New Type98/99 MBT thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Now I should add that there is a stabilized roof mounted sight for the gunner separately. The roof mounted sight isn’t a new feature for tanks it has been on American and Russian tanks as far back as world war 2. It allows the gunner to get a rough lay of the gun on a target from behind cover before advancing to make the attack. The sight mounted to the gun then allows the gunner to confirm he is on target and make the kill.

 

[Rowdyhorse4]

Now I should add that there is a stabilized roof mounted sight for the gunner separately. The roof mounted sight isn’t a new feature for tanks it has been on American and Russian tanks as far back as world war 2. It allows the gunner to get a rough lay of the gun on a target from behind cover before advancing to make the attack. The sight mounted to the gun then allows the gunner to confirm he is on target and make the kill.

I'm aware that the 99 has optically stabilized doghouse but the fact that the Periscope itself isn't independently stabilized from the gun like in the abrams or T-72B3 or 90 is a very odd and to some tankers i know, would be uncomfortable... of course those who diss chinese equipment would say its a retarded design (like the korean tanker that shared the gif in twitter) Periscope shouldn't be a factor in affecting gun depression, especially if it had independent stabilizers from the gun

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Now I should add that there is a stabilized roof mounted sight for the gunner separately. The roof mounted sight isn’t a new feature for tanks it has been on American and Russian tanks as far back as world war 2. It allows the gunner to get a rough lay of the gun on a target from behind cover before advancing to make the attack. The sight mounted to the gun then allows the gunner to confirm he is on target and make the kill.

I'm aware that the 99 has optically stabilized doghouse but the fact that the Periscope itself isn't independently stabilized from the gun like in the abrams or T-72B3 or 90 is a very odd and to some tankers i know, would be uncomfortable... of course those who diss chinese equipment would say its a retarded design (like the korean tanker that shared the gif in twitter) Periscope shouldn't be a factor in affecting gun depression, especially if it had independent stabilizers from the gun

I was about to say that but not sure As far as I know the gunner and the commander share view and they sit side by side like here see both of them has independent stabilized view
Does not look like from the korean twitter

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I'm aware that the 99 has optically stabilized doghouse but the fact that the Periscope itself isn't independently stabilized from the gun like in the abrams or T-72B3 or 90 is a very odd and to some tankers i know, would be uncomfortable... of course those who diss chinese equipment would say its a retarded design (like the korean tanker that shared the gif in twitter) Periscope shouldn't be a factor in affecting gun depression, especially if it had independent stabilizers from the gun

The aim of the sight is to literally do that.
If a tank is behind cover the Gun would be blocked, the point of the dog house as you called it so so that the gunner can give a rough sighting on the target before the tank can advance and the gun can clear the concealment.
You then use the gun sight to make sure that the barrel is clear and the gun is on target.
Although a little “old school” it’s not a major problem really. Many tanks built in the not to recent past would have a similar set up.

 

[Rowdyhorse4]

I was about to say that but not sure As far as I know the gunner and the commander share view and they sit side by side like here see both of them has independent stabilized view
Does not look like from the korean twitter

Its what i wonder as well, i've seen CCTV footage where the stabilizer isn't slaved to the gun

by the way do you have a clearer picture of that from the side?

The aim of the sight is to literally do that.
If a tank is behind cover the Gun would be blocked, the point of the dog house as you called it so so that the gunner can give a rough sighting on the target before the tank can advance and the gun can clear the concealment.
You then use the gun sight to make sure that the barrel is clear and the gun is on target.
Although a little “old school” it’s not a major problem really. Many tanks built in the not to recent past would have a similar set up.

I may have misworded it but i meant towards the Gun Sights stabilization being slaved towards the gun instead of being independent hence the Sight swiveling with the gun, not staying still when the gun is being elevated.... it has nothing to do with the dog house or external sights since we are talking about the internal stabilization, nothing to do about the target acquisition (though according to tankers having gun sights like that makes it more uncomfortable to use since you have to adjust your head everytime it moves which is not the case in Contemporary russian or western tanks)

 

[Rowdyhorse4]

Also Regarding the tank in the korean twitter, its an older 99 phase 1 or 2 tank using the 2A26 based gun breach (gun as well?) while the 99A uses the 2A46M style Gun breach (another quirk of ZPT98 sub variants?)

 

[Laviduce]

Some masses of tanks:

Arjun mk1 .................58,5 t (Turret seems to be around 17 t)
Arjun mk2 ..................67 t (+9 tons to the original Arjun mk1 . I am not sure if these are metric units. Seems to quite a large addition)

Challenger 1........................... 62 t
Challenger 1 mk3 .................. 62 t + kit weight (around 2.5t)
Challenger 2 ......................... 62,5 t
Challenger 2 Operation Telic Variant....... 62,5 t +kit weight (around 2.5t)
Challenger 2 TES ............74 t

K1..................... 51,1 t
K1A1................. 53,1 - 54,5 t
K2..................... 55,0 t

Leopard 2A7+.......... 67,5 t
Leopard 2a5........ 59,7 t....... (about 20,5 tons for the turret and about 39 tons for the hull)
Leopard 2a4 ........55,15 t........ (16 tons for turret and about 39 tons for the hull)

Merkava Mk 1......... 61 t
Merkava Mk 2......... 63 t
Merkava Mk 2D...... 63+ t
Merkava Mk 3........ 63,5 t
Merkava Mk 3D..... 65 t
Merkava 4............. 68 t
Merkava 4M.......... 68+ t

M1A2 SEP (v1 or v2) weighs 63,1 - 64 metric tons total.

Type 90................ 50 t
Type 10............... 48 t (in most upgraded state)
T-80U.................. 46,0 t
T-90S.................. 46,5 t
T-90 MS ............... 48 t
BM Oplot ............. 51 t

ZTZ 98................... 51,8 t
ZTZ 99A1.............. 57 t
ZTZ 99A2 ................ 58 t
vehicle)

Leclerc S1......... 54,5 t......... turret weight 18,5 t .......hull weight 36 t
Leclerc S2......... 56 t........... turret weight 18,5 t .....hull weight 37,5 t
Leclerc XXI ........ 57,5 t........... turret weight 20,0 t.... hull weight 37, 5 t

 

[by78]

Re-posting some high-resolution photos of Type-99a

 

[Sunhead_from_Arya]

View attachment 52795 View attachment 52796 View attachment 52797

Can you give a source of screens?

 

[siegecrossbow]

CCTV report on female tank crew.