New Type98/99 MBT thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Well if we compare that to the 550 km for diesel engine tanks, it will certainly seem lacking. Plus the fact that the Abrahams don't (or can't due to the hot exhaust generated by the turbine engine) mount add on fuel tanks only constrain that range further.

most Euro tanks dont bother either. It (Abrams) could mount then it's just a pain in the arse. Still 426 may be 125km short (I have also seen listed as 450km) but if you have the logistics that doesn't matter as much. As that is simply the maximum recommended range between refueling. Armies using tanks know better then to run until empty. And as I just pointed out this is based on a lot of guesses. Reality is that 550km is optimum performance across a smooth road.

 

[gelgoog]

426 km is hardly abysmal.

People get funny ideas about has turbine engines. Like the other claim about weight the AGT1500 is 1134kg. The MTU 883 Europower pack it's equal and conventional type is 2400kg Ukraine claims there 6UTD-3 is 1210kg and that's a brand new design.Viktor Jav is right on this.
One of the reasons why Abrams was designed around the has turbine was power to weight same reason the Russians chose one for T80.
That turbine may have it's sins but it's power output vs weight is impressive.

The problem with turbine engines vs diesel engines is that they are much more inefficient when the engine is not operating at its designed rpm. Also since they use more fuel, partly because of this, you have to consider the weight of the fuel as well not just the engine's. Not to mention that MTU has its 890 series engines as well as used in the South Korean K2.
It is less bad ever since they added an APU to the M1 in one of the more recent upgrades. But the performance used to be pretty terrible if you wanted to have the combat systems enabled in a stationary position before that.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

inefficient when the engine is not operating at its designed rpm

This affects both types.

Also since they use more fuel

you have to consider the weight of the fuel as well not just the engine's

Again effects both types. A heavier vehicle needs more power no matter if it's moving fuel or armor.

Not to mention that MTU has its 890 series engines as well as used in the South Korean K2.

The MTU 890 is not in the K2 the K2 used the MTU 883 and that was an interim thing as South Korea wants a indigenous power pack for it to export. MTU 890 is for IFV, and APCs. Its used in the german Puma. MTU 883 was designed for tanks. Interestingly K2 are supposed to have a Gas turbine APU

First. Turbo charged diesels give up a lot of there fuel efficiency for power. This means that gas turbines are actually closer to them in fuel consumption especially more modern ones. As tech improved so does efficiency. The ATG1500 looses out vs modern Turbo Diesel piston engines because it's now forty years old. As I pointed to earlier a brand new Ukranian tank engine is only a hundred or so Kg heavier then the ATG1500, the LV100-5 was said to be something like 20-50% more fuel efficient but it bit the dust with the Cruisader. The same can be seen in T80 vs M1 Abrams. You compare T80s fuel consumption vs Abrams. and Abrams looks good. If they made a new GT engine for Abrams today I would lay down money on it having almost identical fuel economy to a top of the line turbo diesel.

Second nearer term an APU helps as it means not having to run the turbine in watch. Abrams have had APU before the main issue was it was external mounted on the rear of the tank and had a habit of falling off.
The SEP replaced it with a Battery pack internally but that would only last for so long. So yes they added an APU.

Third despite the sins of the GT there are also it's gracing points. Lighter weight, Forty years on and the Diesel makers have yet to make a engine with the same weight and power.
Excellent power and torque at low speed with still very good performance at high something that might only be matched by a electric drive. Multi fuel without modification, Vodka, moonshine, diesel, Jet fuel, gasoline it will run on it. Starts far easier in extreme cold no warm up. Far less complexity in maintenance something like 80% fewer parts with a long life span now the price of upkeep is on the rise mostly because of age and lack of new builds.
Scary quiet for a tank I dare say the only potential for a quieter tank would be a Hybrid Diesel electric drive.

Now all that Off topic raises a question does the ZTZ99A have a APU? I mean plenty of turbo diesel engine tanks have APUs.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

most Euro tanks dont bother either. It (Abrams) could mount then it's just a pain in the arse. Still 426 may be 125km short (I have also seen listed as 450km) but if you have the logistics that doesn't matter as much. As that is simply the maximum recommended range between refueling. Armies using tanks know better then to run until empty. And as I just pointed out this is based on a lot of guesses. Reality is that 550km is optimum performance across a smooth road.

