New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
That was against the Iraq tanks and weapons. But if it were the Chinese I'm sure that more deaths, woundeds and damage would be caused if the US vs China in the war. Since the Type 99 are more superior and advance then the Iraqi ones, with the PLA being better equipped then the Iraqi's. With crew served ATGM, vehicle mounted ATGM, air support not saying they would win but it would be a more intensive and harder fight for the US.
no one is doubting that, the ZTZ-99 isn't a bad tank,niehter is the type 96 for that matter. They jsut dont happen to be world leaders in firepower or protection. Those honors belong to the big 4: Abrams, Challanger, Leopard, Merkava. The top 10 is rounded out with the other 120mm armed MBTs and the new T80 with buslte rack storage and new auto-loading system.
According to what the Chinese have to say and their reports ZTZ-99 is one of the top tanks. From what I have read in Sina.com, according to an article that American expert agree that ZTZ-99 have better penetration with it's 125mm gun than Abram's 120mm gun. It says the tank is also better protected with thicker armor, so I'm not so sure what you said about the big 4.
ther eis no way in hell a 125mmL/48 gun firing a 6.5kg-7kg 560mm penetrator at 1760m/s will out perform the 120mm L/44 firing a 10kg 830mm long penetrator at 1555-1700 m/s.
Modern armor is also heavy the ZTZ-99 is lighter ergo less armor, plus the ZTZ still uses unprotected hull storage beucase it uses an autoloader from the 2A46 family of guns.
The crews will also be over worked before combat form the combination of cramped spaces, three man cres, and outdated suspsecion design and shorter hull that leads to a rougher ride.
It also uses inferior lasers, thermal vision, radios, battle management systems and is not linke dinto a brigade level satalite linked IVIS/IFF system.
Modern armor is also heavy the ZTZ-99 is lighter ergo less armor, plus the ZTZ still uses unprotected hull storage beucase it uses an autoloader from the 2A46 family of guns.
The crews will also be over worked before combat form the combination of cramped spaces, three man cres, and outdated suspsecion design and shorter hull that leads to a rougher ride.
It also uses inferior lasers, thermal vision, radios, battle management systems and is not linke dinto a brigade level satalite linked IVIS/IFF system.
It is a very big deal, the size of the penetrator is limite dby the capacit yof the autoloader, the space of the turret and other factors. 560-600mm is about it as far as size goes.
The new Russian systme copies the french and uses a bustle rack storage and turret mounted rotary type autoloader. The ZTZ-99 does not have the dimensions to allow this.
What you said might be true, but it requires of you to know some intimate details about the ZTZ-99 of the size and arrangements of the turret. Also you cannot say exactly how long the penetrator actually is judging by pictures of it. There is no way to know exactly how the tank works, but from some sources I've read and they did not give great details also, that the gun out penetrate the 120mm gun on Abrams. Plus beside the penetrator size there is also the velocity of which the projectile is fired.
Let me adress your points in order
1- As a former US Army tanker and some one who has been inside multiple t-series and T type tanks tanks and who has a working knowledge of the auto-loader used by the ZTZ-99 (China admits it is a 2A46 autloader clone) YES I CAN, make valid comparisons
2- Copy of the Russian system implies the same leangth restrictions, this is reflected in the ammuntion we see being loaded which apears to be 560mm long. lack of a bustle rack system implies limited interior turret room (confirme with pictures and first hadn accounts) taking togeher we can indeed confirm that the ZTZ-99 is using a short rod penetrator.
3- As a former tanker, I know tanks they all basically function the same. The exit to feed their gun, and ge tthat gun into possition to kill things. Snce I served on M1's upto the A2 and on older M-60A3TTs I have a good graps of the technologies involved as well.
4- Assuming China has not only duplicated the technological wizardry that went into the M829A3 depsite the Americans head start of decades in designing APFSDS for thier 120mm main gun, and some how managed to get a 560mm penetrator to perform like an 800mm+ Long rod penetrator.
.5M*v^=KE/j
PRC (sing weight of the Russian BM42 wich is simialr in size and design) 3.25*1760*2= 11,440j
US 5*1555*2= 15550j
ie the US round has nearly 25% more muzzel energy from the start.
Then we get into actual round design, here I am out of my depth but, what I do know is longer= better when it comes to penetrators.
Even the new Russian rounds 9bieng fired form the new bustlke rack autoloader) are in excess of 700mm long.
The US round is also a 3rd genheration improvement, While China's is still a first generation round.
The US spends more on R&D than China spends on its entire defense budget.
if China's gun had anypower at range they wouldn't bulky and slow tube launched ATGNM's for long range engagments
The mere idea that the Chinese gun come sanywhere near the performace of the NATO gun is absurd.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Armour is still unconfirmed and classified so you cannot not judge and pressume on the Type 99 MBT armour through specifications. The guns can be discussed but the armour cannot be fully correct due to it is still a mystery. The mass of the armour doesn't neccessarly make it stronger or have more protection. Having to much armour on a tank slows the tank down in speed and thus also has its own disadvantage. Finally mass doesn't always mean stronger. Eg: Just an example: Diamonds is lighter and stronger than copper which is heavier and weaker. Just an example alright.