Pointblank
Senior Member
That makes me think that it may be an improved and updated version of the T-72 based autoloader. Same munition fired, but an improvement to the autoloader so that it is more reliable.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
That makes me think that it may be an improved and updated version of the T-72 based autoloader. Same munition fired, but an improvement to the autoloader so that it is more reliable.
according to Chinese magazine article about the T-72 tank,during the fighting in Chenchya, Russian T-72 tank crews,complain that during below zero degrees temperature, the automatic laoding mechanism tend frooze over,particullary the grease lubricant.equally,as israeli and US being said about the autoloading,the tank is highly vulnerable of brewing up.and rate of firing is very slow.
type-96 and 99 adapt the same carousel auto-loading device, making both tank highly vulnerable.
goldenpanda
Banned Idiot
My take on the ammo blow out debate:
- if penetrated by sabot crew is toast in any situation.
- please remember about line of sight. Hull stored ammo is close to the ground. The chance of coming in contact with HEAT jet is quite low, especially considering China doesn't use tank for urban warfare/counter insurgency missions.
- With turret storage tank is more likely to be mission killed with infantry weapons.
- Much weight is saved by not expanding turret volume and making use of available hull space. This is especially important for China because of softer terrain. In fact all East Asian armies choose lighter tanks for such mobility reason. Weight also burdens your entire logistics chain.
In this pic
the soldier is at least 180cm tall (he is taller than me I can tell from his body type). By my measure that makes the rod at least 750mm.
These guys are manchurian elite divisions. those guys are really tall, I wouldn't be surprised if more than 180cm actually.
- if penetrated by sabot crew is toast in any situation.
- please remember about line of sight. Hull stored ammo is close to the ground. The chance of coming in contact with HEAT jet is quite low, especially considering China doesn't use tank for urban warfare/counter insurgency missions.
- With turret storage tank is more likely to be mission killed with infantry weapons.
- Much weight is saved by not expanding turret volume and making use of available hull space. This is especially important for China because of softer terrain. In fact all East Asian armies choose lighter tanks for such mobility reason. Weight also burdens your entire logistics chain.
In this pic
the soldier is at least 180cm tall (he is taller than me I can tell from his body type). By my measure that makes the rod at least 750mm.
These guys are manchurian elite divisions. those guys are really tall, I wouldn't be surprised if more than 180cm actually.
Last edited by a moderator:
Panda,
I mena no disrespect but you make a couple of assumptions that are not borne out by the evidence.
1- The PLA does indeed use tanks in an urban setting. 1989's famous photo as a case in point. all major militaries use tanks to suppor tinfantr yin an urban setting becuase the tanks maingun can reduce strong points and counter snipers very effectively.
2- The soilders barely seem to be eye level with the tanks fender. Since the type 99 is only 2.2M tall a 1.8+ M hieght of the solder only leaves .4 meter for the turret. And yet the turret of the tank behind the lead tank with a man standing on the hull has the turret coming up nearly to his waist, far more than a mere .4 meters. Nor can you tellthe body type under baggy combat dress. What we can see are dainty hands. If the pocket on the sleve conforms to a ciggarette pack it is six inches. This gives a shoulde rto wrist leangth of around 24 inches and a total body leanght minus head of 48" add 10" more for the neck and head for a total of 58" (1.48cm)
Tankers even of elite divsiosn are small statured generally. I myself am only 5'6. And i serve din the Abrams. Turrets are cramped places full of moving equipment and threats to the soft pink human body: the turret monster is an ever present threat.
In my opinion the soildes are roughly 2/3rds as high as the tank or about 1.5m tall (supported by estimates above). This is point one under the national average for the PRC and totally in keeping with the desing concepts of tanks modelled on the T sries development.
This would make the round between 560mm (as I orignally suggested) to 7cm in leangth maximum (assuming a 1.6M height for the tankers)
The round measures to just under 50% of the leangth of the body. Assuming a 1.47-1.5M height that round is under 600mm in leangth. If the soilder is 1.6m tall the round is between 6-700 mm max.
I mena no disrespect but you make a couple of assumptions that are not borne out by the evidence.
1- The PLA does indeed use tanks in an urban setting. 1989's famous photo as a case in point. all major militaries use tanks to suppor tinfantr yin an urban setting becuase the tanks maingun can reduce strong points and counter snipers very effectively.
