New Type98/99 MBT thread

Aero

Just Hatched
Registered Member
aero, I would say my unit had about the norm of the 1st cav while the 1st cav had much less than say the 2nd "tiger brig" that pushed up into Kuwait from the south. I was flying out on that left hook that drove through great expanses of desert before reaching an area just west of Basra.

Again I did not see what I would call a great deal of action. mostly taking shots at 2.5 to 3k and only was worried about being killed one time near that oil industrial area...cheers ute

Your insight is always appreciated, I guess some things just don’t change, armour engagement around built-up areas is inevitably more dangerous ever since WW2.

Fantastic post.

Things that we should remember.

America rules the air in Iraq therefore anything that is a large/noisy target
can be hit and destroyed

Israel in Lebanon was confronted by a group armed with very good manportable AT systems. I don't believe the Iraqi's have anything equivalent

Thanks, I guess one of the harsh realities of war is that you don’t get to choose your weapon when your opponent is at your door and ready to strike. I should also add that the successful use of air power is by no means universally applicable to all conflict. It is often claimed that air power won the Kosovo war for NATO, in a sense this was correct, as NATO alliance was able conclude the conflict on their term by using air power alone throughout the whole campaign, but the military lesson from this war was very different to Op Desert Storm, the Serbian leadership capitulated politically after realising that if they don’t back down, every factories, bridges, roads and government building in the country are going to be systematically destroyed, not because the military was taking a heavy blow like Iraq in 1991, but no sane political leaders and citizens would allow his country to be destroyed like that, Therefore, politically speaking, air power was very successful in Kosovo, but militarily speaking, it was not effective. How effective an air campaign can be is determined by various factors, any nation who is facing the prospect of being the target of a sustained air campaign has difficult dilemmas before him. Do you sit there in the open and hope the bomb won’t fall on your head like Iraq, or do you hide your asset yet lose all initiatives in a war like Serbia? In both cases, ultimately you lose. This should provide food for thought for many years to come.

talking about DU sabots, just what is its kill mechanism? One of my profs, who was in the Navy, said that second handed information he has states that the heat is the kill mechanism. I always thought the disintegration of the round itself is what's important.

My understanding is that by utilising Depleted Uranium in the manufacturing of projectile, it could raise the density of the metal above the usual figure of 19.3gm/cm3 found in tungsten, which is the most common material used, so DU round is harder and could perforate a thicker armour plate, but it still is a kinetic energy projectile, as opposed to HEAT and HESH which use chemical reaction involving high-velocity jet.
 

Aero

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Since we have been a little off-topic in this thread and I apologise for that, so I thought I might start a different direction by talking about what I think can be improved on Type-99, basically I would only mention little things that concern with the design aspects of it, since you can always improve a tank by giving it more firepower, armour and engine power.

12,7mm anti-aircraft gun, I have always had my doubts about the usefulness of this weapon in the anti-aircraft role, nowadays you at least should have 20mm calibre and above with really good AP round to do any real damaged to low-flying aircraft and heavily armed helicopter, 12.7mm is only adequate for engaging UAV and recon chopters, even that is highly doubtful as it lack any sensor and good aiming device. Now this leave the reason being it is primarily installed as an anti-infantry weapon like other MBT, then the question came, why it’s not protected at all? since the person that is manning the gun is the tank commander who happens to be the most valuable member of the whole crew, it is essential in my opinion to a provide a degree of protection for him, such as armour plates, a even better solution would be a remotely controlled overhead firing station for the 12.7mm.

In addition, the current position of the 12.7mm on Type-99 also obstructed the view angle of the Commander’s sight, the commander should maintain a 360% view at all time so the whole crew stay alerted on the battlefield. Perhaps a solution could be found in placing the MG on top of the main gun mantlet and make it remotely controlled? What do you guys think? Is there validity in my concern?
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
well our artillery battery had 12,7mm NSV AA machine gun alongside to the bigger guns, and it was nasty post that needed to be manned 24/7 when we were deployed in battle formation...The more it seemed stupidier to keep that weapon guarded was due the fact that or officers didn't hide the fact that it would be totally useless against air threads and it was more of morale support to us and practical thing if we would have been engaged into land combat, otherwise it was argued that We wont start shooting whit it if they would have been real situation and real oncoming air raid...shooting whit it would have only revealed more about our location...
And When we did live firings whit it, none of us hit anyway near the targets in the range...:coffee:
 

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
carousel auto loader was dead trap,according to israel army field report in 1982,the T-72 tank are highly vulnerable of brewing up.The russian refuse to accept the verdict,insist the syrian tank crews should be blame,not tank 's auto loader short coming,then come Desert storm and Chenchya conflict force the russian to abandone carousel auto loading,surprisingly the PLA still using crousel auto loading.

Abandon? The T-90 is still harbouring a lower hull Auto! The T-84 and T-80UD are still having their autoloader s on their lower hull...

And a bustle is not a Wundersolution. A bustle is quite a bigger threat (the bustle is an evident target and cant be over armoured...

Personally I do think that a "Soviet" tank with a good crew and good preparation without enormous skills can ruin your day anytime. May you hide behind 70 ton behemots. It all relies on flexible tactics. You can't hit...why? Range? Back off.

You can't kill? Why? Indecent ammunition? Try hitting the vital parts of the opposing tank (Gun, Optics, Driver hatch).

What hurts me is the obvious underestimation of operability and the circumstances of the GW2 and GW3. Give a head on to a US tank against a T-72B/BM and I am pretty sure the M1 would find itself stucked witout main gun and half blind.

In Chechnya bigger losses were due to t-80's that had turbines and Highly inflamable fuel mixtures. Not to mention indecent tactics.
 
Last edited:

ahho

Junior Member
basically i have a question about the autoloader of the type-99 (well basically any autoloader) how do you change different type of ammunition??? i know you can manually change it
 

RedMercury

Junior Member
Modern autoloaders have built in capability to draw from several sources. This is murky but I recall reading somewhere that a Chinese autoloader (not sure if it is on the new IFV or a tank) can draw from 5 sources.
 

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
basically i have a question about the autoloader of the type-99 (well basically any autoloader) how do you change different type of ammunition??? i know you can manually change it


You just select the preset position for the ammunition requierd.
 

Kampfwagen

Junior Member
Quick question.

With the Amphibious modifications applied to some of the other AFV's in the Chinese Military, will the Type 99/8 be fit for that sort of modification? Or is it strictly IFV's and Medium-Class tanks?
 

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Quick question.

With the Amphibious modifications applied to some of the other AFV's in the Chinese Military, will the Type 99/8 be fit for that sort of modification? Or is it strictly IFV's and Medium-Class tanks?
I can hardly imagine a 52 ton tank coming ashore with those "gadgets".
 
Top