kwaigonegin
Colonel
Read my post above yours. Unless or until China gets involve in foreign wars, tanks and other open battlefield type assets will take a back seat to the navy and air force.. And rightly so.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Read my post above yours. Unless or until China gets involve in foreign wars, tanks and other open battlefield type assets will take a back seat to the navy and air force.. And rightly so.
vesicles
Colonel
Yep, development and training of new equipment should continue as if a war is starting tomorrow. However, actual production and deployment of tanks should yield to navy and AF.
Tank guns during WWII were nearly all below 100 mm, with rare exceptions of 122 and 128 mm. After that war the Western countries standardized on 105 mm, while the Russians went for 100mm, then 115 mm, then 125 mm by which time the Western countries went to 120 mm. The jump to 155 mm seems to be entirely incredible. And as the source refers to a Russian magazine there is no opportunity to believe it.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Out side of Army Reco the Km variant links seem to have dried up. It's possible it was a hoax or a one off prototype or a concept that never went to production. Seems like the PLA is pretty satisfied with the 125mm gun and it's rounds including the Russian ATGM's
Additional thinking:
Tanks are built for close in fighting against preferably soft targets and improvised fortifications such as buildings. You want to leave enemy tanks to other systems like aircraft and infantry although you must be prepared to meet them. So when would a tank need a 155 mm gun?
Tanks are built for close in fighting against preferably soft targets and improvised fortifications such as buildings. You want to leave enemy tanks to other systems like aircraft and infantry although you must be prepared to meet them. So when would a tank need a 155 mm gun?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Well Enemy tanks are still a threat and are still targets for tanks, It's just that for the last few years the emphasis has shifted to non Conventional. Still in the end Tank on Tank is a need. but the 155mm is a odd choice it's intended to be shell heavy.
There are two way's of thinking about killing enemy tanks option one is to Hulk option two is Superman.
Option one would be the 155mm. scale up the cannon to the max and hit the target with as much high explosive as possible and hope the shear blast will break it.
"HULK SMASH!"
Option two is alternative propellants to produce higher velocity rounds. the higher the velocity the better the penetration and a KE round vs a Tank kills when it impacts with such force that it super heats and becomes a plasma weapon inside the hull.
"Faster then a Speeding bullet more powerful then a locomotive."
As it stands today Tank on Tank, most modern Tanks can disable but not kill each other.
In theory if you go up in caliber or in velocity you might return killing. Against fortified Targets the 155mm gun could in theory be a exelent choice as the sheer HE effects would be very impressive well the Higher velocity options like a railgun or liquid propellants would be better for tank on tank.
There are two way's of thinking about killing enemy tanks option one is to Hulk option two is Superman.
Option one would be the 155mm. scale up the cannon to the max and hit the target with as much high explosive as possible and hope the shear blast will break it.
"HULK SMASH!"
Option two is alternative propellants to produce higher velocity rounds. the higher the velocity the better the penetration and a KE round vs a Tank kills when it impacts with such force that it super heats and becomes a plasma weapon inside the hull.
"Faster then a Speeding bullet more powerful then a locomotive."
As it stands today Tank on Tank, most modern Tanks can disable but not kill each other.
In theory if you go up in caliber or in velocity you might return killing. Against fortified Targets the 155mm gun could in theory be a exelent choice as the sheer HE effects would be very impressive well the Higher velocity options like a railgun or liquid propellants would be better for tank on tank.
Equation
Lieutenant General
To fight off the APC that carried the troops that carried those AT4s or any other anti-tank weapons. You never know, it's good to have them. Just like a fighter plane will always need a gun even with today's modern guidance missiles.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Maybe Val, but we haven't seen any. And the specs for this 99KM say we should have. I mean its supposed to tip the scale at 73 Long tons Type 99 like the Russian T90 is normally in the 50-60 ton range. Even Abrams is 68 tons. So much weight from the known Chinese engine is going to make it a very visible tank at any display. And the PLA loves to show. So where is it? The only reason for us not seeing it is if it was either never built or never left the testing unit. My personal opinion. It was a Super heavy prototype that was either flirted with or one off built but the results were so poor they scraped it.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
You have to take into account the practicality of such a weapon system. The higher caliber you go the heaver and bigger the MBT is going to be. At some point it passes common sense and will become more of a liability. what's the point of having a super tank if it can't cross bridges, has limited range, too heavy for transport planes etc?
Also you have weapon system which target the top of tanks nowadays. If a country is wealthy and well armed enough to produce such a tank they might be better off producing even more effective top down penetrators or missiles.
Also before you ask about existing 155mm..
..a SP 155mm howitzer makes a lot of sacrifice for that big gun but they were not designed for direct fire. Put them in a direct firefight with modern MBTs and they will most certainly be all destroyed.
Last edited: