Training should be aimed at confirming strategic thinking and result output from supercomputer simulations. "Learning" narrow AI must have been used by now to create optimised strategies with data inputs like equipment and numbers. It should all become a matter of refining simulation determined strategies and testing them out in reality. At least as accurately as possible. The rest of training should be about crew performance and familiarity with equipment operating and communication. Maybe psychological resistance. With modern supercomputers and narrow AI, whoever has the more accurate systems running, will be able to determine whether to commit or avoid a potential conflict.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
In all the images i’ve Seen so far, all versions of type 098/099 MBTs carries only a light, sheet metal side skirt. This may offer light protection against single stage HEAT rounds, but is unlikely to provide meanful additional protection against kinetic rounds or heavier ATGM rounds with staged HEAT warhead over the hull sides of the tank. There is also no evidence there is an alternate skirt for war use.
Most western AFV carries compound armor modules of substantial depth at least over portions of their side skirts. These modules likely afford substantial additional HEAT/ATGM and Kenetic protection. Latest versions of Russian T-90 and T-72 appears to carry thick protective plates that likely offer some additional kenetic protection.
Since No conceivable technological barrier prevents the Chinese from giving these tanks heavy side skirts, what consideration caused them to not give these tanks heavy protective skirts?
Most western AFV carries compound armor modules of substantial depth at least over portions of their side skirts. These modules likely afford substantial additional HEAT/ATGM and Kenetic protection. Latest versions of Russian T-90 and T-72 appears to carry thick protective plates that likely offer some additional kenetic protection.
Since No conceivable technological barrier prevents the Chinese from giving these tanks heavy side skirts, what consideration caused them to not give these tanks heavy protective skirts?
@Richard Santos
The skirts would accept ERA in an urban combat scenario. M1A2 uses a similar set up.
In general, a tank hit in the side by dedicated anti tank weapons is a dead tank. Even applying ERA wouldn’t change much.
The second reason is doctrinal. Type 99A was designed with repelling waves of M1A2s from Korea or T72s from India.
It’s design is heavily biased towards penetration power and front armor, so that it can shrug off a M829 to the face and then punch in the face of the offending enemy tank. It doesn’t need much reload speed, maneuverability or side armor to achieve that.
The skirts would accept ERA in an urban combat scenario. M1A2 uses a similar set up.
In general, a tank hit in the side by dedicated anti tank weapons is a dead tank. Even applying ERA wouldn’t change much.
The second reason is doctrinal. Type 99A was designed with repelling waves of M1A2s from Korea or T72s from India.
It’s design is heavily biased towards penetration power and front armor, so that it can shrug off a M829 to the face and then punch in the face of the offending enemy tank. It doesn’t need much reload speed, maneuverability or side armor to achieve that.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Side Skirts even in the most armored western tanks don't do much in the way of armor. Sure Abrams has some degree of a armored skirt but only for the first few the rest are just to cover the track system.
Add on ERA tiles came about as @Biscuits explained for urban and especially due to proliferation of ATGM and RPG system in Asymmetric warfare in Iraq.
But These add weight which is why you only see them on some tanks. For example the Isrealis Merkava 4, due to the influx of weapons to groups they have to deal with is loaded down with a lot of systems dedicated to protect against just that type of threat including last armor, era, Trophy APS even chains around the turret ring. (That's why what if you ever watch video of a Merkava moving it sounds like two large garbage trucks fighting over the same dumpster.)
The PRC Type 99 and type 96 don't seem to be configured for urban warfare but rather tank on tank so there is no need for them to sport it yet.
Add on ERA tiles came about as @Biscuits explained for urban and especially due to proliferation of ATGM and RPG system in Asymmetric warfare in Iraq.
But These add weight which is why you only see them on some tanks. For example the Isrealis Merkava 4, due to the influx of weapons to groups they have to deal with is loaded down with a lot of systems dedicated to protect against just that type of threat including last armor, era, Trophy APS even chains around the turret ring. (That's why what if you ever watch video of a Merkava moving it sounds like two large garbage trucks fighting over the same dumpster.)
The PRC Type 99 and type 96 don't seem to be configured for urban warfare but rather tank on tank so there is no need for them to sport it yet.
Like you said it is to defend against weapons like single stage HEAT rounds. Like an RPG-7. You can basically use a rubber side skirt. It is so cheap and effective against those widespread weapons that it would be foolish not to use it.
I think the major issue with the Type 099, well with T-72 models in general, is the carousel loader rounds are located in that part of the chassis. In modern T-72 variants the Russians have tried to mitigate the issue by reinforcing armor in that specific area and adding blowout panels to the tank.
But much like I said in this thread before. I think Chinese main battle tanks are just simply outdated. I even proposed the Chinese to buy Russian Omsk design bureau's Black Eagle tank design and modernize it. Then use that as their main battle tank. It would have bustle mounted ammunition, blow out panels, a larger turret which can possibly carry a larger gun in the future. Only thing I do not like about that tank design is the gas turbine engine. But it is based on the T-80 tank chassis and there are versions of it with diesel engines. The Chinese have a good high power 1500hp diesel power pack of their own production which they can use.
I think they need a new main battle tank design, a new gun, a more network centric distributed comms architecture, plus a CVT transmission in the tank.
Uh?? What?
The Type 99A and Russian T90MS or whatever come from entirely different schools of design and lineages
The gun on the 99A is an upsized version of the Type 89 tank destroyer 120mm, which in turn was based on the imported L7 105mm. In contrast, the 2A48 descends from the original T72 gun.
Armor philosophy and hull design is entirely different too. No T72 variant ever reached the weight and size of the Type 99A, neither did the black eagle design. The only common point is sharing 3 crew members, and even then the motivation is different.
Type 99A has it in order to fit more armor and because reload rate is not a huge concern compared to the ease of protecting 3 crew members vs 4. T90MS uses it so the tank can go faster/present smaller profile.
99A was designed with defensive war in mind, while the T72 variants excel in armored charges. They’re almost opposites in how they’re meant to be employed.
The Black Eagle too, is an offensive tank, which doesn’t fit the doctrine. At 48 tons, it is not nearly as well protected as the Type 99A, and would be just as old a design.
Unlike the Type 99A which has been kept relevant through the years with continuous updates, the Black Eagle would take heavy work to become PLA standard. And the final result would be an inferior tank, based on the T80U with it’s catastrophic performance. The Type 99A already has a large turret that can fit larger guns.
If China and Russia should make a joint tank project, it would be better to upsize the Armata, add the 99A’s gun, armor, APS and power plant to it.
Eh? The Royal Ordnance L7 105mm is a rifled gun. The Type 99 uses a 125mm smoothbore gun with a carousel autoloader similar to the T-72/T-80's.
AFAIK the only rifled 120mm gun used in a modern tank is the one in the British Challenger 2.
Ok, the Type 99 is heavier than the T-72 or its variants. But this is by design. It likely only means the tank has more armor bolted on to it.
It is not significantly that much larger.
I am not sure the turret is that large to accommodate a bigger gun. The turret ring does not seem to have a particularly high diameter. What the Type 99 does have is a lot of armor bolted on top of the turret. Especially in the Type 99A.
The T-80U had the gas turbine engine. It is noisy and spends a lot of fuel. But the Ukrainian T-80UD for example has a diesel engine. So does the Ukrainian T-84. The chassis are the same. The Chinese don't have that issue because they IIRC have some clone of a high power MTU diesel engine powerpack. So they can put their own 1200hp or 1500hp diesel engine. Same as the Type 99/A's. The other issue with the T-80 was the carousel autoloader but the Black Eagle supposedly was to use a different autoloader more similar to the K2's or Leclerc's.
My problem with the Armata is am still not convinced it will be effective in battle. I am sure it can be made to work, the crew is basically in a coffin, it depends on how good the electronics are. Will it be usable? You would probably need something like a VR helmet to be effective I think. Those have real implementation issues. Even in an airplane. Let alone in a tank.
I'll even you give an example. The German/US MBT-70 tank project. It was a total failure for several reasons. But the main one was motion sickness on the operators. Namely the pilot was put in the turret. In the Armata's case you have the gunner and commander in the chassis.
The turret of the Armata is also really weak in terms of armor protection so the gun can probably be disabled easily.
Last edited:
The Type 99A uses it’s own auto loader design, the hull dimensions are completely different.
ZPT-98 is derived from the 120mm on the Type 89, which was designed with input from the L7 and the German 120mm. China has never had access to a Russian 125mm gun. Relations only started to soften with the Putin regime.
The most powerful T80 variant (Oplot) lost to VT-4 in a competition, and the VT-4 is a monkey model of not even the Type 99A but the baseline Type 99.
Truth is, the protection level afforded by the Type 99A offers a major advantage over Russian designs that cannot be compensated by things such as mobility and small profile. The Type 99A enjoys the highest weight/crew ratio of any modern tank along with potent ERA on top of it.
