They sacrifice the fourth crew member for extra armor. 58 tons for a 3 man tank is extremely heavy.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
They sacrifice the fourth crew member for extra armor. 58 tons for a 3 man tank is extremely heavy.
The PLA tank doctrine is primarily defensive/anti tank. They’re either expecting waves of T72s from India or waves of Abrams from Korea.
They need a strong gun to knock out any incoming tank in 1 blow and they need heavy armor to withstand any counterattacks and equalize numbers disadvantage.
In a war situation, PLA tanks can pick off charging enemy tanks while reversing and tanking hits with their front. Since they don’t expect to roll into a city, heavy side armor can be sacrificed. Since they expect to mostly fire at enemy armor only with high performance rounds, reload speed is less important.
That's completely wrong. PLA doctrine is defensive only in the strategic sense. Operationally and tactically, the PLA intends to go on the offensive as often as possible so operational momentum and initiative rests with the PLA instead of the enemy. I have never seen the PLA train their tanks to reverse while picking off targets. There are a few instances of training to hit targets while moving laterally and making erratic turns but the vast, vast majority involve a frontal combined-arms assault with MBTs leading the charge followed by IFVs and SP mortars with SPGs, MLRS, NLOS ATGMs, and SHORAD following some distance back. Joint training with attack helicopters are occasionally conducted but their frequency is increasing.
There is nothing unusual with PLA tank armour effectiveness. Better armour is a natural consequence of better engineers, better funding, and a better scientific and industrial ecosystem across the nation that come with an increase in national wealth. There is no other country on Earth with resources comparable to those available to China for armour development except the US. Owing to different strategic priorities, even the US lags behind China in terms of armoured vehicles developed in recent years.
There's also nothing unusual with the lack of armoured side-skirts; they're cumbersome and annoying and are more harm than good in the fast-paced frontal assaults the PLA expects to conduct. A heavy emphasis on driving as fast as possible forward, not backward, is the cause of the PLA's disdain for side-skirts.
All the above are simple explanations for PLA tanks' armour configuration and why China's newest MBTs have extremely competitive armour effectiveness if the interview in question is credible; there's no need to weave together a strange narrative of esoteric doctrines to explain a completely natural progression in armour development.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Yes the upper part.
That is the portion of movement with the most freedom where as below the turret hits the hull.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
And this is the first time we heard an over exaggerated claim ? If the Type 99A follows the rules of physics. Then its level of protection will have to be inline with all other MBTs that uses composite armor. Even the M1A2 Sep that clocks in at 68 tons (latest variant) is estimated to be just shy of 1000mm (940mm). And that is coming from a tank that weights 10 tons more than the 99A. Even if we factor in the extra space and weight required for the loader, that is still at least 5 tons weight that can be dedicated purely to armor (unless the loader happens to weight over a ton).
Last edited by a moderator:
Consider that M1A2 has 68 tons for 4 people and T99A has 58 to protect 3. That’s more weight/person for the 99A, which also benefits from advanced reactive armor.
Concerning the protection values of the Type 99A: The following image is supposed to show a presentation dealing with the Type-99A. According to the information the turret cheeks seem to offer 7** mm RHAe against KE threats and 1*** mm RHAe against CE threats:
If this is truly what it is then the turret cheek protection is roughly 700-799 mm RHAe against KE threats from the front. CE protection is somewhere between 1000-1999 mm RHAe.
For comparion:
M1A1 HA and M1A2 (not SEP) seem to offer similar KE protection values for the turret cheeks in the frontal 60 degree arc (600 mm RHAe) which translates to about 675-740 mm directly from the front.
The Leopard 2A5S offered about 820-860 mm RHAe against KE threats and up to around 1720 mm RHAe against CE threats.
If this is truly what it is then the turret cheek protection is roughly 700-799 mm RHAe against KE threats from the front. CE protection is somewhere between 1000-1999 mm RHAe.
For comparion:
M1A1 HA and M1A2 (not SEP) seem to offer similar KE protection values for the turret cheeks in the frontal 60 degree arc (600 mm RHAe) which translates to about 675-740 mm directly from the front.
The Leopard 2A5S offered about 820-860 mm RHAe against KE threats and up to around 1720 mm RHAe against CE threats.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
The M1As can also be fitted with reactive armor, so that advantage is not exclusively reserved for the 99A . Moreover just as the 99A is much heavier for a 3 man tank, the Abrahams is also abnormally heavy for a 4 man tank. Other compartive tanks of the area like the K1 and Leclerc are actually lighter than the 99A.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Both are 3 man crew tanks.
Well perhaps "Abrahams" but Abrams is not the weight of a Merkava IV tank is listed as 71 tons. Challenger II is 68 tons. So M1A2 SEP 2 is not "Abnormally Heavy"
And in the case of the Merkava Metrics and Abrams those should be before tha addition of Trophy which adds about .5-1.5 tons.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Not so the K1, the K1 series specifically has 4 crew members. What you are referring to is most probably the K2
Another would be the Italian Ariete, which has 4 crew members and weights in at 54 Tons
[