New Type98/99 MBT thread

[berserk]

... right, and we're biased?

Let's examine the evidence that you yourself provided (again.) Note the bricks in your picture, you can see clearly the thickness of the "ERA MK2 ( improved kontakt 5 copy)" in the spacing on the turret and on the front hull:

View attachment 64715

Now compare that thickness to the FY-IV (look at the three bricks front hull):

Does that look like a "copy" to you? That's 85mm (over 3 inches) of steel and C4, which is clearly way thicker than the thin plates on your "copy" of K5. Only a person blinded by extreme bias would claim that these two are equal.

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You are comparing turrent ERA arrangement with hull lol. Do you even know why space is given on turret ERA in russian tanks and not on frontal hull where ERA are generally thicker in first place ?

Here's the thick MK 2 ERA on frontal hull.

now compare this to the one on VT 4
Here


They are of similar dimensions. Let's say it is thicker so what ? It uses more explosive which will only increase its weight. Does it provides any additional over the top protection , i highly doubt. Maybe Chinese are unable to provide necessary speed for flying plates, could be the reason they are using more explosive nobody knows. There's no jini here or alien tech lol.

Problem is 2 fold with VT 4 ERA arrangement on turret as they are attached to turret itself , no gap unlike ERA on russian tank to maximize effectiveness of ERA like kontakt 5 and Relikt which use flying plates to induce yaw to snap APFSDS. gap and arrangement allow superior performance even compared to duplet( pound to pound ). Without causing much damage to main turret itself ( same is not the case where ERA is attached to turret ) also keeping weight low. Turret geometry is so pathetic in VT 4 a slight flanking make it vulnerable. same is not the case with T 90 and even upgraded 72.

So best this tank matches is protection level of upgraded T 72 hilarious.

 

[dawn_strike]

It's reasonable then to assume FY4 provides at least an additional ~150-200mm over FY2, since it's a couple of generations ahead. That should take the VT-4 with FY4 well over 800mm total.

As far as we know FY4 provides at least 180mm against APFSDS.

 

[berserk]

It's reasonable then to assume FY4 provides at least an additional ~150-200mm over FY2, since it's a couple of generations ahead. That should take the VT-4 with FY4 well over 800mm total.

Lets take a middle ground shall we 180mm. with base armour of 600mm , That's roughly around 780mm. Thats less than T 90S , forget MS or M Proryv 3 and is comparable or probably even less than upgraded T 72 lmao!.

 

[dawn_strike]

And let‘s end this argument. We are all off-topic talking about VT4 in this thread and we have another thread for Chinese export vehicles.

 

[berserk]

FY4 is able to reduce 30% KE of a 125mm APFSDS according to its official manual, which is way better than K5.

I don't get it when some people insist on finding connections between VT4 and ZTZ96A. Not a single clue supports that they have the same base armor.

30% reduction , well ok that's 180mm . Now add base armour that's around 780mm protection. It's less than older T 90 models and comparable to upgraded T 72 probably less. so what special about this tank.

 

[Mohsin77]

30% reduction , well ok that's 180mm . Now add base armour that's around 780mm protection. It's less than older T 90 models and comparable to upgraded T 72 probably less. so what special about this tank.

In other words, its armor level is comparable to the vast majority of your MBTs. No one actually said anything else. You're the one continuing to strawman here, pretending as if we are making the VT-4 into some superweapon (which no one said it was.)

In fact, right in the beginning, it was stated that the 90MS probably is better protected. But it was also stated that it doesn't have the ammunition to penetrate the VT-4 from the front (and vice versa).

Anyways... this getting boring. I don't even know what we're arguing about here.

 

[Mohsin77]

Both Pakistan and India have a lack of capable drones and gunships. These things make MBTs sitting ducks.

I agree, that's a good investment, even though it's expensive. I'm in support of purchasing more gunships and also sensor fuzed cluster munitions, which China has mounted on MLRS. Both of these are massive threats to MBTs.

India has pretty convincing advantages in the air

that's debatable, and whatever advantages the IAF had are quickly decreasing, vis a vis the PAF. The air dimension has actually been more of a focus of Pakistan in recent years, but now its time to focus some more on the ground game again.

Anyways... that's all India vs Pak stuff, so it's off topic

 

[berserk]

In other words, its armor level is comparable to the vast majority of your MBTs. No one actually said anything else. You're the one continuing to strawman here, pretending as if we are making the VT-4 into some superweapon (which no one said it was.)

In fact, right in the beginning, it was stated that the 90MS probably is better protected. But it was also stated that it doesn't have the ammunition to penetrate the VT-4 from the front (and vice versa).

Anyways... this getting boring. I don't even know what we're arguing about here.

No it's not comparable. Do you have some comprehension problem or what ? It's less than 1500 T 90 in indian service right now. It will have comparable i would say less protection even to upgraded 1000 T 72 and i am again being generous here. if tomorrow india go for Relikt upgrade on 72, it's game over for this world beating MBT. This conversation is getting boring to you cause like most Chinese members here you don't know s**t. But hey it must be superior , cause i said , china said so , lauda lehsun! LMAO!.

 

[Mohsin77]

No it's not comparable. Do you have some comprehension problem or what ? It's less than 1500 T 90 in indian service right now. It will have comparable i would say less protection even to upgraded 1000 T 72 and i am again being generous here. if tomorrow india go for Relikt upgrade on 72, it's game over for this world beating MBT. This conversation is getting boring to you cause like most Chinese members here you don't know s**t. But hey it must be superior , cause i said , china said so , lauda lehsun! LMAO!.

You're an idiot of the Nth degree. You started this whole debate by claiming like 50 things, and now you are stuck on 1, which is armor level. Every other claim you made has been thrown out e.g. superior FCS, hypothetical sabot rounds, better gun etc. etc. And now you're bringing up another hypothetical. Fact is, the VT-4 is better than your older MBTs and basically on par with your newest MBTs, overall.

I'm done.

 

[berserk]

You're an idiot of the Nth degree. You started this whole debate by claiming like 50 things, and now you are stuck on 1, which is armor level. Every other claim you made has been thrown out e.g. superior FCS, hypothetical sabot rounds, better gun etc. etc. And now you're bringing up another hypothetical.
I'm done.

What other claim has been thrown out of the window ? I already posted about indian army RFI for new more powerful gun an autoloader to fire longer projectile.
it's a fact Indian T 72 are having upgrade from elbit FCS to new ammo with DOP greater than 600mm , to ERA to APU to new engine. For around 1000 T 72 and subsequent after than T 90 few years down the line. Look like you were living under the rock all this time.

. Fact is, the VT-4 is better than your older MBTs and basically on par with your newest MBTs, overall.

Fact is it's inferior to 1500 T 90S ( forget MS and M version ) in indian service right now. and will be comparable ( again being generous here ) to upgraded T 72 at best. nothing extraordinary about it , that Pakistani members have to jump so much on PDF and here lol.