New Type98/99 MBT thread

[zraver]

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.

Cut the crap, the physics is aplied vs the amount of energy deleivered and the ability to sustain that deleivery. The energy avaiable is mass x velocity= Thats a hard number that will not change no matter what you do. ballsitics is a very old science

Modern rounds are desinged to deleiver as much of this energy as possible on to the smallest possible area as fast as possible for as long as possible. One reason the US uses DU is that it is denser than tungesten allowing more transferance of energy at impact and beucase it self sharpens allowing it to resist the armor longer. It is backed up by signifigant mass behind the tip that drives it forward. Even if the Chinese round achieves the exact same performanc eon imapct as the M829A3, it still is lighter (less energy to deleiver) and has less mass to drive the tip forward (less ability to deleiver energy)

The 125mm gun was not limited by Russian technical skill. They chose it for it's ability to defeat then current NATO tanks. The guns limitations in power come via the 2 peace ammunition not the gun itself. The newest Russian 2A46M-5 has access to the same scientific base as the Chinese and decades more research. I already discussed the 3 breakthroughs the Chinese must have to reach their claims and frankly it is not possible. Tank cannon need years of deveopment and the Chinese are claiming to ahve surpasse devery other power on the planet in only 9 years starting from an inferior gun and propellant/round design.

Instead of cliams how about some real number? They claim 30% more muzzel enrgy by ttheir published round performace does not back this up. They claim thier SRP can do double it's leangth in penetration, yet thier round design is a normal spool type APFSDS.

You can claim you have wings all you want but, I will still never see you flying past my window. I don't beleive in magic and niether should you.,

 

[oringo]

Cut the crap, the physics is aplied vs the amount of energy deleivered and the ability to sustain that deleivery. The energy avaiable is mass x velocity= Thats a hard number that will not change no matter what you do. ballsitics is a very old science

Old and middle-school science it is. Perhaps I shall refer you to the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

?

 

[eecsmaster]

Cut the crap? Have you even takening elementary physics classes? Kinetic energy delivered is 0.5*m*v^2. The 30% gain in muzzle energy is in comparison to the old 2A46. Mind you, I never said you're dead wrong, but that you're a bit too...singled minded in your selection of reasons.

By the way, you should do some crap cutting yourself, like say, learn to spell "two piece" munition. (some Newtonian physics would be nice too)

 

[zraver]

Cut the crap? Have you even takening elementary physics classes? Kinetic energy delivered is 0.5*m*v^2.

ohh no, I got the formula wrong, burn me at the stake. Care to join me on the wood pile? becuase you got it wrong too. When dealing with armor it is potential kinetic energy. You have to worry about deformation of the round, deflection and other hazrads that will strip away energy.

I may have gotten the formual wrong but at least I am uisng math instead of taking claims at face value.

The fact remains that there is an absolute number that you cannot go past. The best you can do is work on getting as much of this possible energy onto the target.


The US M829A3 claims the ability to defeat any armor found on any tank at any angle at 2000m. It is backed by years of combat, even more years of general use of the gun system and it's quircks, the US's massive R&D establishment and computing power, and tests agaisnt current (if not brand new) Russian equipment.

The Chinese are claiming that in only 9 years they have surpassed every other nation in the world in chemistry (propellant), metallurgy (alloys, breach, barrel, round), engineering (autoloading hoist system, recoil system, round design, barrel design, breach design etc) and did it all with a gun class that is obviously at the end of it's lifespan

Ohh and if chinese metaluugical skills are so good why cant they make a truly world class aircraft engine?

China

E=1/2m x v with a 7 kg round @ 1780m/s /450437= 24.61920313 penetrating 900mm of RHAe claimed

US M829A3

10kg round @ 1555m/s ( low source) 26.84087897
800mm RHAe admitted

10kg round @ 1700m/s (high source) 32.07995791

German DM53

8.9kg @ 1760m/s 30.60210418
800mm RHAe low est

Now the math says the gun is not the most powerful in the world, it can't be, it never will be.

The 30% gain in muzzle energy is in comparison to the old 2A46.

but first you said

Russians chose 125mm because of their material science limitations back in the 70's. For them, these limitations exist even today

So which is it? Either the 2A46M-5 is still as inferior as the 2A46M-1 when it comes to muzzel energy or it isn't. China had copies of both platforms.

Chinese claims are bogus, there is no way to achieve the performace they are claiming. Why are people so willing to beleive such wild claims?

 

[eecsmaster]

I see no contradiction to what I have said. Neither have I ever claimed that the Chinese gun/round combination is the most potent in the world. To be frank, I don't even care. What I pointed out are your blatant mistakes in light of your supposed superior position.

 

[zraver]

The Chinese are making that claim and what ever math is used, the 125mm fails.

 

[RedMercury]

Your claims are just as wild and jingoistic BS until you cite your sources, cite where you got your formula (actually, formulas, which seem mutually inconsistent at this point, is it mass * velocity * length, or is it 1/2 * m * v / 450437, or is it energy? which is E=0.5*m*v^2. And what's potential kinetic energy? Seesh), and present it all with standard physics notation with units. It looks like these numbers and formuals are just pulled out of the air, multiplied together, divided by constants that are not explained, and then stamped with a X mm RHA behind it without any explanation. If these formulas are from some reputable source, cite it. Otherwise I do not believe you are credible. In anycase, it seems like you're just throwing around numbers to seem credible when you've just copied them from somewhere without actually understanding what the physics behind it means.

Does it give you pleasure to come on a Chinese military forum and claim Chinese tanks suck and try to justify it with bogus math? Does it stroke your ego to masturbate all over this place with "oh my country's tank is better than your country's tank because my rods are longer"? Actually, why don't you take it to one of those dedicated tank discussion forums where people go nuts over penetration estimates, I'm sure you'll love it there. Waste of my time.:coffee:

 

[challenge]

i recheck the booklet" ZTZ-98" published in July,2002,by Inner mongolia Pulbihsing house.
the Gun designed as ZPT-98,it uses PCrNi3NOV to produced the gun tube, life span 700 round.muzzle energy is 45% higher and 25% more accurate than Rapira-3 or 2A46M-1.
while type-96 uses clone copy of rapira-3.

 

[challenge]

The Chinese are making that claim and what ever math is used, the 125mm fails.

according Miltech,sample of iraqi and east german T-72 obtain or capture by the US army for technical examination,there conclusion is that gun has potential for growth, the main problem was low quality of propellant.

 

[zraver]

RedMecury, I said i preffere dthe ZTZ-99 over any T-series tank. The only thing I dont like about it is the gun and I gave my reasons and my numbers. I have yet to see you or anyone else provide numbers that show a short rod penetrator will outperform a Long Rod Penetrator.

The American M829A3 has proven performance and I have my own experiance to fall back on. I am a tanker with real world experiacne not some highschool kid.

So how about, put up some hard numbers that explains how a 7-8kg projectile maxing out at around 600mm inleangth going 1780m/s can deleiver more energy than the US M829A3 which weighs 10kg is 830mm long and goes 1555 (published) m/s.

I already laid out the reaosn why I doubt the Chinese claims.

Challenger, if the muzzel energy was so much higer i would expect to see vastly increased muzzel vleocities, and there isn't. Chinese claims are in the same ball park as Russian figures. the 2A46's problems were never propellant per se they still had rounds exceeding 1700m/s, but it's use of 2 peace ammuntion that limited the leangth of the penetrator and ring style bore riding sabots.