New Type98/99 MBT thread

[RichardGao]

The PLA doesn't have the funding to have developed and fielded its next gen MBT like the Russians, it also doesn't have the funding to change the Type 99 into a design that allows for long penetration rods and one piece ammo to develop something that reaches or exceeds the M829A3/A4 using the current ZPT98 125mm.

Do you really mean that PLAGF isn't funded to develop a 4th gen tank?... As far as I know the thing is set to be far more advanced that the Armata in all aspects, including the novelty of numerous technologies... For the Armata, yeah the protection is indeed more that enough to call it a 4th gen, but the firepower isn't really enough compared to CCCP/Western 4th gen tanks of the former century... (140/152) Maybe we can now lower the standards a little since there's no cold war, but at the meantime newer technologies are becoming a trend and criteria especially in fire control and battlefield information reception... So to this extent Armata isn't quite actually enough to be called "4th gen", especially when compared to Chinese/American or even Japanese (tho I doubt if Japan can really work one out without chipping off some tech) 4th gen tank perspectives...

I wouldn't say Type 99A's firepower is 1980s

Nobody would say that... Don't just simply read numbers off a specification I gave... A lot of other features I still didn't mention...

I fear it would have difficulty penetrating the frontal armor of ERA-equipped Indian T-72s

105IV please.

tons of tanks

Nobody's gonna encounter "tons of tanks" on a 5000-meter-high plateau... If they're not immobile already lol.

By the way, is there evidence to suggest ZTZ-99A has significant advantage in protection when compared to Type 90 and Type 10?

Type 10: 6xx for 48-tonned strengthened version;
Type 99A: 7xx+ for 55 tons, with better hull protection than 10 (probably as thin on the sides tho lol)
I'd say the strong part of Chinese armor technology are not the specs, the materials and structural designs are. For the old 99 we can already make turret modules roughly the same protection as M1A1HA with ~660 LOS (that's a thickness coefficient of nearly 1) , and as far as I know 99A's UFP armor is xx% lighter than the ones on the type 99 without lowering the protection numbers...
So yeah, everyone can do extremely good protection by just adding weight and making armors simply thicker, but technology is all that make the difference.
If you ask me how much the difference? Well, rough numbers if you make the 99A as heavy as the M1A2C by just adding armor to the sides and front, and neglecting the affects on mobility, achieving 2000+ KE is totally possible. But we don't need that much so we stuck with lightweight.

The trend is towards being able to have the technical ability to build increasingly heavy and well armoured tanks with engines and drivetrains that can actually accommodate increased weight which typically entails superior protection and firepower components like digital equipment and bigger better guns.

Well, those are the trends of the cold war, thanks. Heavy monsters never turn out to be a solution, just admire its bad terrain capabilities and rapid response and deploy capabilities. Heavy weight is never a trend in the 21st century... Even Rheinmetall's MGCS is small and light... Heavier weight always brings trouble no matter where. Just refer to my comments in the Type 15/Chinese next generation MBT thread a while ago, I think I've explained enough on the advantages of lightweight and I don't want to repeat them here again...

99A's 5 tonne or so increase on the last 99 is just showing that PLA is slowly upgrading its leading MBT into that first tier category.

Just as I said, 99A's 3 ton (not 5 tons...) is never the representation of any innovations in anything... Also those weights are added for a larger hull and a heavier turret, including top protection and electronics, rather than something as easy as just some add-up in frontal protection or anything....

125mm L50 I recall being the length of the ZPT98 used by the Type 99s and L48 like the 2a46 used by the Type 96s compared to typical L44 120mm still used in many first rate tanks which can still easily penetrate frontal armour of most tanks

Extending the gun barrels are always a last resort when upgrading firepower for a list of many simple reasons...

First you don really get much when you extend the barrels... (Example, DM63 initial velocities only improved by 80mps, from 1670 to 1750 by upgrading from L44 to 55, not really a significant improvement considering the length of the gun added (L11) compared to redesigning new charges) While you get poorer overall mobility, especially for urban environments when you drag a long barrel along. Plus the gun is significantly heavier and you also need to add mass to the breech in order to balance the gun. The life of the gun is also shorter,etc.

BTW the 125 guns of China are never L50s, only L48s on 96(A/B)s and all production versions of 99 including 99A. The L54 was once applied to the experimental 99A, but was eventually canceled due to breakthroughs in charges and penetrator materials, I think I've mentioned this piece of history before in the thread.

The Type 96B thoroughly outclasses the T-72

The 96B is simply a race car for the biathalons and has never seen service in the PLA to my knowledge... The tank itself is also cost-ineffective and no country has ever sought to buy its export version (the VT2B)... The VT4 is much more worth the price.

All of this is really stupid though because tank vs tank face-offs without support are as unlikely as lone F-15 vs Su-27 happening today.

Yeah that one's correct lol.

