New Type98/99 MBT thread

[ougoah]

How does the Type 99 fair against their most likely adversary, South Korean K2 Panthers MBT in terms of battlefield performance and metrics.

K2 is close to $9M USD for the domestic customer South Korea. It would be something like $20M per piece + support for export orders like Leopard2a5+. Type 99A (absolute latest variant) for PLA is about $3M USD or so. So about a third the price of a K2. Now on an individual basis, I think K2 has better firepower, better mobility, and likely similar protection.

Better firepower because it has a L55 gun from a very reputable manufacturer many others use and copy or produce under license (Israel and Japan). Seems to have better sensors and optics since Type 99's seem more rudimentary in comparison. Could likely have higher quality ammunition and gun stabilisation and accuracy if western tank comps and exercises indicate accuracy and consistency. Both can launch missiles from gun.

Better mobility because K2 is slightly lighter than Type 99A. Engine outputs are similar but Type 99 has had transmission issues in the past. These may have long been resolved but so far we don't know too much about K2 reliability and performance. Since it is lighter, it should have greater range and speeds if all other factors are equal and they are close enough to equal with the Chinese tank to have known past transmission problem/s.

Protection is hard to say. Frontal protection could be better on Type 99A and the tank is about 3T heavier. It also focuses on frontal protection with very thin armour elsewhere which means if the respective armour plates are more or less equally effective per unit of mass, 99A puts FAR more armour on the front since the sides are much thinner than K2 side armour and 99A is still around 3T heavier, that would suggest at least 3T more armour for the front on 99A. K2 makes greater effort on side protection but to be honest most MBTs are 100% dead if shot on side by capable modern sabot/ anti-tank rounds since side armour are usually many times thinner than front armour so if some tanks can claim to destroy others through the front, the side stands zero chance.So it could be better to place more emphasis on front particularly for PLA since they have numbers and huge supporting assets so they don't really get outflanked. K2 has APS against missiles and Type 99A can be equipped with GL-5 APS. All Type 99s also have some laser device that is claimed to be able to blind sensors of enemy tanks/ incoming missiles and also enemy tank commander. Not sure how well it works but since PLA has been deploying Type 98s and 99s with this for more than a decade, it must mean it's worth equipping for whatever actual reason. On armour material and quality, some tank forums suggest the "nano armour" or whatever the marketing terms are for the latest tanks (type 10 and K2 etc) are super expensive to fabricate for tanks. This is just super high tensile strength steels. Some members who sound very knowledgeable claim it is impossible for cheaper tanks to be sporting these higher quality armour materials. So perhaps K2 armour is more effective /kg than 99A's. No one can really be certain. There's also the whole factor of reactive armour to consider. 99A's reactive armour layer could equalise protection levels. We know that reactive armour is extremely effective and proven. Even some super heavy weight western tanks are modded with reactive blocks despite being over 60T already.

For greater complexity and higher prices, K2 should be a much better tank than 99A. I think K2 will dominate against NK's obsolete tanks and is ideal for SK. 99A is suitable for PLA since they cannot afford expensive tanks because those army funds are much better used on gunships if we need something that can do many tank jobs. PLA also has huge range of assets many armies don't have in significant enough numbers and immediate availability everywhere they need to fight e.g. selections of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, artillery, rockets, UAVs, gunships, small arms, armoured vehicles that have large caliber guns, tracks, cargo plane dropped vehicles, tunnels around the country, all in far superior supply. Army funding is also lowest priority. No need for super tanks just effective enough ones.

 

[antiterror13]

Perhaps the price diff between K2 and Type 99 due to many factors ..... like
* Like everything else, in China is Cheaper than in SK
* Cost of Type 99 doesn't include development cost, while K2 cost I assume include Development cost
* Type 99 is produced in much higher number than K2 ... like 10x more currently, so logically would be cheaper
* etc

 

[MwRYum]

If I remember correctly, Korean Peninsula is not what'd be considered as tank country, though the 1-click deep 38-parallel no man's land would be ideal tank environment if not for it was so heavily mined. Typically speaking, the K2 - if not also the K1 - will have no problem eating up N.Korea's obsolete tank corps if it comes down to the pitch fight.

Then what about against Type 99? The K2 employs quite a lot of modern, if not also proven, tech and components, meanwhile Type 99 has yet proven itself in real combat. Now, the most likely scenario for Type 99 to come out and play would be if the S.Korea thrust made it all the way to Yalu River and even going to cross it. And there're quite a lot of tank-friendly terrain for proper tank combat.

