New Type98/99 MBT thread

[challenge]

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.

US army field test of capture iraqi T-72 tank,claim Rapira-3 has muzzle energy of 9 mega joules, limiting her effective range to just 1900 meter,while muzzle energy for NATO 120/45 gun is 11 megajoules.L-55 is 14 (?) mega joules.
No wonder M-1 120mm out shot out range the T-72 tank.

 

[zraver]

source?

The big drain on the guns energy is not propellant but round desing. The Rusisans themselves were rating penetration at 2000m

USSR has pioneered the use of APFSDS ammunition with the introduction of T-62 medium tank. With their extremely high speed and long direct-fire range these rounds could be effectively used at substantial range in spite of the antiquated fire control of T-62. Opposite to the popular belief, it was not however a prefered anti-tank round until end of 70s, with HEAT being considered more versatile, accurate, and powerful.

The principal difference of Soviet APFSDS rounds from the Western ones is that the former use bore-riding fins and the sabot has only one point of contact with the barrel, while the latter use spool shaped sabots that touch the barrel in two points and therefore can afford to have subcaliber fins. At first glance there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. In Soviet model, the sabot can be made much lighter and therefore the loss of gunpowder energy on acceleration of parasitic mass is smaller. On the other hand, large bore-riding fins produce a high ballistic drag causing severe decceleration of the projectile in flight and affecting stability. The developments of the last decades have shown that the Western approach seems to be more sound. Newest 125mm rounds have moved away from bore-riding fins, and there are many foreign variants of 125mm APFSDS rounds utilizing spool-shaped sabots.

Layout

APFSDS round line drawing Soviet 125mm APFSDS rounds have the following layout (the round assembly depicted is 3BM-16/3BM-18): in the front of the projectile is a ballistic cap (1) which covers the flat nose of a penetrator body (2); there is a ring-shaped three-part discarding sabot (3) with a driving band (4); stability in flight is provided by means of 5 bore-riding fins (6), that are equipped with ballbearings (7) for centering in the barrel. The round is assembled with the incremental charge (5).

In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52) is used; APFSDS rounds have an initial velocity between 1700 and 1800 m/s, and velocity loss of 80-150 m/s/km depending on the model.

The separated sabot petals possess significant kinetic energy and are considered a safety hazard out to 1000m and 2° to each side of the gun.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The institute carried out highly important studies into combustion processes in combustible cases and quick-flow processes inside the powder chamber, which provided the basis for the development of methods for preventimg anomalous phenomena during firing a weapon.
As tactical and technical requirements became more stringent, the institute worked to enhance the operational reliability and the technological and technical parameters of charges for both standard and uprated D-81 tank gun rounds installed in contemporary Russian tank types T-64, T-72 and T-80:

* Charge ind. 4Zh52 using fully corned powder instead of charge ind. 4ZH40 consisting of a combination of tubular and corned powders;
* Charge 4Zh63 using high-energy powders to replace charge 4ZH40, which allowed the muzzle energy of a solid-core armour piercing projectile to be increased by more than 5 percent compared to the preceding type. This charge also retained its properties of complete combustion, reliable function under all operating conditions and other essential qualities.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Red not Dead]

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)

You fail. The Assad Babil was not Polish made it was assembled in Iraq from Commbloc kits, polish tanks were never sold to Iraq, m84's yes but no polish tanks! And about your flamboyant style, funny around the mildef forums your arguments were cycled by a lot of people. And when you speak of risk in a T-tank well the M designs are just as flawed.

 

[Inst]

ZRaver: The only real application of Chinese tank-power would be in southern Siberia, where Chinese colonists are flooding out the native Russians. While force is rarely a wise nation-state's first choice to resolve a problem, having the ability to give the CIS army a bloody nose improves your bargaining position with regard to the Siberian problem. And the Type 96 and Type 98 fleets coming into service seem to be capable of handing the job decently, as, if it's as you claim, the Russian tanks lack the proper frontal armor to keep resist getting KO-ed by DU rounds, even when lacking in KE and fired from a Chinese knock-off.

Beyond this, Chinese tanks are just research toys; one wants nothing else beyond the development of state-of-the-art equipment. There's no other combat terrain which is amenable to tank combat; Korea is too mountainous, Vietnam is no longer capable of hostilities, and the jungle terrain was never friendly to tanks anyways, in Xinjiang, one does not expect to fight other tanks, and the open terrain will help you out against man-launched ATGMs, in Tibet, the land is too hilly and the altitude is too high, in Taiwan, you have hilly country with many cities.

 

[RedMercury]

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.

>> 1780^2*0.5*7.5

ans =

11881500

>> 1780^2*0.5*8

ans =

12673600

>> 1555^2*0.5*10

ans =

12090125


The above numbers should be Joules

 

[zraver]

You fail. The Assad Babil was not Polish made it was assembled in Iraq from Commbloc kits, polish tanks were never sold to Iraq, m84's yes but no polish tanks! And about your flamboyant style, funny around the mildef forums your arguments were cycled by a lot of people. And when you speak of risk in a T-tank well the M designs are just as flawed.

I don't agree with the bulk of the article but........