I don't think the 105mm can certainly penetrate the frontal armour of the T-90S

India has no T-90S, They only have T-90Cs. The T-90S is the same as the T-90M/MS.

We've only weight to go on

Nope. I've made it fully clear in all sorts of threads that PLA is only interested in lightweight. Well if you ask me how a lightweight 4th gen tank would be like, I'd tell you that in my perspective, ~40 tons with 2 crew members, ~850+frontal KE and ~1800+CE, and better firepower than the 99A or even the M1 series is totally possible, meanwhile reaching similar mobility as the Type 15, and very advanced information systems. Oh and also APS that can weaken even KE projectiles from all directions.

The Type 99A I don't think measures up to the world leaders like the Leo2A6/7, M1A2/2, Leclerc, K-2, or Merkava 4

Well, Merkava IV is never a leader in none of the 3 main aspects of a tank...
And for K2 I guess the protection is just over 700+...
Leclerc is also weak in protection without the additional armor modules, and is extremely expensive...
M1A2C is too heavy and the protection levels don't make it up to its weight, especially when you have roughly 50%+ frontal effective protection area that can be penetrated by the 125III... The turret protection is also not as good as the 99A despite maybe the numbers are more constant regarding the height of impact... What's better than the 99A is its offroad mobility (might not be an advantage for the M1A2C tho) and firepower.
Leo 2A7 is the best of thes tanks you mentioned tho, being virtually superior to 99A in every aspect...
However the T-14 is still a numerical 4th gen so let's pay some respect and have it be the "leader", Aft all you got nearly 1000 frontal KE, fantastic side protection and unmanned turret, an APS that can defeat KE projectiles and good Vacuum shells lol.
And please add T-90M to the list. It is also a third gen improved that can have its place against M1, Leo2 and 99A.

But it's also considerably cheaper

No it isn't cheap. $5M per unit.

mass produce Type-99A

So how do you know we aren't?

thanks for your prompt reply, what MM gun will they used ?from what I know , they had develop a powerful 125mm , that is shown in a gun carriage years ago, it was display at a ceremony before being censored. Its is said that it will used a single shell ammo for the future MBT and will not go to 130mm gun route, sorry for being a nuisance.

ETCG (and MPG). I've never heard of any projects of fixed-loaded 125, but there's been separate loaded 140 and 135mm gun projects before, though cancelled. The 130 also unaware. New gun is extremely unlikely to be bigger than 125 due to lightweight purposes and the sizes of the autoloader and the ammo.

 

[ansy1968]

hi RichardGao

Thank you very much for an insightful comments,

 

[ansy1968]

hi RichardGao

What's your opinion on VT-4 compare to Russian T90 MS, especially the firepower, armor and mobility. I like the T90MS, since India bought them and Pakistan will soon received the VT-4, I really want your view. And also is it true that the OPTICS came from China after France impose the embargo?

 

[ougoah]

Interesting thoughts Richard, thanks for the input. T-90S I was referring to is the Indian Bhishma version of the T-90 they've got well over 200 units of and ordering more. It's not the same one as the T-90MS/SM which certainly does belong among the top tier of this generation. The Bhishma, not so much.

Going lighter without sacrificing protection is ideal. The improving armour materials and layout structures are allowing 50 tonnes of armour to be comparable to yesteryear's 60 tonnes no doubt. But with the Type 99's evolution, the PLA is increasing its weight. I guess you're right about the 99A being significantly better protected than the second version 99 despite only adding 3 to 5 tonnes (whatever it really is). The extra volume may be contributing to this along with improved top protection. I don't know what PLA's next gen is going towards. What you've suggested would certainly be nice and sounds similar in concept to the Armata tank.

 

[RichardGao]

hi RichardGao

What's your opinion on VT-4 compare to Russian T90 MS, especially the firepower, armor and mobility. I like the T90MS, since India bought them and Pakistan will soon received the VT-4, I really want your view. And also is it true that the OPTICS came from China after France impose the embargo?

First domestic two-plane stablized fire control systems project were started in 1978, and first product came out in 1988. First thermal imaging product in 1993, was shrinked in volume and weight to be fitted on the third gen tank and that was in 1999. But yeah those thermals did have technologies of the Catherine, but we went with our own afterwards. VT4's thermal should reach at least xxx*xxx in resolution. The gun control is full-electro, and the fire control is an upper-reflector.

But with the Type 99's evolution, the PLA is increasing its weight. I guess you're right about the 99A being significantly better protected than the second version 99 despite only adding 3 to 5 tonnes (whatever it really is).

No it isn't... The UFP has a reduction in weight while maintaining original protection, and reason of the turret weight gain is mainly because of a larger size, no really significant protection improvements... But the density of the turret overall is surely lower.

What you've suggested would certainly be nice and sounds similar in concept to the Armata tank.

About the unmanned turret and universal chassis, yes. But other details, probably no...