However, even if Type 99 is inferior compare with K2 / K1 / M1A2SEP, China will operate their tanks in combination with other elements (ATGM launcher vehicles, attack helo, close air support, indirect artillery fire). Days of pure tank vs tank is pretty much gone now.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The terrain is part of the reason why the K2 is built the way it is and features a active suspension system. A feature common with the Japanese Type 10 tank for the same reason.
Both the K2 and Type 99 use autoloaders. The K2s loader is bustle mounted, that is to say that like the Abrams the turret is in two compartments with the rear of the turret the bustle storing ready ammo. But like the Lecerc and Japanese Tanks the Bustle has a loading arm that mechanically moves ammo from a 16 shot ready magazine to the breach reducing the crew size of the K2 to 3. An additional 24 rounds stowed in the hull. As stated by others the main gun is a L55 120mm smooth bore.
Ammo choices are Sabot multi role Heat and top attack guided missile. K2 secondary armament is a 12.7mm Mg for the commander and a 7.62x51mm coax.

Type 99 uses a carusel loader that is to say that the under the turret crew compartment is the magazine with about 22 rounds in the autoloader. Around 20 more rounds of Additional Ammo is likely stored somewhere in the tank turret. Round options are Sabot, Heat, Fragmentation and Guided missile. Main gun is a 50 calibers 125mm smooth bore. ZTZ99 series secondary weapons on the face of them are equal to the K2 but actually pack a bit more power as the commanders 12.7mm is of the Russian 12.7x108mm chambering vs the NATO 12.7x99 Browning and the 7.62x54R coax vs the 7.62x51mm NATO.

Both tanks are said to have some form of APS hard kill in the works.

Both South Korea and the PRC train to use there armor in concert with attack aircraft and other infantry formations and vehicles, including ATGM and artillery. Just the other day The South Korean government announced that they aimed to get more AH64E Apache Guardian attack Choppers as opppoed to another order of K2 tanks.

 

[ougoah]

Perhaps the price diff between K2 and Type 99 due to many factors ..... like
* Like everything else, in China is Cheaper than in SK
* Cost of Type 99 doesn't include development cost, while K2 cost I assume include Development cost
* Type 99 is produced in much higher number than K2 ... like 10x more currently, so logically would be cheaper
* etc

While it is generally true that Chinese labour costs are lower than SK. This however does not mean everything made in China will be cheaper ceteris paribus, particularly if the Chinese industry in a certain field is developing and components fabricated have much higher failure rates than ones manufactured outside of China. People make bad errors in assumptions all the time. Although a MBT no matter how sophisticated is elementary technology and very easy to design. The only real challenge is in manufacturing and ensuring quality standards while controlling costs. Like all engineering problems, it is a matter of finances and not of technology since the technology is very basic stuff. Chinese car manufacturers can build a Bugatti Veyron equivalent if they wanted to but no one is going to buy a $1M Chinese supercar. Point is capability and actuality are two very different things.

Point 2 is pure assumption and completely valueless here. It could also be the other way around. My pricing figures are estimates based off wikipedia so take them with a huge grain of salt. Seeing as it's the only source available, it's the only thing to work with therefore it's there. Based off sales data, the wiki prices can't be far off reality.

Scale is a huge factor but it is also a quality we must consider. Due to huge scale of 99A, it is cheaper to purchase. On a 1 vs 1 basis with cost not being a factor of consideration, I think comparing K2 with Type 99A results in clear K2 victory. But the thing is price IS a huge factor. In fact price is THE most important factor when comparing 2 working tanks of same generation.

 

[ougoah]

PLA has gone with the smarter choice of not ordering $8M USD tanks that will get knocked out in their hundreds by artillery, airstrikes, gunships, drones, and infantry. They've decided to invest that money in drones and gunships that don't need to worry about terrain. Following the tried and true US military method of air superiority and attacking from air being King. However the question is about K2 vs Type 99 so in that comparison, we can't consider other elements (although I made several mentions), and in this regard K2 is no doubt quite superior to 99A given what we're aware of and what is reasonable to assume. I'm sure Type 10 is also superior owing to better firepower, mobility, and technology. But that's not a good comparison since Type 10 is around 48T and 99A is about 10T heavier.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I wouldn't count my savings before checking with my accountant.
The price point of the ZTZ99A2 is on the either, but the original ZTZ99 was said to be about $2.5million and the VT4 export version of the tank family is $4 million. Now way I figure it the ZTZ99 is probably the most obsolete of the family, with the worst protection VT4 being the so called monkey model probably being analogus in electronics no but with better protection the the original type 98/99 and making out closest price point to the original. Basically what I am trying to say is no matter what is in the type 99A or A2 it cannot cost less then The $4million of the VT4. As that is the base line technologies.

