New Type98/99 MBT thread

[zraver]

hello everyone,

As a former tanker in the US army let me weigh in if I may.

I would rather go into combat in a type 99 than in any Russian tank. The Rusisans like to claim magically increased protection on each new model of tank with out any serious gains in weight. I find these claims dubious to say the least, armor is heavy (Iraqi t-72's were not inferior export models they were licence built in Poland and intended for use in Europe). Secondly they are still using ballistic shaping which is counter productive with ceramic armor. Looking at the 99 I see slab sides and a 54ton+ tare weight, and that warms my heart. I also like it's hunter killer and battle management systems (they are not upto the USA but still represent a huge increase in leathility)

The tank only has one real (and critical drawback) and that is a damn poor gun that cannot defeat modern MBT's from the front at any range. Even with the type 99's 600mm (or so) Short rod (or even medium rod) penetrator with a spool vs bore riding desing performance will not exceed 650mm RHAe. This is the curse of 2 peace ammuntion.

600mm SRP leangth x 7 kg weight x 1780 m/s= 7350000= 650mm RHAe est

here are some other rounds (The Russian figures are published)

3VBM8/3BM22/23- 4.5 kg sabot 450 mm 1760 m/s (typical T-72 round for early 2A46 guns)

Russian 3VBM19/3BM42M- 6.9kg sabot 570 mm 1750 m/s (This is Russias most advanced round for the 2A46-M2+ found on the T-90 and T-80U)

DM53 120mm KE Projectile (Rheinmetall)- (Non-DU) NATO 120mm sabot round
8.9kg sabot 745mm in leangth 1,670 m/s @ 120mmL/44 1750 m/s @ 120mmL55

M829A3 Silver Bullet- (US DU sabot) 10kg sabot 892mm 1700m/s+ (1,555m/s stated by some sources, but this is deliberately low based on my own experiance and other sources)

Real simple math formula= mass x velocity x leangth of the penetrator

Round Number Penetration
3VBM8/3BM17/18 = 3,564,000/ 420mm RHAe published
3VBM19/3BVM42M= 6,686,100/ 600mmRHAe published
DM53 @ 1670*= 11,072,935/ 900mm RHAe est
DM53 @ 1750= 11,603,375/ 1000mm RHAe est
M829A3@ 1700= 15,164,000/ 1450mm RHAe est
M829A3@ 1555= 13,870,600/ 1200mm RHAe est

Russian pattern guns can only achieve 1700m/s+ with rounds signifigantly lighter than western ammuntion types.

The chinese are using a 125mm L/48 gun with a APFSDS tungesten or tungnsten cored spool desing round nealry idnetical to the3VBM19/3BVM42M. Even allowing tha the Chinese have signifigantly increased performance over the early Russian 2A46M-1 125mm L/48 the newest Russian 2A46M-5 L/52 or L/55 will give equivlant performance. And the Russian's newest sabot is only claiming 600mm RHAe penetration. The newest models of the M1A2SEP have frontal armor of around 960mmRHAe vs KE rounds.

If the Chinese gun was a good as some of the jingositc talk would have you beleive it would be of a higher caliber and the tube launched ATGM would not keep popping up in various discussions on it. The tube fired ATGM is to give the under-performing 125mm some ranged punch. That the Chinese Gun still needs this tells volumes.

What the type 99 is a second place tank vs the US, South Korea, Japan, or vs one of India's rare Arjuns. But it will dominate all of Asias T series tanks with ease.

If China perfects thier own 120mm single peace ammuntion system (as seen on some type 98's) then they will have a world class tank vying with the Leclerc and Merkava for the #4 spot. The big three are so close as to make it a tie (Abrams, Challanger, Leopard) all benifitting from real combat lessons (The Germans get US and UK intel)

 

[Husar]

In regards to the post above, I have a chart that claims somewhat different penetration levels (it's in Russian)

The US M829A3 = approx 800mm

The Rus. 3BM-42M = approx 650mm

But there is a new round called "Svinec-2" = 800mm (slightly less)

(I think Svinec means Lead in Rus)

Anyone have any info on the "Svinec-2"?

