New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
speaking Infran red imaging camera for Chinese armour,what i read in Chinese magazine or in the internet state that Chinese IR imaging for tanks uses SPRITE technology ("signal-processing-in -the-chip") same technology use Chieftain and challenger-1 or TOGS rather than focal plane array IR detector. in there own admission ,resulotion type-99 gunner 'sIR imaging is below that of M1A2SEP.
Merkava has an autoloader. It's design is different from russian type, but it's not bustle-mounted and not safer. It's good performance is achieved thanks to revolver-type container which carries 8 shells. Makes about 12 shots per minute, but needs manual rearming each 8 shots, which basically means long pauses. By the way, T-90 has an upgraded autoloader, which allows to make 13 shots of the same ammo type per minute. As for US and NATO - i remember there was a guy on the old SD board, who was M1 commander once, and he claimed their averenge performance was 5-7 shots per minute.
It would be great to back up such information with weblinks.
Hey guys. Newbie around here, and the 99 looks really awesome. The size looks a bit disconcerting, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean better, right?
Anyway, the thing I worry about most is that the tank has less safety features compared to other modern tanks, so there is a higher casualty rate per unit being hit in combat. Is it a cost-related reason that the tank doesn't have these kind of features? Because I get the feeling that the soldiers seem expendable to this end. Kind of reminds me of some of the deathtraps found in the T-72, which apparently this tank seems to bears some relation to.
Anyway, the thing I worry about most is that the tank has less safety features compared to other modern tanks, so there is a higher casualty rate per unit being hit in combat. Is it a cost-related reason that the tank doesn't have these kind of features? Because I get the feeling that the soldiers seem expendable to this end. Kind of reminds me of some of the deathtraps found in the T-72, which apparently this tank seems to bears some relation to.
eecsmaster
Junior Member
US never engaged in combat against TRUE Soviet armor. The whole gulf war arguement is rather moot.
even all the latest soviet armour in the 80's or 90's such as T-64 and T-72 still using active infran red lamp,while polish army tank corp uses LLTV.eecsmaster said:
active infran red lamp a 1940's technology pioneer by the German in late stage of the war turn Iraqi armour into a sitting duck.
That's why after desert storm,Both the russian and China wake up to discover that IR imaging was "must-have" for modern armour.
eecsmaster
Junior Member
oh I'm aware of that, but using T-72Ms as pillboxes hardly gives that piece of equipment a good account of itself.
according to chinese magazine,muzzle energy for type-99 125mm tank gun is 45% higher than Russian t-72/t-64 D-81 125mm tank gun.eecsmaster said:
muzzle energy for NATO 120mm /45 calibre (miltech 1991 issue)quoted as 11 megal joules,while russian 125mm 8 meg.joules.
result is the effective range for the russian 125mm tank gun is 1900 meter,by contrast US army M-1 120mm tank gun has out shoot the 125mm tank gun by as much 4500 meter!
eecsmaster said:
You do have a point-Soviet C&C, air and infantry support and tank crews would have been better, far better in many cases. However, the Iraqi Army was essentially using Soviet armoured doctrine, as were the Arab Armies in the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars. If those were Soviet tanks rather than Iraqi ones, with all the attendant support they would have gotten, the Gulf War would have been much longer, much bloodier and more difficult for the US, but the US still would have won.