The photo I used was just an example of the extreme angle needed to achieve certain "effective" armor thicknesses. The round in question is the 125m APFSDS that has a penetration of "220mm" RHA at 68.5 degrees. Unless there is a misprint, that is a terrible number. It doesn't matter how much you slope that hypothetical 220mm thick plate, it's not going to turn into a 600 or 700m thick plate unless you lay the plate nearly flat. I think it really must be some kind of misprint. The original M829 from 1980s was already capable of penetrating 540mm RHA.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Helpful Budy
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
@ Ironman It probably was not tested on a tank it was tested on a plate placed at an angle. I don't think it's a misprint as I have seen listing of Russian Tank rounds listed as being tested to 450 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 230 mm at 60° at 2000 m for the 3VBM17
and the 3BM46 penetrated 650 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 300 mm at 60° at 2000 m.
The Maths work 220mm at a 68.5 degree would tender 2.73 times more relative armor effectiveness or roughly equal to 600mm.
So although the Angle is more Extreme it does work if you look at tank hulls of the modern era they often have such angles. The area around the glacis plate is often almost flat on modern tanks. 30* Slopes were more common in the second world war and early 1950's including on the T55 they are measuring in the photo.
and the 3BM46 penetrated 650 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 300 mm at 60° at 2000 m.
The Maths work 220mm at a 68.5 degree would tender 2.73 times more relative armor effectiveness or roughly equal to 600mm.
So although the Angle is more Extreme it does work if you look at tank hulls of the modern era they often have such angles. The area around the glacis plate is often almost flat on modern tanks. 30* Slopes were more common in the second world war and early 1950's including on the T55 they are measuring in the photo.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
you know now I am kinda curious if the Chinese are looking at streamlining their tank round inventory.
The Type 99 family has 42 rounds for the main gun about 22 in the autoloader about the same number of rounds onboard as the Abrams 40.
now modern tank guns have about 9 round types available. we can knock that down to 8 if we lose the training rounds
Since the Type 99 uses an Autoloader and has programmable interfaces for the ATGM system I wonder if they might try and streamline like this to. I mean if you have one round that does 5 jobs just by having the gunner turn a nob.
The Type 99 family has 42 rounds for the main gun about 22 in the autoloader about the same number of rounds onboard as the Abrams 40.
now modern tank guns have about 9 round types available. we can knock that down to 8 if we lose the training rounds
- the APFSDS-T
- ATGM ( where applicable )
- High Explosive Anti Tank
- High explosive incendiary
- Fragmentation High explosive ( HE Ordnance reduction)
- Canister round ( basically the Mother of All Shotguns)
- High Explosive Squash Head (British)
- Multi-Purpose Anti Tank
Since the Type 99 uses an Autoloader and has programmable interfaces for the ATGM system I wonder if they might try and streamline like this to. I mean if you have one round that does 5 jobs just by having the gunner turn a nob.
TE, if you include the chemical rounds like smoke, you would have more.
But say we break down the bread and butter rounds into families:
Anti-heavy armor:
APFSDS
APCR
Anti Armor / Material
HEAT
HESH
APHE (AP, APC, APCBC, etc)
Anti Personel
HEF
HE(then you have the detonator options: contact (and fuse times) , air burst, proximity, etc)
Fragmentation
Close range AP
Canister
Flechette
Chemical Rounds
Incendiary
Smoke
Flares
Thermobaric
Then most of the HE based shells, HEF/HE/HE-Frag were a single shell for a very long time, like the soviet 3VOF22 from 1962 could be set to HE vs earth works, contact Frag against infantry, air bust frag vs infantry and helicopters automatically from the auto loader in the T80/T90 but the AINET system. HESH can be said to be the british solution to this issue as well; only that composite armor made it ineffective against tanks.
In a MBT, it would need the kinetic perpetrators vs. other MBTs, so to carry the APFSDS, some HEAT for anti bunkers, and the remainder being general purpose HE like the 3VOF22. the remote weapons station will probably make the canister and flechete rounds redundant. So 3 type of rounds + whatever mission specific chemical rounds.
in a light tank, it probably doesn't need APFSDS rounds as the 105mm and the 100mm probably doesn't do much against mordern MBTs; better rely on the TOW or similar. then it will need HEAT against bunkers and tanks; and HE against infantry. it might want a round or 2 of canister/ flechette to defend itself against close range infantry. So 3 type of rounds + whatever mission specific chemical rounds.
its not that bad in terms of the logistics and variety of rounds the tank need to carry.
I do still believe that there is a place for APHE rounds, (Obviously APCR are widely used in auto cannons) war is expensive. its not economical to fire APFSDS and HEAT against all armored targets
But say we break down the bread and butter rounds into families:
Anti-heavy armor:
APFSDS
APCR
Anti Armor / Material
HEAT
HESH
APHE (AP, APC, APCBC, etc)
Anti Personel
HEF
HE(then you have the detonator options: contact (and fuse times) , air burst, proximity, etc)
Fragmentation
Close range AP
Canister
Flechette
Chemical Rounds
Incendiary
Smoke
Flares
Thermobaric
Then most of the HE based shells, HEF/HE/HE-Frag were a single shell for a very long time, like the soviet 3VOF22 from 1962 could be set to HE vs earth works, contact Frag against infantry, air bust frag vs infantry and helicopters automatically from the auto loader in the T80/T90 but the AINET system. HESH can be said to be the british solution to this issue as well; only that composite armor made it ineffective against tanks.
