the late 1980s, 140mm gun would look quite outsized on a modern MBT.

 

[Broccoli]

Here is Swiss Pz89 with 140mm gun and in ground is the ordinary 120mm gun for comparison.

 

[Franklin]

China needs to scale up its weapons as their recruits grows larger.

China considers larger tanks as soldiers pile on pounds

China already has the largest army in the world. Now its soldiers are getting bigger too.

A People's Liberation Army study has concluded that its soldiers are significantly taller and heavier than they were 20 years ago – so much so that they are in danger of outgrowing their equipment.

The study recommended developing larger models of military hardware because of the changed "parameters" of a generation raised on plentiful and fast food, compared with the austerity generation of the cultural revolution era.

The average height of soldiers, it said, is now 2 cm more than it was two decades ago, and waistlines are 5 cm larger, which makes sliding through tank hatches and fitting into aircraft cockpits especially tricky.

Even the buttstocks of rifles produced for the PLA needed to be lengthened so as not to affect firing accuracy, the study said.

"The configuration of armaments and military personnel's physique should be matched because that is the only way to ensure handy use of the equipment," said Ding Songtao, director of the survey.

Larger tanks will be the focus of the new generation of roomier battlefield equipment. The low-slung silhouettes of China's existing main battle tanks – designed on a 30-year-old model of the Russian T-series – make them more difficult targets, but their compartments are too cramped for today's beefier crews.

Owing to better nutrition, China's younger generation are now much taller than their parents, although obesity is a problem. A study by China's health ministry in 2007 showed that urban Chinese boys aged six were 2.5 inches taller and 6.6 pounds heavier on average than boys 30 years ago.

But the conclusion that the PLA's 2.3m active service personnel needed a new range of supersized military hardware was met with derision from some analysts.

Jiang Lianju, a researcher with the China Academy of Military Sciences, said the size issue was a "very minor consideration" compared with technical specifications such as armour and combat effectiveness.

And Ni Lexiong, a military expert based in Shanghai, said height and weight had always been a consideration in choosing tank crewmen. "Choosing tank operators is like choosing weightlifters – both require men to be short and quick."

Rather than building larger tanks, it was more likely that the inner compartments could be enlarged, keeping their overall size unchanged, he said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Inst]

The ZPT-98 is probably not superior to the gun on the Abrams. We are aware of a higher muzzle velocity round on the ZPT-98, but if you look at the Leopard's tungsten penetrator, the Leopard has comparable muzzle velocities. All this means is that for similar energies, tungsten tends to fly faster than depleted uranium.

 

[Verum]

I have read in multiple sources indicating the gun on Type 99 series is comparable, some say a little better, some say a little worse, some say same as, to the M256 on the Abrams. But the general idea is that it's in the same league as the latter batches of the M1. However, a lot of them pointed out that the gun itself is not the problem, it's the fire-control that's the limiting factor. The most commonly pointed out factor was that the gun can easily take out a MBT at 2000m range, but the fire-control instruments can't help the gun to target, track and calculate the ballistics well enough to score a kill at that range.

Is there any validity to those claims? I read those at least 3 - 4 years back and can't seem to find them now.

But I do remember seeing a pic of a screenshot from the monitor of a Type 99 gunner/commander scoring a kill at 2000m+, but it was later proven to be using the footage of a M1 Abrams and claiming it as Type 99.

 

[SinoSoldier]

I think that photo shows a standard 125mm gun, perhaps with a nonstandard thermal sleeve, and not a 140mm gun.

Judging from the photos of a Leopard 2 that was experimentally equipped with a 140mm gun during the late 1980s, 140mm gun would look quite outsized on a modern MBT.

Perhaps, but there was indeed an image of a Type 99 fitted with a 140mm gun that was being serviced.

 

[SinoSoldier]

The ZPT-98 is probably not superior to the gun on the Abrams. We are aware of a higher muzzle velocity round on the ZPT-98, but if you look at the Leopard's tungsten penetrator, the Leopard has comparable muzzle velocities. All this means is that for similar energies, tungsten tends to fly faster than depleted uranium.

It also depends on the propellant as well as the round design. The energy of the round is what determines its penetration, not just its speed, so the tungsten round's velocity is irrelevant here.

 

[SinoSoldier]

I have read in multiple sources indicating the gun on Type 99 series is comparable, some say a little better, some say a little worse, some say same as, to the M256 on the Abrams. But the general idea is that it's in the same league as the latter batches of the M1. However, a lot of them pointed out that the gun itself is not the problem, it's the fire-control that's the limiting factor. The most commonly pointed out factor was that the gun can easily take out a MBT at 2000m range, but the fire-control instruments can't help the gun to target, track and calculate the ballistics well enough to score a kill at that range.

Is there any validity to those claims? I read those at least 3 - 4 years back and can't seem to find them now.

But I do remember seeing a pic of a screenshot from the monitor of a Type 99 gunner/commander scoring a kill at 2000m+, but it was later proven to be using the footage of a M1 Abrams and claiming it as Type 99.

The thing is, it's pretty much guaranteed that whatever fire control computer the T99 had a few years ago would have been replaced by now.