New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Fantastic202]

God knows what the APS is, 99A seems to be a soft kill system but the standard 99 there are so many sources that conflict some saying soft kill others saying hard kill. It's hard to say which is right.

I know there are photos of them up close out there but finding them in a real pain.

Now there is this photo but this is of the ZTZ98's APS which was upgraded on the ZTZ99. already posted in the past but post for context.

Fig 1;


We know on the 99 the lasers* on the left have been centralised and enlarged, whilst the right gets some sort of oval which is similar in type to the GL5 which is why i'm sure that's where it's come from.

 

[Fantastic202]

The thing.


Fig 1;



Fig 2;

 

[Fantastic202]

The thing.


View attachment 69863Fig 1;



View attachment 69864 Fig 2;

My main thoughts on it is that it doesn't seem to be replaceable and if it's a cover or not, my guessing is that if it is a hard kill system it might be hiding 2 small distance fused rockets.

 

[FishWings]

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?

Hits to the upper turret are statistically improbable, for example here is an analysis of some hits to T-64s in Donbass (source lostarmour.info):



Not all hits are logged here ofc, but it probably paints a similar picture. A similar analysis done with hits to T-72 had the same result. This is probably the tradeoff of having increased protection where it will probably be hit more; the VT-4 for example does not have this problem, but the maximum thickness of the VT-4's composite module is noticeably less than that of the 99A

 

[KampfAlwin]

We say the ERA has 30-35%~ penetration reduction if it was Kontakt 5, and add that to the prior photo you mentioned earlier. We can give a solid base idea for the turret levels.

700mm 799mm
30% | 910mm | 1039mm
35% | 945mm | 1079mm

With the ERA it's on par with standard western MBT's but still don't know if thats at 2km or point blank.

Now if it's a more modern form of ERA either Relikt or Nozh that percentage would sky rocket much higher than stated above.

That’s a respectable amount of protection, similar to the Abrams. I think the use of ERA for extra protection reduces the weight of the tank than if you increased the composite thickness, no?

 

[KampfAlwin]

Hits to the upper turret are statistically improbable, for example here is an analysis of some hits to T-64s in Donbass (source lostarmour.info):

View attachment 69868

Not all hits are logged here ofc, but it probably paints a similar picture. A similar analysis done with hits to T-72 had the same result. This is probably the tradeoff of having increased protection where it will probably be hit more; the VT-4 for example does not have this problem, but the maximum thickness of the VT-4's composite module is noticeably less than that of the 99A

Thanks for the informative post. It’s very telling to see quite the number of side armor shots, especially at the hull. This is the 99As weakness when it comes to armor. The area where the smoke launchers are placed on the 99A seems unprotected, even auto cannons could penetrate it(Many tank designs armor their side turret against auto cannons and rockets)

However, it doesn’t matter if you‘re fighting on open fields as extra side armor would be more useful for urban combat.

 

[FishWings]

Thanks for the informative post. It’s very telling to see quite the number of side armor shots, especially at the hull. This is the 99As weakness when it comes to armor. The area where the smoke launchers are placed on the 99A seems unprotected, even auto cannons could penetrate it(Many tank designs armor their side turret against auto cannons and rockets)

However, it doesn’t matter if you‘re fighting on open fields as extra side armor would be more useful for urban combat.

I should also mention that hits marked with points are HEAT, and rhombus = unknown. So hits to the side (esp. hull) are HEAT/unknown, making it safe to assume they tend to be ATGM hits. That's basically all you can afford on a tank without making it a 70-100 ton mobile bunker, and it's safe to assume that no modern MBT as of yet is going to shrug off an APFSDS from another modern MBT.

But any ERA lacking on side hull of 99A seems to be a problem as of now, although there also exists the FY-2SH which is supposedly made specifically to protect those areas (has not been seen on neither 99A nor VT-4 yet, although possibly displayed on VT-5s)

Most of the side turret is covered with ERA at least. As for anything that hits the uncovered area, crew should have put more points into luck...

 

[Fantastic202]

I should also mention that hits marked with points are HEAT, and rhombus = unknown. So hits to the side (esp. hull) are HEAT/unknown, making it safe to assume they tend to be ATGM hits. That's basically all you can afford on a tank without making it a 70-100 ton mobile bunker, and it's safe to assume that no modern MBT as of yet is going to shrug off an APFSDS from another modern MBT.

But any ERA lacking on side hull of 99A seems to be a problem as of now, although there also exists the FY-2SH which is supposedly made specifically to protect those areas (has not been seen on neither 99A nor VT-4 yet, although possibly displayed on VT-5s)

Most of the side turret is covered with ERA at least. As for anything that hits the uncovered area, crew should have put more points into luck...

The lack of side ERA is minimal issue that can be easily fixed but no package is currently in service or to be seen as far as we know, but this is mostly due to the terrain the tanks are thought to fight in as well as doctrine predicting long distance combat in the western plains.

Although as to regard to that T-64 hit statistics, it really shows why a lot of tanks have unusual design choices such as large lower plate weak spots.
Although with recent combat being in such unusual areas like Afghanistan we can see fault in designs like the CH2. Although that being said the lower plate has only been struck once in combat which did sadly injure the driver. [See Fig 1 for details.]

Now, we must not forget the past here when it comes to hit statistics for instance many cases of Survivorship bias during the 2nd WW, [See Fig 2 for Details.]

Striking a balance between upgrading and removing weak spots that are affected by current combat conditions is a very difficult and time consuming process which will bite China in the ass if they don't have any sort of Field Entry Standard. I'm sure we all know that no book no matter how thick, actually works in combat.
But we'll see if they actually do have anything but keeping it under wraps to trick opponents, but most likely they don't. I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignore the mistakes made in Insurgency combat since I’m yet to see a 99 with any reasonable mounting points on the side hull.



Fig 1;



Fig 2;

 

[KampfAlwin]

The lack of side ERA is minimal issue that can be easily fixed but no package is currently in service or to be seen as far as we know, but this is mostly due to the terrain the tanks are thought to fight in as well as doctrine predicting long distance combat in the western plains.

Although as to regard to that T-64 hit statistics, it really shows why a lot of tanks have unusual design choices such as large lower plate weak spots.
Although with recent combat being in such unusual areas like Afghanistan we can see fault in designs like the CH2. Although that being said the lower plate has only been struck once in combat which did sadly injure the driver. [See Fig 1 for details.]

Now, we must not forget the past here when it comes to hit statistics for instance many cases of Survivorship bias during the 2nd WW, [See Fig 2 for Details.]

Striking a balance between upgrading and removing weak spots that are affected by current combat conditions is a very difficult and time consuming process which will bite China in the ass if they don't have any sort of Field Entry Standard. I'm sure we all know that no book no matter how thick, actually works in combat.
But we'll see if they actually do have anything but keeping it under wraps to trick opponents, but most likely they don't. I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignore the mistakes made in Insurgency combat since I’m yet to see a 99 with any reasonable mounting points on the side hull.



Fig 1;
View attachment 69889


Fig 2;
View attachment 69890

To be fair, the Chinese knows this weakness but chose to not rectify it maybe due to doctrine. In fact, they sell export tanks with improved side armour configurations available(VT-4/5 and to a lesser degree the VN-12/17)

 

[FangYuan]

The Type-99 was created in preparation for large-scale tank battles and head-to-head tank battles. Therefore its front armor was very thick, side armor was thin

VT-4 developed for export purposes, it has been redesigned to be sleeker, lighter, highly maneuverable and has comprehensive protection on all sides, suitable for urban battles.

China's military doctrine is to avoid bringing tanks into the city, so they don't care about side armor and active protection.