In a MBT, it would need the kinetic perpetrators vs. other MBTs, so to carry the APFSDS, some HEAT for anti bunkers, and the remainder being general purpose HE like the 3VOF22. the remote weapons station will probably make the canister and flechete rounds redundant. So 3 type of rounds + whatever mission specific chemical rounds.
in a light tank, it probably doesn't need APFSDS rounds as the 105mm and the 100mm probably doesn't do much against mordern MBTs; better rely on the TOW or similar. then it will need HEAT against bunkers and tanks; and HE against infantry. it might want a round or 2 of canister/ flechette to defend itself against close range infantry. So 3 type of rounds + whatever mission specific chemical rounds.
its not that bad in terms of the logistics and variety of rounds the tank need to carry.
I do still believe that there is a place for APHE rounds, (Obviously APCR are widely used in auto cannons) war is expensive. its not economical to fire APFSDS and HEAT against all armored targets
Type 96 i think and Type 99 use carousel autoloader ?
In general about half of the shells are immediately available, the T-14 have only 32 but all ready
her gun ( 2A46M-5 with higher pressure ) T-72B3 designated also B4 use same can perforate 800 mm RHA seems an eventual 152 mm 1000 mm
For the common schell exist specials more capable
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The Chinese will no doubt develop such a round to stay in the game, and for export, but unless the engineers really outdo themselves and develop some super round far beyond what has been done before, it is very unlikely that the PLA will mass field such a general purpose round.
The reason boils down to cost, effectiveness and mission.
The PLA is infamously tight with money, and generally prefer to save money and keep what they have unless something truly revolutionary comes along. A general purpose round is almost certainly going to be a fair bit more expensive than any of the other specifilist rounds it is intending to replace.
In terms of performance, it is unlikely that a general purpose round would do better in any one of its many roles compared to specialist rounds designed only for that one role.
The main justification for a more expensive round that does a worse job is that such a round eases the logistics burden.
But even though the PLA is fast developing expeditionary war fighting capabilities and building foreign military bases, for the foreseeable future, the PLA’s primary mission will still be homeland defence.
Logistics becomes a big issue if you have to ship munitions half way around the world through sometimes dangerous and hostile terrain to far flung and isolated FOBs, but if you are expecting to fight on home ground, with one of the finest transport infrastructure networks on the planet to support your logistics, you just don’t have the same pressures to consolidate munitions types.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Well Wolf it seems to me that that same post could justify a move to as well. I mean a Antipersonal/Antiequipment round would mean decreasing logistical support issues there but reducing costs. As the new rounds mean only having to run one factory line for those missions as opposed to three.
It seems a question of if you want to save pennys or Pounds? Save Pennies keep the current systems and have to stockpile. Save pounds invest in a new system and phase out the old rounds well increasing effecentcy.
It seems a question of if you want to save pennys or Pounds? Save Pennies keep the current systems and have to stockpile. Save pounds invest in a new system and phase out the old rounds well increasing effecentcy.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
That all depends on the relative price and effectiveness of the new round compared to the originals.
But the general rule of thumb is that a multi- functional, programmeable round is likely to be both more expensive and less effective than single purpose specificalist rounds.
In a way, we already had a bit of a mini-version of this same multipurpose vs omirole round question answered with the Chinese smart grenade system.
Rather than having one jack of all traits round, the PLA opted for 3 different rounds that specialised on different areas.
However, i feel you are getting a little sidetracked with all those cost savings arguements, because I cannot remember seeing any reference of cost savings actually being mentioned to support the new general purpose round.
The chief advantages of adopting this new round is going to be combat persistence and easing logistics (but that does not necessarily means cost savings).
With multipurpose rounds, there would be less chance of a tank running out a particular kind of round before running out of ammo altogether.
While that will indeed be useful, it is most useful for small, expeditionary forces facing a numerically superior but technologically inferior foe.
The enemy poses little real, direct threat to the expeditionary force (EF), and the only real danger for the EF is if they ran out of ammo before they run out of targets. That is where being able to effectively use every last round really could make a big difference.
However, China is operating under very different assumptions about the likely roles and locations they might need to fight.
In any likely war involving China, the PLA would be expecting to fight close to or even on home territory. They are expecting to be facing enemies on par or even superior in terms of tech, but who might be short on numbers.
Under such circumstances, it would be unusual for PLA tanks to ever come close to running out of ammo.
Either they would be dead, or they would have won the engagement long before any tank could burn through their entire warload.
And fighting against enemy tanks that are just as good or even better than their own, PLA tankers would want all the edge they can get to make sure a hit means a kill. There can be no compromise in effectiveness because that small percentage extra punch might be the critical different between a kill or being killed yourself.