2- The soilders barely seem to be eye level with the tanks fender. Since the type 99 is only 2.2M tall a 1.8+ M hieght of the solder only leaves .4 meter for the turret. And yet the turret of the tank behind the lead tank with a man standing on the hull has the turret coming up nearly to his waist, far more than a mere .4 meters. Nor can you tellthe body type under baggy combat dress. What we can see are dainty hands. If the pocket on the sleve conforms to a ciggarette pack it is six inches. This gives a shoulde rto wrist leangth of around 24 inches and a total body leanght minus head of 48" add 10" more for the neck and head for a total of 58" (1.48cm)
Tankers even of elite divsiosn are small statured generally. I myself am only 5'6. And i serve din the Abrams. Turrets are cramped places full of moving equipment and threats to the soft pink human body: the turret monster is an ever present threat.
In my opinion the soildes are roughly 2/3rds as high as the tank or about 1.5m tall (supported by estimates above). This is point one under the national average for the PRC and totally in keeping with the desing concepts of tanks modelled on the T sries development.
This would make the round between 560mm (as I orignally suggested) to 7cm in leangth maximum (assuming a 1.6M height for the tankers)
The round measures to just under 50% of the leangth of the body. Assuming a 1.47-1.5M height that round is under 600mm in leangth. If the soilder is 1.6m tall the round is between 6-700 mm max.
goldenpanda
Banned Idiot
I don't know why it didn't occur to us to use the one WELL KNOWN measure in the photo -- the diameter is 125mm. 
My measurement was 680mm. (I had to correct myself once already, so can someone double check? just blow it up really big and take the ratio)
That's makes the soldier 170cm (5'7"). I realize you're not used to measuring metric, but 150cm would really be a dwarf.
PLA might use tanks to support an assault on a city, but patrolling against RPG armed insurgents is simply not an operational scenario. We have plenty infantry for that.
My measurement was 680mm. (I had to correct myself once already, so can someone double check? just blow it up really big and take the ratio)That's makes the soldier 170cm (5'7"). I realize you're not used to measuring metric, but 150cm would really be a dwarf.
PLA might use tanks to support an assault on a city, but patrolling against RPG armed insurgents is simply not an operational scenario. We have plenty infantry for that.
Last edited:
optionsss
Junior Member
The photo were taken from an angle, so comparing the solder's and tank's height will only give you skewed data, just take the ratio between the diameter of the round and the length the thing, that would be far better results. I got around 660~.
PS: Personally, the soldiers does not look like 1.5m I think he can atleast break 1.7m..., but thats just my thinking.
well at least we know the leangth of the round now. And we know the L/D ratio and the speed. (assuming it is the Tungsten core round) and claimed penetration.
The only piece of info missing is the weight but that can be extrapolated. The Russian round is 560mm long and weighs 4.3kg (.73kg per 100mm of leangth) L/D 16:1 1750m/s Ke= 6,584,375, penetration 650mm of RHAe 10,129.8j per mm of RHAe
DM53 6.15kg projectile 745mm long L/D 31/1 (.83kg per 100mm of leangth)
1750m/s (L55) estimated penetration 800mm RHAe KE= 9417187.5j 11771,5j per mm of RHAe
M829A3 8.8kg projectile 892mm long L/D (assumed 30/1) .98kg per 100mm of leangth 1555 m/s KE 10639310 est penetration 900mm of RHAe 11821.45j per mm of RHAe
PLA round 6.3kg weight (estimated) 660mm long L/D 30/1 (.93kg per 100mm of leangth) 1780 m/s claimed penetration 850mm KE= 9980460j 11741.7 j per mm of RHAe
850mm is possible if Chinese metallurgy can keep the round from deforming and if China some how got a shorter penetrator to trasfer energy like a longer penetrator.
The only piece of info missing is the weight but that can be extrapolated. The Russian round is 560mm long and weighs 4.3kg (.73kg per 100mm of leangth) L/D 16:1 1750m/s Ke= 6,584,375, penetration 650mm of RHAe 10,129.8j per mm of RHAe
DM53 6.15kg projectile 745mm long L/D 31/1 (.83kg per 100mm of leangth)
1750m/s (L55) estimated penetration 800mm RHAe KE= 9417187.5j 11771,5j per mm of RHAe
M829A3 8.8kg projectile 892mm long L/D (assumed 30/1) .98kg per 100mm of leangth 1555 m/s KE 10639310 est penetration 900mm of RHAe 11821.45j per mm of RHAe
PLA round 6.3kg weight (estimated) 660mm long L/D 30/1 (.93kg per 100mm of leangth) 1780 m/s claimed penetration 850mm KE= 9980460j 11741.7 j per mm of RHAe
850mm is possible if Chinese metallurgy can keep the round from deforming and if China some how got a shorter penetrator to trasfer energy like a longer penetrator.