TANKS OF THE IRAQI ARMY

There are/were about 2500 (twenty-five hundred) tanks in the arsenal of the Iraqy army. T-72s are the most modern. The first 100 (hundred) machines of Soviet production were obtained by Iraq in 1979-80. These were the tanks, which were the export versions of T-72 "Ural-1" with the optical sight-range-finder TPD-2-49. They differed from the Soviet Army machines mainly in terms of the construction of the armor protection in the frontal part of the turret, and also in terms of the anti-atomic defense system and the ammunition assembly. These tanks participated in the initial stage of the Iran-Iraq war. Being against Iraq's intrusion into Iran, Soviet management, in 1980, temporarily stopped supplying Baghdad with weapons. But this didn't stop others from supplying Iraq -- the USSR was replaced by the countries in the Warsaw Pact. In January of 1982, Poland sent 250 (two hundred and fifty) T-72M tanks to Iraq. In September of the same year, Soviet Union removed the embargo on weapons sale to Saddam Hussein's regime and began to sell the armament again. In all the years of war, Iraq obtained 1100 (eleven hundred) of T -72 tanks, mainly of Polish production. According to some sources, there were only 60 (sixty) tanks lost in battles with Iran. Moreover, several T -72s that Iranians obtained as a result, were in working order.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(it's a gaming site but written by a Russian Author.


How are the M tanks jsut as bad? Do they have flaws? of course they do, they guzzel fuel, are maintence intensive, and expensive. But those are the trade offs for unsurpassed combat power.

Inst,

I don't disagree with you, Like I said earlier I prefer the ZTZ-99 over the other T series and T type platforms. The only thing I don't like about it is the gun.

 

[RedMercury]

from Xinhui at cdf.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If the soldier is about 1.5m tall, then the length is maximum around 560 mm.

 

[zraver]

from Xinhui at cdf.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If the soldier is about 1.5m tall, then the length is maximum around 560 mm.

ie using a copy of the improved autoloader on the T-80U+ for the 2A46M-5 guns and exactly what I said, 560-600mm max penetrator leangth.

RedMecury i got the same numbers (the M829A3's velocity is understanted btw) and that is total possible energy. The longer penetrator allows a more complete/eficent deleivery of that energy.

 

[Red not Dead]

I don't agree with the bulk of the article but........

TANKS OF THE IRAQI ARMY

There are/were about 2500 (twenty-five hundred) tanks in the arsenal of the Iraqy army. T-72s are the most modern. The first 100 (hundred) machines of Soviet production were obtained by Iraq in 1979-80. These were the tanks, which were the export versions of T-72 "Ural-1" with the optical sight-range-finder TPD-2-49. They differed from the Soviet Army machines mainly in terms of the construction of the armor protection in the frontal part of the turret, and also in terms of the anti-atomic defense system and the ammunition assembly. These tanks participated in the initial stage of the Iran-Iraq war. Being against Iraq's intrusion into Iran, Soviet management, in 1980, temporarily stopped supplying Baghdad with weapons. But this didn't stop others from supplying Iraq -- the USSR was replaced by the countries in the Warsaw Pact. In January of 1982, Poland sent 250 (two hundred and fifty) T-72M tanks to Iraq. In September of the same year, Soviet Union removed the embargo on weapons sale to Saddam Hussein's regime and began to sell the armament again. In all the years of war, Iraq obtained 1100 (eleven hundred) of T -72 tanks, mainly of Polish production. According to some sources, there were only 60 (sixty) tanks lost in battles with Iran. Moreover, several T -72s that Iranians obtained as a result, were in working order.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(it's a gaming site but written by a Russian Author.


How are the M tanks jsut as bad? Do they have flaws? of course they do, they guzzel fuel, are maintence intensive, and expensive. But those are the trade offs for unsurpassed combat power.

Inst,

I don't disagree with you, Like I said earlier I prefer the ZTZ-99 over the other T series and T type platforms. The only thing I don't like about it is the gun.

Wow and I get DC as final proof? Wait a minute? T-72M? Just look no one except the USSR and Yugoslavia had the full licence of production. Under the Comecon the USSR had distributed the industrial roles in such way that not a single WarPact country could build it's own materiel without importing something else from it's neighbour.
So polish tanks my ASS!

Furthermore, Design flaws include exposed Ammo, exposed APU, Huge Butt and frequent boresighting. If you're a tanker you should know that.

 

[zraver]

{quote]Furthermore, Design flaws include exposed Ammo, exposed APU, Huge Butt and frequent boresighting. If you're a tanker you should know that.[/quote]

Huh? Western MBT's do not use exposed ammo that is a T series flaw. Exposed or unexsoed apu doenst really matter since it is auxullary and not a critcal piece of combat ger, Huge butt? please explain As for boresignting western MBT's use a bore sight indicater meaning they do not have boresight as frequently as most T-series tanks.

As for the Poles, you need to do some more research, during the time of the USSR, 2 countires had licence build rights Poland and Chezklovakia. Yugoslavia built a copy called the M-84.

Polish tansk had slightly downgraded armor lacking the resin filled space armor gaps, but were generally of much higher quality in things like machining and optics becuase of a more skilled and dedicated technical base.