 

[zraver]

I distrust those claims, they are claimin gearly model bore riding sabots witha SRP are out performing US spool style LRP until the very moment the US M829A1 silverbullet proved itself and the LRP/spool design in combat. If the bore riding sabot was a valid design why did the 42 switch to a spool design?

The new russian round is intriguing but I am dubious. No matter how you cut it, the round is still short and light.

 

[Husar]

You are aware that there are Russian (I'm assuming Chinese as well) DU rounds available. But they're only meant to be used as an emergency measure due to the their harmful characteristics.

If the Chinese gun was a good as some of the jingositc talk would have you beleive it would be of a higher caliber and the tube launched ATGM would not keep popping up in various discussions on it. The tube fired ATGM is to give the under-performing 125mm some ranged punch. That the Chinese Gun still needs this tells volumes.

I think you making a wrong assumption in the above quote.

If the tube launched missiles were such a bad idea, how come Israel is working on the LAHAT system designed for 120mm guns?.......30 years after the Russians I might add.

The same applies to the Active/Passive protection systems on Russian tanks (Arena/Shtora and previously Drozd). Until recently, they were deemed unneccessary and questionable, yet since the Lebanon conflict, Israel is rushing to introduce it's own Active protection system (Trophy + Rafael). The US will probably be using them as well.

 

[RedMercury]

Believe whatever propaganda you choose to believe. A main desginer of the T-99 has been quoted with penetration of around 900 mm rha. But, I don't know how another round of penis-comparison-"my country's tank is better than your country's tank" will help anything. Such a trite topic.

 

[zraver]

Hussar, the Russian's stopped using DU beucase they could not overcome the deformation problems, not becuase of toxicity. The Russians have attmepted on several occasions to feild DU rounds and always go back to tungsten. Thier DU rounds were deforming on impact shedding critical energy so they went back to the Tungsten round in the 42 series of ammo.

Redmecury, no offence but there is 0-zero-nil-no-nadda-nine chance of a short rod penetrator of having penetration 50%-100% greater than leangth of the round.

The Chinese are claiming there 125mmL/48 cannon using the autoloader from a 2A46 pattern gun has massively increased performace capable of defeating modern western armor types found on any tank in the world, or under development.

Now lets look at this in detail shall we?

1- It uses 2 peace ammuntion limiting the leangth of the penetrator. longest proven round is onyl 560mm out of a 125mm gun, and thus mass and mass transferance is compromised over the longer penetrators found in western guns. maximum leangth of the penetrator is controlled by the autoloaders ability to fit the round into the breach which more than streangth of the hoist is the turret dimensions. Something NO Russian or Chinese tank has very much of spare, both for storage and loading.

2- Propellants are basic chemisty, everybody uses about the same formula, If the Chinese made a breakthough (remember they cannot just add powder which is limited by 2A46 auto-loaders size) to be usable it would require an equal breakthrough in metallurgy to allow it to handle 2-3 times the pressure currently generated by known modern powders.

Do they have the metalugical skills to do this, can they make use of this super propellant? see below

3- If they had the metallugy to allow vastly higher pressures why stick with a 48 caliber gun, when a higher 51-55 caliber would add power, range, and acccuracy?

The reason they stuck with 48 caliber is simple, at longer leangths they are probalby running into barrel droop, barrel warp, and thermal issues, which totally shoots the double claim of a breakthrough in both chemistry and metallurgy in the head.

I have no doubt that the Chinese barrels offer much better lifespans and accuracy due to superior machining and materials (contrary to the Chinese claim of reduced barrel life). Russian barrels are desinged for war, not training and so as a cost cutting measures do not make use of the quality found in other nations barrels. In the old Soviet Army, only a few tanks in a unit would be used as gunnery training platforms , the rest would not be fired.