Abrams M1A2 and K2 adjusted for inflation based on old prices are about $8-9million. And those are considered more or less top of the line. Same for the Japanese Type 10 which has a similar price.
Which makes me think an A2 version should be more like 5-7million with better armor and electronics vsvthe VT4. in the grand scheme of things would shave the savings. Going from a 2 to 1 to 1.5 to 1 price point. It's not a bad price point for a tank but not the super savings some would claim.

 

[plawolf]

Its a little pointless to just look at paper specs without considering the likely operational environment.

There is simply no way in hell SK forces would push across the Yalu into Chinese territory in any war scenario.

That would be like Pearl Habour and Barbarossa had a secret love child who has the worst attributes of both parents, which will only guarantee Chinese entry into the war with unshakable resolve and achieve none of the surprise element to allow the Koreans to do any meaningful, disproportionate damage to PLA forces before China entered the war.

So, in the extremely unlikely scenario that Type99As and K2s would meet in battle, it would be in Korea.

I’m not familiar with the specific geography of Korea, but the general consensus is that it is very mountainous, with few main roads suitable for heavy armour flanked by mountains on both sides.

That takes a lot of the manoeuvring options off the table, so more than anywhere else, a contest between those tanks are likely to come down to head-on brute force, with little scope and opportunity for flanking moves to get at side or rear armour.

So, in this regard, you have the 99As superior frontal armour against the potentially better optics and fire control on the K2. Although again, terrain may limit effective engagement ranges.

Although to be honest, I don’t really see the outcome being dependent on who has the better tanks in such engagements. Far more likely that any tank engagement will be decided well before the tanks get within range of each other by who can gain and maintain air superiority and get their artillery in play more effectively.

A line of MBTs boxed in by terrain is just fish in a barrow for strike aircraft and massed artillery.

So most likely the winning side will just roll up to a enemy tank graveyard with only some light mopping up needed by the tanks themselves.

A more interesting scenario might be how the new PLA light tanks might be employed in a Korea scenario.

The light tanks could potentially allow the PLA to replicate their highly effective flanking tactics from the first Korean War to bypass well prepared enemy defensive formations and hit at their supply lines and artillery support in the flanks and rear.

The heavy 99As would hold/withdraw and not engage, locking the K2s in place. If the K2s turn to engage the light tanks hitting their rear, the 99As charge in to hit them in their backs.

If they try to press the 99As into combat, the 99As could just pull back to deny them the engagement while pulling them further from their own support forces and potentially into the waiting killing ground of PLA artillery, assume its a stalemate in the air.

 

[Jiang ZeminFanboy]

PLA has gone with the smarter choice of not ordering $8M USD tanks that will get knocked out in their hundreds by artillery, airstrikes, gunships, drones, and infantry. They've decided to invest that money in drones and gunships that don't need to worry about terrain. Following the tried and true US military method of air superiority and attacking from air being King. However the question is about K2 vs Type 99 so in that comparison, we can't consider other elements (although I made several mentions), and in this regard K2 is no doubt quite superior to 99A given what we're aware of and what is reasonable to assume. I'm sure Type 10 is also superior owing to better firepower, mobility, and technology. But that's not a good comparison since Type 10 is around 48T and 99A is about 10T heavier.

I think you are unaware of the specs that type 99A posses, which some has been given at the classified presentation and translated here at the sdf, Type 10 is considered by the author as a garbage. Idk where you got 3m$ by a tank, it could cost even 6m$ or more.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I’m not familiar with the specific geography of Korea, but the general consensus is that it is very mountainous, with few main roads suitable for heavy armour flanked by mountains on both sides.

the terrain of The Korea's has hosted Tank warfswa before and the decades since the end of the Korean war likely make it even more practical today as even North Korea has partially extended a road system.

So, in this regard, you have the 99As superior frontal armour against the potentially better optics and fire control on the K2. Although again, terrain may limit effective engagement ranges.

potentially superior frontal armor.
Both tanks are designed with ERA packages.

I think you are unaware of the specs that type 99A posses, which some has been given at the classified presentation and translated here at the sdf, Type 10 is considered by the author as a garbage. Idk where you got 3m$ by a tank, it could cost even 6m$ or more.

back in the early days of the Type 99 there was a price point estimate for there cost at $2.1million dollars. But that was back almost 2 decades ago, back then Abrams was 5-6 million a unit. Inflation has not been adjusted creating a flawed argument. I mean if you give the Price for M1A2 from back ataintroduction in to service it was $2.7million but that was almost 30 years back.
Also that was the early batch units with poorer armor, automotives and systems. So that translation is deeply flawed by the improvement of the tank series in armor, weapon, optics, power be pack and automotives as well as electronics. Which is why VT4 with a listed 4million seems the better point of start as although "knocked down" it gives us the very low end.
As to the Type 10, that assessment was based on very early units and preproduction units. As such by now many if not all of those early issues have likely been resolved.