My estimate is like this:
Contratry to zraver's claim, Chinese Tungsten rod's L/D ration is unknown, see the locked thread. China only discloses that their DU rod L/D ration is 30/1, never says what is it for Tungsten shell.
And Chinese doesn't deploy DU shells, only developed it. It's unimaginable for China to deploy DU shell on its soil at this stage. So it's safe to say the shell has Tungsten rod.
The Russian shell has a length of 47cm with a penetrate depth 560mm. As we know China has no problem to import that shell and copies it in some way. So we assume Chinese rod has the same diameter as the Russian shell, but extends in length.
Thus the mass gain of Chinese rod, compared with Russian rod is 66/47=1.4, roughly 40% gain. Considering that Chinese shell has a slightly higher muzzle speed than Russian shell, 1780/1700. So it matches the claim that Chinese shell has a KE gain of 45%, compared with Russian shell.
And the penetrate depth gain is 560mm x 1.45 = 812mm, roughly in line with their claim.
Contratry to zraver's claim, Chinese Tungsten rod's L/D ration is unknown, see the locked thread. China only discloses that their DU rod L/D ration is 30/1, never says what is it for Tungsten shell.
And Chinese doesn't deploy DU shells, only developed it. It's unimaginable for China to deploy DU shell on its soil at this stage. So it's safe to say the shell has Tungsten rod.
The Russian shell has a length of 47cm with a penetrate depth 560mm. As we know China has no problem to import that shell and copies it in some way. So we assume Chinese rod has the same diameter as the Russian shell, but extends in length.
Thus the mass gain of Chinese rod, compared with Russian rod is 66/47=1.4, roughly 40% gain. Considering that Chinese shell has a slightly higher muzzle speed than Russian shell, 1780/1700. So it matches the claim that Chinese shell has a KE gain of 45%, compared with Russian shell.
And the penetrate depth gain is 560mm x 1.45 = 812mm, roughly in line with their claim.
actually the L/D ratio of the tungsten rod is easy enough to determine by simple measurement of the picture.
Also the shells velocity and claimed penetration can be reversed to come up with shell weight as a function of Ek.
The shells weight by this measurement is in line with German round which has a L/D 31/1. if the Chinese round is nearly twice as thick (russian short rod 16/1) then we should see a signifigant gain in mass which is not reflected in the Ek equasion.
Nor does L/D determine penetration, it is however an indicator of efficency. The Russian seems to be more efficent but if we use the Russian efficency and then reverse the Ek formula
we need 8,610,500j using 10,130j per mm of RHAe
2.75/1780^2/850= 8713100j so unless thye Chinese round is some how hollow there is no way a 5.5kg round 660mm long will have a 16/1 L/D ratio.
Also the shells velocity and claimed penetration can be reversed to come up with shell weight as a function of Ek.
The shells weight by this measurement is in line with German round which has a L/D 31/1. if the Chinese round is nearly twice as thick (russian short rod 16/1) then we should see a signifigant gain in mass which is not reflected in the Ek equasion.
Nor does L/D determine penetration, it is however an indicator of efficency. The Russian seems to be more efficent but if we use the Russian efficency and then reverse the Ek formula
we need 8,610,500j using 10,130j per mm of RHAe
2.75/1780^2/850= 8713100j so unless thye Chinese round is some how hollow there is no way a 5.5kg round 660mm long will have a 16/1 L/D ratio.
Pointblank
Senior Member
I would really would listen to zraver, as he has a lot more experience with these issues and scenarios than any of you. It is just mathematically and scientifically impossible to make the claims the Chinese are making. I can see some improvements made by the Chinese in some areas with the 125mm gun technology, but not to the extent the Chinese are claiming. Even my contacts will agree with this; some of the Chinese claims are highly exaggerated, and may appear creditable to a layman's view, but someone with technical expertise will tear apart the claim pretty quickly.