Do they have a round capable of making use of this magic propellant and super gun power? see below

4- Also the Chinese guys who are claiming performance are lying. They are not scientist. They are blaiming the 2A46's barrel for the poor performance of the Russian gun, a real scientist would no better. This is a joke, the poor performace has some, but very litlte to do with the barrel. 1- The penetrator is a short rod design due to 2 peace ammo which limited energy delivery 2- Early Russian BM family sabots used large stabalizing fins (bore riding) that made the guns very accurate even fired from a smoothbore, but bled off energy via drag very quickly severly limiting the range at which they could effecitvely deliever energy. That is why the USSR introduced tube fired ATGM's for long range engagement. The newest BM39/42 sabot is built on a western (spool) model (although still a short rod) and has a published penetration of 600mm RHAe with a penetrator leangth of 560mm barely giving it 100% leangth to penetration performance.

5- No 125mm round aproaches western LRP's in mass, either tungsten or DU. This is a side effect of the 2 peace ammuntion curse mass x velocity +/x leangth= force. A lighter round going 1700m/s will not penetrate as much as a heavier round doing the same speed even if both do not deform. Long Rod Penetrators also deleiver more of thier energy than shorter desings beucase the mass behind the tip acts like a fulcrum and continues to drive the round forward like the Roman Pilum. YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH PHYSICS, longer penetrators deleiver more energy more effectively

6- The Chinese are claiming thier gun is superior to every other gun in the world, but are still using a tube fired ATGM for long range engagment. Yet the British rifled 120mm (similar to the Arjun) holds the world record with a kill on an Iraqi tank at 5100M in 1991. If the Chinese gun was as good as they claim they would not need the ATGM. The Israeli Lahat's primary use will be as anti-helicopter and strong point weapon. It is not intended as the merkava's primary the anti-armor weapon.

7- For the Chinese gun to defeat an M1A2SEP as they claim it can. A third enigeering breakthrough is needed. The round needs to be able to defeat 960mm RHAe from any aspect at 2000m. This means an ideal shot would penetrate upto 1.2M or so of RHAe. Simply put the chinese are claiming thier (and by extensions Pakistan's) short rod penetrator (with all those energy delivery issues) can defeat armor twice as thick (in equivalency of RHA) as it is long. And it has to deleiver this awesome energy without deforming on impact.

The only round in the world that even comes close to this level of performace is the US M829A3 DU-Long Rod Penetrator(APFSDS-DU), a round developed after years of combat experiance and technology development on a proven gun over 30 years old.

8- The Chinese are claiming this triple crown of engieering, metallurgical, and chemistry breakthroughs only 9 years after getting thier hands on a Russian 2A46 125mm L/48 gun with no combat experiance to base thier information on. Unlike the US which got multiple examples of the best stuff the Russians had from former USSR states and Warsaw Pact countries that are now NATO members.

Information coming out of Russia indicated the Russians have all but given up on the sabot and are going to the latest generation HEAT rounds that can defeat armor upto 700% thicker than the rounds diameter (125x7=850mm RHAe). China does not yet have the technology to build these rounds based on the new class of TOW clones they just introduced. Even if they did have the technology, 850mm will not defeat an M1A2SEP. the M1A2SEP has protection vs chemical energy exceeding 1.6M of RHAe. A HEAT round will not even defeat a medium class T-80U which has protection vs HEAT rounds of over 1400mm RHAe

9- If the Chinese had the chemical and metallugy breakthroughs in all three areas to defeat the M1A2SEP with a SRP, why not go with a LRP and get performace that will defeat 1.6M or so of RHAe and make China the undipsuted tank warfare masters for years to come?

Becuase they can't it is pure jingositic BS.

No Pakistani, Russian, or Chinese indivual has yet been able to give me real information via a testable mathmatical formula to back up their claims of performace for short rod penetrators. They all deal in generalities and unsupported opinion.

