New Type98/99 MBT thread

[by78]

Can you fix the link to the first image please?

Just a quick thought. I have seen a few concept sketches of next-gen MBTs from several countries, some of which propose an unmanned turret+autoloader, with the crew in a separate compartment. I really like the idea and the resulting compact turret. Most of these concepts have the engine in the back, the turret+autoloader in the middle, and the crew compartment at the front.

Now my two cents: wouldn't it be better to have the engine mounted at the front (like the Merkava), the crew compartment in the middle, and the turret+autoloader all the way in the back?

The advantage of this would be added frontal protection for the crew, and more importantly, with the autoloader carousel in the back, blow-out panels can be easily incorporated to the backside of the vehicle; whereas if you have the turret+autoloader carousel sandwiched between the crew compartment and the engine bay, it's more difficult to vent the detonation of stowed ammo.

Now, the ideal dream design would incorporate an all electric drive so that the engine can be mounted anywhere in the hull. In that case, the crew can sit at front, with the engine in the middle, and the turret+carousel in the back. This way, the crew gets even more protection from detonation of stowed ammo.

Or, if we can invent charges and explosives to be exclusively electro-activated so that hull penetration doesn't set off secondary detonations.

One can always dream...

Any thoughts?

 

[Lezt]

Just a quick thought. I have seen a few concept sketches of next-gen MBTs from several countries, some of which propose an unmanned turret+autoloader, with the crew in a separate compartment. I really like the idea and the resulting compact turret. Most of these concepts have the engine in the back, the turret+autoloader in the middle, and the crew compartment at the front.

Now my two cents: wouldn't it be better to have the engine mounted at the front (like the Merkava), the crew compartment in the middle, and the turret+autoloader all the way in the back?

The advantage of this would be added frontal protection for the crew, and more importantly, with the autoloader carousel in the back, blow-out panels can be easily incorporated to the backside of the vehicle; whereas if you have the turret+autoloader carousel sandwiched between the crew compartment and the engine bay, it's more difficult to vent the detonation of stowed ammo.

Now, the ideal dream design would incorporate an all electric drive so that the engine can be mounted anywhere in the hull. In that case, the crew can sit at front, with the engine in the middle, and the turret+carousel in the back. This way, the crew gets even more protection from detonation of stowed ammo.

Or, if we can invent charges and explosives to be exclusively electro-activated so that hull penetration doesn't set off secondary detonations.

One can always dream...

Any thoughts?

In engineering, it is always a zero sum game. there is always a trade off and this debate had been going on for a very long time.

Front mounted turret
-Driver hatch/escape issues
-Large access to engine deck for easier maintenance
-Smaller exposed tank when turning corners
-Tank is smaller
-Balance is more off

Mid mounted turret
-good balance; good cross country
-larger tank due to the space required to access the engine bay
-since the turret is concentric to the center of mass, mobile gun accruacy is better.

Rear mounted turret
-engine bay becomes really hard to access
-driver and crew is sperated - or you can drive by TV, but nothing is like the good old eyeball.
-can have large rear hatches; but also mean that being shot in the rear is not good as the rear is a extra weak point
-better crew protection from the front

 

[wtlh]

Real mounted engines and transmissions are more efficient than front mounted engine and transmission because the driving wheel will be at the back, so the driving proportion of the track (the part touching the ground) gets direct tension (pull) from the driving wheel. On a tank like Merkava, the driving wheel is at front, which means the tension is directly applied to the free rolling portion of the track.

Front mounted engine also has cooling issues---the fontal area has to be covered by heavy armour, so radiators has to be mounted on the side, which not only reduces front side protection, also reduces the allowed radiator size.

Front mounted engine does not however mean that the driver has to be separated from the rest of the crew: The rest of crew arguably has a better access to the driver in the Merkava than in tanks like M1A1 or Leopard 2. Most APCs and IFVs have driver and commander sitting beside the engine compartment and accessible to the combat and passenger area.

 

[s002wjh]

saw this on youtube, make me wonder whats the spec for china T99A2 or other chinese tanks.

[video=youtube;whgeFmSTjwQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whgeFmSTjwQ[/video]

 

[Aeronaut]

Pakistan Army has desert tested the ZTZ-99 quite recently. Overall the Tank performed good but didn't cope with the desert conditions well.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Pakistan Army has desert tested the ZTZ-99 quite recently. Overall the Tank performed good but didn't cope with the desert conditions well.

Any word on the cause of the issues? My first guess would be the sand filters.

 

[Aeronaut]

Any word on the cause of the issues? My first guess would be the sand filters.

I will not give out specifics but ZTZ-99 was tested under similar testing parameters as the Abrams in 1987-88. The Abrams failed tests in Pakistan because of our fine grain sand in Cholistan and Thar deserts as well as the thick mud which sticks like glue during rains in Lahore and Sialkot sectors. ZTZ-99 performed well except a few critical aspects of desert warfare. I am sure PLA can use our input to improve the tank for their own use in the future.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I will not give out specifics but ZTZ-99 was tested under similar testing parameters as the Abrams in 1987-88. The Abrams failed tests in Pakistan because of our fine grain sand in Cholistan and Thar deserts as well as the thick mud which sticks like glue during rains in Lahore and Sialkot sectors. ZTZ-99 performed well except a few critical aspects of desert warfare. I am sure PLA can use our input to improve the tank for their own use in the future.

Makes some sense as the Abrams entered was probably the M1, and its systems were tested in the American southwest. Well the ZTZ-99 likely would have had its field tests for the Gobi. Which would have been a closer analog. That said given the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan I would lay money that one of the modern M1A2 SEP2 or Marine M1A1 models would fare far better then that earlier test.

 

[Aeronaut]

Makes some sense as the Abrams entered was probably the M1, and its systems were tested in the American southwest. Well the ZTZ-99 likely would have had its field tests for the Gobi. Which would have been a closer analog. That said given the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan I would lay money that one of the modern M1A2 SEP2 or Marine M1A1 models would fare far better then that earlier test.

Affirmative. Saudi Army loves it.

 

[AssassinsMace]

From some exercise going on.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!