New Type98/99 MBT thread

[GeForce]

Russians first used 125mm to compensate somewhat using brute force.

Welp. Soviets fielded APFSDS rounds like 3UBM3 much before "BLUFOR".

Also mentioned in the first part that T-72 they were surprised at how unthreatening it is

Dunno what's surprising about that. Ofc MBT from 1973 was outdated in late 1980s.
MBT evolution was much faster at that time.

The original M1 Abrams had a 105mm L7 gun, also widely used by Israel on various types. Can't be that bad, especially if further developed

105mm wasn't a big threat for T-64/T-72/T-80 until introducing Israeli M111 Hetz-6 round. And even that threat was negated quickly. Switching to a new caliber was the only correct answer to FST-1.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

And that is...?

The original T-80A/Bs weren't that great, as many of them were destroyed during the 1996 Chechen War. However, the T-80U was a completely different story. The Chinese somehow go their hands on T-80Us during the 1990s and realized that neither the L7 105mm nor the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 could penetrate.

 

[ougoah]

Yep sorry should have mentioned that the discussed tank was T-80U not just any T-80.

 

[ougoah]

Welp. Soviets fielded APFSDS rounds like 3UBM3 much before "BLUFOR".

Dunno what's surprising about that. Ofc MBT from 1973 was outdated in late 1980s.
MBT evolution was much faster at that time.

105mm wasn't a big threat for T-64/T-72/T-80 until introducing Israeli M111 Hetz-6 round. And even that threat was negated quickly. Switching to a new caliber was the only correct answer to FST-1.

I was brainfarting all I could sort of semi remember from the three part short videos.

By the time China got a few examples of T-72 they were expecting the tank NATO has been fearmongering about but it was thoroughly underwhelming. However T-80U was very impressive for the time and made Chinese designers realise they needed new tanks.

Soviet and Chinese ammunition just could not match western ones apparently and they were forced into larger and the presenter made a point to say larger isn't always better because smaller does have certain advantages and can be upgraded to near equal levels of energy. Of course he also says larger guns with same parameters would have higher energy but they were harder to control presumably in reference to FCS, gymble mechanism and mobility etc. Essentially implying there were several "costs" to fully exploiting the energy of larger guns and smaller guns could be upgraded to near those levels in a more manageable way. This was all 1980s 1990s but all Russian and Chinese current tanks in service still use the same basis so there wouldn't be that much improvement except for barrel manufacturing (lifespan and pressure) and other more passive upgrades not directly with the gun itself e.g. muzzle reference and various software upgrades.

 

[gelgoog]

No way. The Soviet guns were nearly always on top. The 105mm L7 rifled gun was a response to the 100mm rifled gun on the T-54A.
As a response to that the Soviets made the T-62 with 115mm smoothbore gun.

So it is not just "increase the caliber". The Soviets introduced smoothbore guns to tanks. NATO dismissed smoothbore guns with all sorts of BS claims that they were less accurate and things like that. Then they themselves switched to smoothbore guns when the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun came out.

The T-72A was much better in terms of armor than the T-72. And by the 1990s both were obsolete.

 

[keldon]

Watched the entire 4 parter. Few things i'd like to add to the discussion:

- Uncle Yang (the uploader) says idealy you want a gun of small caliber that is still able to defeat all potential targets, since the weight and room you save can be used to improve armor and/or mobility instead. Thus a larger caliber gun is not always superior in terms of general design.

- Chief engineer Zhu decided to go with 125mm instead of 120mm because of higher potential of the former. Around 1985 Chinese gun had issues with inferior propellant charge compared to NATO, kinda similar to Soviet. If the propellant improves in the future to the level of NATO then the 125mm will hold the adavantage of higher power.

- The T-72 China got from Romania was a "monkey model".

 

[GeForce]

The original T-80A/Bs weren't that great, as many of them were destroyed during the 1996 Chechen War. However, the T-80U was a completely different story

Nah, it wasn't about tanks at all. Even Baneblades or Land Raiders would be destroyed in such urban warfare conditions with bad recon and poor command&control.
Also, if I remember correctly, there were no T-80Us in Chechnya. Not quite sure if T-80U has ever seen real combat.

smaller guns could be upgraded to near those levels in a more manageable way.

Yeah, kinda. If you don't mind barrel life of ~100 EFC (Effective Full Charge) rounds

except for barrel manufacturing (lifespan and pressure) and other more passive upgrades not directly with the gun itself e.g. muzzle reference and various software upgrades

Eh... Doesn't that describe a difference between old gun and new gun?
I dunno... Compare something like L7 and M68A1. Two completely different guns except their 105mm caliber and some ammo compatibility

The 105mm L7 rifled gun was a response to the 100mm rifled gun on the T-54A.
As a response to that the Soviets made the T-62 with 115mm smoothbore gun.

It's even funnier. L7 was tested in 1958 and was fielded in 1959. 115mm U5-TS was tested in 1959 and was fielded in 1961.

The T-72 China got from Romania was a "monkey model".

I'm not 100% sure, but Romanian T-72s (and that Chinese "Type 64") look like 172M-E, which is the same mod as East German or Czech, and not much different from Soviet 172M. There are some external distinctive features.
Just keep in mind that it's tank from 1973.

 

[gelgoog]

The export T-72 tanks had worse armor than the T-72A from 1979.
When the Soviet Union collapsed you already had T-72 tanks with Kontakt ERA.
AFAIK the Soviets never exported their DU ammo rounds either.

 

[broadsword]

Watched the entire 4 parter. Few things i'd like to add to the discussion:

- Uncle Yang (the uploader) says idealy you want a gun of small caliber that is still able to defeat all potential targets, since the weight and room you save can be used to improve armor and/or mobility instead. Thus a larger caliber gun is not always superior in terms of general design.

- Chief engineer Zhu decided to go with 125mm instead of 120mm because of higher potential of the former. Around 1985 Chinese gun had issues with inferior propellant charge compared to NATO, kinda similar to Soviet. If the propellant improves in the future to the level of NATO then the 125mm will hold the adavantage of higher power.

- The T-72 China got from Romania was a "monkey model".

The current propellant has not improved to that extent?

 

[KampfAlwin]

The current propellant has not improved to that extent?

I think what he meant was, back in the 1980s, they chose the 125mm due to future potential to surpass NATO 120mm in firepower.
But that seems limited due to the ammo carousel not being able to take longer projectiles.