Tank cannon caliber- example 125mmL/48 "Chinese" or M256-120mm L/44 "American" or 2A46M-5 125mmL/55 "Russian"

The length of the barrel (especially for larger guns) is often quoted in calibers. The effective length of the barrel (from breech to muzzle) is divided by the barrel diameter to give a value. As an example, the main guns of the Iowa class battleships can be referred to as 16"/50 caliber. They are 16 inches in diameter and the barrel is 800 inches long (16 * 50 = 800). This is also sometimes indicated using the prefix L/, so for example, the most common gun for the Panzer IV tank is described as a "75 mm L/48," meaning a barrel 75 mm in diameter, and 3600 mm long

 

[challenge]

Big question,according to Janes,will the russian abandone 125mm tank gun in favor 120mm gun,according to JDW, st peterburg currently testing 2 type 120mm tank gun,the ammo can be fire from standard NATO 120mm tank gun.
China imported DU round from russia in 1992,and according to open sources Type-99 125mm /50 calibre tank gun enjoy something like 30 % muzzle energy over russia D-81 125mm tank gun.

 

[zraver]

Challaenge, any links showing the gun as a 50 caliber weapon? My sources say 48 caliber the same as the early model 2A46M-1s they got on the T-72MV.

a 30% increase in energy is not possible, that pushes a typical 125mm SRP to velocities of well over 2000 m/s and the Chinese themselves are only claiming 1780 m/s- mass x velocity = force at 1780 m/s with a round of a certain wieght the maximum amount of force will hit an absolute number. No round achieves 100% of this possible energy. Nor can you increase the total amount of possible force. rounds are desinged to impart more and more of their possible energy, no one can exceed the possible energy.

The Chinese are claiming mass x velocity + magic = force

What you have probably been fooled by is the amount of deleivered energy at XXXX meters over an older Russian gun via the use of a spool style sabot rather than a bore riding type which sheds energy very quickly from the big drag inducing fins it uses to stabalize itself inside the barrel. Even the Russians have gone to spool style rounds for this very reason.

 

[eecsmaster]

let's see, first you say you can't argue against physics, and then you say mass x velocity = force? Nice physics classes you've taken. The 30% figure was taken from a Chinese language scan, so there is no point going after the messenger.

Russians chose 125mm because of their material science limitations back in the 70's. For them, these limitations exist even today. I would venture to say that these limitations do not exist, or are not as serious, for the Chinese. As for RHA ratings, the Ukranians/Russians did a few tests in the 90s, and the new RPG tandem round, out of all things, penetrated both the -80U and the -90.

So in the end, you can cling to whatever you believe, while the opposite camp can think what they want, but the truth is probably somewhere in between.

 

[Husar]

Big question,according to Janes,will the russian abandone 125mm tank gun in favor 120mm gun,according to JDW, st peterburg currently testing 2 type 120mm tank gun,the ammo can be fire from standard NATO 120mm tank gun.
China imported DU round from russia in 1992,and according to open sources Type-99 125mm /50 calibre tank gun enjoy something like 30 % muzzle energy over russia D-81 125mm tank gun.

The speculation is that the next Russian gun will be 135 mm not 120 mm

Apparently the T-95 will be armed with a gun of that caliber. It's suppose to have a small fully automated turret and only a 2 man crew

The T-95?

The latest upgrade package for Rus. tanks includes 2 main additions:

1. the new 125mm 2A46M-5 (20% more accurate then the older 2A46M-1)

2. the "RELIKT" ERA package
(developed to counter long rod penetrators;;; double compared to the Kontakt-5)


......................


The T-90 SA with the new stuff

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!

Also, the latest uprade of the T-72 with the 2A46M-5 gun and "Relikt" armour
called the T-72BM

The "plastic" covers are called "Nakidka" which reduce the Heat and Radar signature of the vehicle

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!