 

[ougoah]

hi RichardGao

What's your opinion on VT-4 compare to Russian T90 MS, especially the firepower, armor and mobility. I like the T90MS, since India bought them and Pakistan will soon received the VT-4, I really want your view. And also is it true that the OPTICS came from China after France impose the embargo?

Also would be interested to know how many T-90M and T-90MS India currently has and has ordered. I'm not sure if there's a difference between the M and MS. Wiki page on T-90 suggests India received T-90M years ago and is confusing it with what they call the T-90S. The only truly capable T-90 today is the T-90MS which was introduced by Russia AFTER 2013 when India supposedly order T-90M. I remember reading in recent years how India has also ordered the capable MS variant as well.

How does the T-90MS compare with the VT-4 I'd be interested to know Richard's thoughts as well. And also how Type 99A and Type 99 compares with the VT-4 and T-90MS.

 

[ougoah]

First domestic two-plane stablized fire control systems project were started in 1978, and first product came out in 1988. First thermal imaging product in 1993, was shrinked in volume and weight to be fitted on the third gen tank and that was in 1999. But yeah those thermals did have technologies of the Catherine, but we went with our own afterwards. VT4's thermal should reach at least xxx*xxx in resolution. The gun control is full-electro, and the fire control is an upper-reflector.



No it isn't... The UFP has a reduction in weight while maintaining original protection, and reason of the turret weight gain is mainly because of a larger size, no really significant protection improvements... But the density of the turret overall is surely lower.



About the unmanned turret and universal chassis, yes. But other details, probably no...

So the second version of the 99 has higher density turret and equal protection specs with 99A? That's surprising. Why did they need the extra space for the 99A?

 

[ansy1968]

First domestic two-plane stablized fire control systems project were started in 1978, and first product came out in 1988. First thermal imaging product in 1993, was shrinked in volume and weight to be fitted on the third gen tank and that was in 1999. But yeah those thermals did have technologies of the Catherine, but we went with our own afterwards. VT4's thermal should reach at least xxx*xxx in resolution. The gun control is full-electro, and the fire control is an upper-reflector.



No it isn't... The UFP has a reduction in weight while maintaining original protection, and reason of the turret weight gain is mainly because of a larger size, no really significant protection improvements... But the density of the turret overall is surely lower.



About the unmanned turret and universal chassis, yes. But other details, probably no...

Hi RichardGao

So China had the 3rd gen optic thermal tech comparable to the west, and from the way you describe VT-4 capabilities, its impressive. Like you said its prettier than type99a. Only the firepower is lacking , but overall its better than T90MS and its cheaper too.

Is it true that Russia source some optic thermal component from China?

 

[RichardGao]

I'm not sure if there's a difference between the M and MS.

All I know is M is for Russian domestic use and MS is the export version... Not sure if there's a difference except the names.

How does the T-90MS compare with the VT-4 I'd be interested to know Richard's thoughts as well. And also how Type 99A and Type 99 compares with the VT-4 and T-90MS.

90M and VT4 overall protection probably equivalent, (new VT4 should be better considering the overall layout, numbers should also be better; 90M has "curtain" softkill APS, VT4 should be able to install GL5 hardkill APS, but for now no VT4 has installed) Firepower (for India, only has access to 3BM42 I guess) T-90M weaker, VT4 has BTA4 (Chinese 125-II 600 pen), if its T-90M which can use Svinets 1 and 2 it its well better than VT4. Mobility new VT4 better than 90MS (1500hp@~53tons vs 1130hp@~50tons, VT4 variable resistance torsion bar suspension, 90M standard torsion bar) For digitalization the VT4 is certainly better than the 90M... Maintainability VT4 also better imo because of fewer mechanical components and the ability to swap engine power without taking out the powerpack... Dunno if 90M is an integrated powerpack module, if it's not then that's a drawback compared to VT4. VT4 also has access to enemy-friendly diffrentiation radars, which 90M I think doesn't... There are too many aspects to be put into consideration when comparing two types of tanks so I'm just trying to give an overview...

For 99A vs VT4, I think I've mentioned it once before in this very thread and the conclusion is that the new upgraded VT4 is better than 99A in every aspect except firepower (lack of 125III and still uses an old gun) , and the lack of the laser suppression device and several FY5. To be put into system, then VT4 lacks thousands of hours of personnel training and a fully complete firepower and support system, aft all VT4 is for export and 99A is in service in the PLA for a couple of years. 99 is worse than 99A, older tank, no doubt. 99A and 90M overall are all 3rd gen improved so I'd say they're on the same level.

So the second version of the 99 has higher density turret and equal protection specs with 99A? That's surprising. Why did they need the extra space for the 99A?

Dunno, simply because 99A turret's bigger in volume... Probably for installing electronics and ensuring crews' comfort... The inner volume of 99A seems quite large to me... Also the 99A's turret protection is slightly better than the 99...

 

[ansy1968]

hi RichardGao

Great summary overall ,thanks a lot.