Problem with the bustle storages is that the tank can be mission killed by a casual hit to the turret sides which are harder to protect than the bottom hull side where the 99A stores it’s ammo. Look up videos with the M1A1s destroyed by houthis and ISIS.
Ofc, the counter argument for this is to not present a side shot, but the turret side is also exposed when turning the turret, unlike the side which will only be exposed when flanking the tank.
In practice, when two modern militaries fight, most shots would be front to front.
The Armata turret is a big eh but at least it offers an interesting concept that doesn’t exist in the PLA. Generally, there isn’t much overlap, which is why I question any co design with Russia on tanks to begin with. The design philosophies and involved tech would be too different.
The coop tank would just have only Chinese tech on it, rendering it unnecessary in the first place. Russia could provide cost saving measures such as in the case of the al Khalid, but the tank would not be useful to the PLA.
Next gen tank would probably include more APS, maybe a laser CIWS, better ERA. Armor would be upgraded, but it’s no biggie because it can’t be penned by existing AP anyways. The top armor should have a big reinforce with the proliferation of HJ-12 top down attack equivalents.
If countries start upgunning their MBTs, China might benefit from enlargening the next gen tank to keep it’s invulnerable front status even in the face of 140mm sabots.
ZPT-98 is derived from the 120mm on the Type 89, which was designed with input from the L7 and the German 120mm. China has never had access to a Russian 125mm gun. Relations only started to soften with the Putin regime.
The most powerful T80 variant (Oplot) lost to VT-4 in a competition, and the VT-4 is a monkey model of not even the Type 99A but the baseline Type 99.
Truth is, the protection level afforded by the Type 99A offers a major advantage over Russian designs that cannot be compensated by things such as mobility and small profile. The Type 99A enjoys the highest weight/crew ratio of any modern tank along with potent ERA on top of it.
Problem with the bustle storages is that the tank can be mission killed by a casual hit to the turret sides which are harder to protect than the bottom hull side where the 99A stores it’s ammo. Look up videos with the M1A1s destroyed by houthis and ISIS.
Ofc, the counter argument for this is to not present a side shot, but the turret side is also exposed when turning the turret, unlike the side which will only be exposed when flanking the tank.
In practice, when two modern militaries fight, most shots would be front to front.
The Armata turret is a big eh but at least it offers an interesting concept that doesn’t exist in the PLA. Generally, there isn’t much overlap, which is why I question any co design with Russia on tanks to begin with. The design philosophies and involved tech would be too different.
The coop tank would just have only Chinese tech on it, rendering it unnecessary in the first place. Russia could provide cost saving measures such as in the case of the al Khalid, but the tank would not be useful to the PLA.
Next gen tank would probably include more APS, maybe a laser CIWS, better ERA. Armor would be upgraded, but it’s no biggie because it can’t be penned by existing AP anyways. The top armor should have a big reinforce with the proliferation of HJ-12 top down attack equivalents.
If countries start upgunning their MBTs, China might benefit from enlargening the next gen tank to keep it’s invulnerable front status even in the face of 140mm sabots.
Biscuits is right in saying Soviet and Russian tank design and doctrine is very far from modern Chinese designs and doctrine. In 99A's case, about 10 tonnes of difference. The real commonalities are the missile firing capable guns (to make up for lower quality ammos apparently) and using autoloaders. But the ZPT is just a longer caliber and higher quality version on the 125mm used in the Type 96A/B. It is indeed based on 2A46 and even resembles it quite closely even in 30 years after. ZPT-98 apparently has some higher end metal working in its production, often indicated as electroslag remelting or more costly versions of the process.
@ougoah
China has never gained access to the 2A46 or any T72 variants. After the Sino Soviet split, no new Russian armored vechicles were procured aside from a T62 captured in a border clash.
ZPT-98 is either made from scratch, or more likely an upgunned version of the 120mm used before.
It’s bore pressure is significantly larger than US/Russian designs.
Good article on the gun’s development.
You can look at videos of the ZPT-98 firing on the move vs T72B3M with the newest 2A46... the difference is very big
China has never gained access to the 2A46 or any T72 variants. After the Sino Soviet split, no new Russian armored vechicles were procured aside from a T62 captured in a border clash.
ZPT-98 is either made from scratch, or more likely an upgunned version of the 120mm used before.
It’s bore pressure is significantly larger than US/Russian designs.
Good article on the gun’s development.
You can look at videos of the ZPT-98 firing on the move vs T72B3M with the newest 2A46... the difference is very big