New Type98/99 MBT thread

[by78]

as for why I posted it on this thread i think you can figure it out yourself lol

You expect me to figure out why you posted it in this thread when your original post contains only the word "hmmmmm"?

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, but telepathy or mind-reading isn't a widespread skill.

And one more thing, if you haven't already noticed, Sinodefence Forum isn't some fanboy website where low-effort and frivolous content is considered acceptable.

Before you post, think about what you want to say, and if what you want to say is insignificant, idiotic, irrelevant, or contains little thought, then it's better to not post anything at all.

In other words, if you have nothing to say, then say nothing. It'll save all of us a lot of time.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I think the generic tank silhouette in the logo got changed to type-99

Used to be T-72.

 

[Totoro]

I remember long time ago (10 years?) that it was established a single brigade worth of Type99 tanks and 2 (or 3?) brigades worth of Type96 tanks were added to PLA each year. I believe that was achieved by tracking new types in units via photographs. Don't know if that method is still viable and if there are people still trying to track the numbers that way.

Have there been any news with sources suggesting those numbers are different nowadays? With Type 15 thrown into the mix, where do 3 main types stand in annual procurement rate nowadays?

 

[plawolf]

On the right is the newly unveiled official Raytheon Javelin missile logo (while the one on the left is the old one), here's another photo of the Javelin missile with the new logo... as for why I posted it on this thread i think you can figure it out yourself lol

View attachment 69176

China should charge them royalties for every logo printed.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[dawn_strike]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 69631

Seems quite an ancient picture

 

[KampfAlwin]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 69631

Looking at the side, the frontal turret armor module makes me realise just how thin the upper turret armor is. Is there a rational design choice for this? Also, how low does the crew sit in the turret? Are they sitting at the thickest part of the turret? Maybe a 99B variant will rectify this mistake if any?

 

[Fantastic202]

Looking at the side, the frontal turret armor module makes me realise just how thin the upper turret armor is. Is there a rational design choice for this? Also, how low does the crew sit in the turret? Are they sitting at the thickest part of the turret? Maybe a 99B variant will rectify this mistake if any?

But it isn't that thin, It's about 1m~ thick, only real concern is the lack on angle which i'm guessing is to reduce it's overall silhouette and weight. I assume they are relying on the heavy ERA to compensate for the advantages an angled turret would have.

 

[KampfAlwin]

But it isn't that thin, It's about 1m~ thick, only real concern is the lack on angle which i'm guessing is to reduce it's overall silhouette and weight. I assume they are relying on the heavy ERA to compensate for the advantages an angled turret would have.

I get what you mean but I'm talking about upper part of the turret armor, let me show you. I highlighted this illustration with a red marker to show the thin part of it. The middle part is the thickest.
View attachment 69844

 

[Fantastic202]

I get what you mean but I'm talking about upper part of the turret armor, let me show you. I highlighted this illustration with a red marker to show the thin part of it. The middle part is the thickest.
View attachment 69844View attachment 69845

Do you mean where the optic is imbedded or where the composite thins out at the roof?