New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
In the video he emphasized the role of Type 99A in joint warfare. Central command can coordinate down the the vehicle and the vehicle can call upon other assets like air support.
Use of drones in destroying ground targets during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was mentioned. The successful use of drones against ground targets doesn't negate the role of 99A as it would be operating with anti-air and many other high tech assets to ensure its security.
99A includes automation features that identifies and alerts crews of enemy assets and suspicious objects. The system also aids in determining whether the crew should strike a target. It doesn't operate alone and is partnered with Type04A for infantry support.
antiterror13
Brigadier
you have a very good memory
Most modern MBT has some kind of substantial armor blocks covering at least part of the upper run or the track, as HEAT/kenetic protection for the hull. But Type-99 AFAIK has never been seen with anything more than a thin steel skirt. The skirt might provide some HEAT protection. But it can effort no meaningful protection against kenetic. The sides of the hull behind the track can be thick rolled steel, but certainly wouldn’t have space for any sophisticated composite armor. Is there some war use armored package that just has never been shown to the public?
Finally, some wallpaper style pics of 99AA few nice high-resolution images, some of the best so far.
As I'm aware, MBTs don't have composite armour on their hull because putting the same grade of front composite armour all around, would make tanks really heavy.
What most modern tanks have are passive armours like ERA blocks or NERA or both, well known examples are M1A2 Abrams TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) or ARAT (abrams reactive armour tile) and Challenger 2 TES (Theatre Entry Standard). They're primarily designed for increase survivability against Tandem Charges HEAT, HEAT or IEDs. Increased in effectiveness against kinetic like APFSDS rounds too but not by much as for defeating kinetic requires greater angling of ERA which is not so easy on flat sides. Also depends on the ERA itself, Relikt armour for example has great protection against kinetic in terms of ERA but relikt blocks alone which still wouldn't be enough to defeat modern APFSDS.
Western and Russian tanks features these side protection because their tanks are more involved or would likely be more involved in conflicts against insurgents that uses HEAT based weaponries.
However I suspect making add-on armour for Type 99A isn't very difficult task if it get into times of need. In the current times for China, I think it's not worth the hassle to retrofit them with passive armour package. Especially Type 99A as far as I know isn't being exported, rather VT4 tank is the one being marketed for export which also isn't fitted with hull armour. The new Type 15/ VT5 light tank though, uses hull ERA package interestingly.
I don't think any tank in the world has meaningful protection against APFSDS from the sides.
Depends what you call meaningful. Remember that angles matter a lot. A difference in side armour thickness of 10mm (assuming same composition and materials) could be the difference between penetration and no penetration. Not all shots impact perpendicular to armour surface.
IMHO, side armor against sabots is a fundamentally flawed concept. If your tanks are taking sabot hits in their flanks from a near-peer enemy, tactically, you've already lost that battle. Side-armor isn't going to save you. At that point, your best option is an orderly tactical retreat (assuming your units don't panic and completely loose their shit), while praying that you don't march straight into a kill-box, because you clearly have no idea where the enemy is.
Main Battle Tanks are supposed to be an analog to the cavalry archer. They are supposed to be fast, mobile and offensively maneuvering to attack the weakest flank of their enemy (not getting flanked themselves.) There is a larger discussion to be had here on the theory of warfare. Some have argued that even the 1991 Gulf War was a misapplication of armor by NATO, which resulted in too many frontal engagements between armor vs armor. I can't remember where I read this, but it was an analysis by an American officer or military historian. Theoretically, you would get your MBTs to engage the enemy's weakest points, while countering the enemy's armor by using your gunships, artillery and CAS. That's the most elegant approach.
With that said, Murphy's Law still applies... but I'd still spend the money wasted on side-armor on R&D for better APS solutions, which may one day be able to defeat sabots.
Main Battle Tanks are supposed to be an analog to the cavalry archer. They are supposed to be fast, mobile and offensively maneuvering to attack the weakest flank of their enemy (not getting flanked themselves.) There is a larger discussion to be had here on the theory of warfare. Some have argued that even the 1991 Gulf War was a misapplication of armor by NATO, which resulted in too many frontal engagements between armor vs armor. I can't remember where I read this, but it was an analysis by an American officer or military historian. Theoretically, you would get your MBTs to engage the enemy's weakest points, while countering the enemy's armor by using your gunships, artillery and CAS. That's the most elegant approach.
With that said, Murphy's Law still applies... but I'd still spend the money wasted on side-armor on R&D for better APS solutions, which may one day be able to defeat sabots.
Last edited:
A possible two man crew tank which China is developing might solve side armor protection for the crew since turret armor is not needed so can be exchanged for a heavily armored crew cabin.