If that be the case then the 426km listed for the Abrahams must also be subjected to the same principles, as it being the optimum performance across a smooth road. And while we seldom see NATO tanks with them, fuel drums are a standard optional setup for all other NATO tanks .

 

[ougoah]

Turbine doesn't make it much heavier but I recall that it made it less fuel efficient? Compared to equal heavyweights like Leopard and Challenger, the Abrams does not quite have their range? Abysmal is actually the wrong word and if it doesn't add weight, it is indeed irrelevant to the discussion but adding weight generally does decrease range so back on the conversation, it is still wrong to talk about armour effectiveness by equating armour effectiveness to scaled total weight.

 

[Sunhead_from_Arya]

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:

View attachment 50436
View attachment 50435

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.

With all due respect. But it is not written here about which tank we are talking about, on any slide.
I was grateful if you posted a photo, which says what kind of machine in presentation.

In the Chinese media it was confirmed that the protection of the tank is more than 1000mm, from what I translated as "armor-piercing", unfortunately, because of the poor knowledge of Chinese, I could not find a word about HEAT or ATGM.
This images will posted earlier

 

[Sunhead_from_Arya]

With all due respect. But it is not written here about which tank we are talking about, on any slide.
I was grateful if you posted a photo, which says what kind of machine in presentation.

In the Chinese media it was confirmed that the protection of the tank is more than 1000mm, from what I translated as "armor-piercing", unfortunately, because of the poor knowledge of Chinese, I could not find a word about HEAT or ATGM.
This images will posted earlier

UPD: * photo WAS posted earlier in the thread. Sorry for my English, please

It is most likely that the information in the Chinese media, where appeared info about "more than 1000mm against AP", says not about the turret, but about the tank's glacis, which is really long and thick enough to have such a level of protection

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Turbine doesn't make it much heavier but I recall that it made it less fuel efficient? Compared to equal heavyweights like Leopard and Challenger, the Abrams does not quite have their range? Abysmal is actually the wrong word and if it doesn't add weight, it is indeed irrelevant to the discussion but adding weight generally does decrease range so back on the conversation, it is still wrong to talk about armour effectiveness by equating armour effectiveness to scaled total weight.

What are you trying to convey here ? In the previous posts you were talking about the engine, but now you are merely referring to weight in general. And if what you state in the latter part holds true, then it also applies to the 99A equally, as in just because it is the one of heaviest autoloading MBT in existence does not automatically mean that all that extra weight goes to armor protection.

 

[ougoah]

What are you trying to convey here ? In the previous posts you were talking about the engine, but now you are merely referring to weight in general. And if what you state in the latter part holds true, then it also applies to the 99A equally, as in just because it is the one of heaviest autoloading MBT in existence does not automatically mean that all that extra weight goes to armor protection.

What I mean is more weight means shorter range with every other factor being equal. Forget the engine talk. It was meant to hint at operational limitations that come with shorter ranges which can be a direct result of excessive weight or a fuel guzzling engine. You simply cannot say the Type 99A is likely to have such and such level of protection because it is 58 tonnes and M1A2 has this claimed level of protection at 68 tonnes. Yes not all that extra weight goes into armour. We don't really know the distribution at all. So let's not get any ideas. The only thing is claimed by that source is 99A has around 1000mm RHA in frontal arc. That isn't definite nor is it "debunkable" by scaling weights and known protection levels with completely different tanks.

There seems to be a diversion from the original conversation so let's bring it a few steps back. Forget about the turbine derailment and sorry to mention it. The claim as of now is 99A has 1000mm RHA and there is no way for you and I to say this is true or not.

 

[gelgoog]

1000mm RHA equivalent has to be for HEAT rounds and the like. There is no way that number is for KE weapons like APFSDS rounds.
I have heard rumours in the past that some Chinese tanks also have depleted uranium armor in them. That would make numbers like those possible.