Left column are design requirements, right column are actual test results.
My favorite part is "Only AP tested, HEAT unavailable due to budgetary issues."
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Left column are design requirements, right column are actual test results.
My favorite part is "Only AP tested, HEAT unavailable due to budgetary issues."
The "split-nature" is what limits the length and penetration of the sabot.
The penetrator is in one section and the propellant in another.
NATO sabots are +900mm because the case isn't split into 2 sections:
Thanks
The question was mostly rethorical. The upper limit of a sabot intended for carousel should actually be dictated by the width of a tank. If you go with a 1m long sabot then that's 2m already used and some overhead for the drive mechanism of the carousel also needs to be accounted, then the chassis armor further add to that number, there is not much room anymore for a 3-4m wide tank. So i believe 1m sabot is approaching the boundary of possibility for carousel loaders
The "split-nature" is what limits the length and penetration of the sabot.
The penetrator is in one section and the propellant in another.
NATO sabots are +900mm because the case isn't split into 2 sections:
Ok, had around 800mm for the a3 in my head. But like i posted above, i think the physical width of the tank is what ultimatly limits the length of a sabot.
Does anybody have a reliable pic of a top shelf 125mm gen 3 PLA sabot? Only pics i see are from the DTW-125 and by eyeballing it looks like 600mm tops.
It's the overall size/cost:
Western tank design selected the heavy/expensive (German) philosophy after WWII. While the East continued with the T-34 philosophy, which worked brilliantly in WWII, but has obvious weaknesses. Now, they've finally accepted the problem and are correcting it:
(T-14 on the Left)
The Armata's Vacuum-1 sabot reportedly has a 900mm penetrator, and with a gun whose muzzle velocity exceeds that of the Rheinmetall. This finally matches NATO tanks in firepower. Plus, because the size has now increased it probably has equivalent heavy armor as well (and with all of this, the cost has also increased.)
Last edited:
There were various reasons concerning production and logistics that led to the smaller Soviet T-series tanks during the Cold War, but having a small silhouette was also considered important.
It made sense with the sighting / FCS systems of the day. Smaller tank is harder to hit.
With digitized FCS + advanced night vision becoming common, that advantage isn't so relevant anymore. So T-14 makes sense, because size difference with T-72 series not as important anymore.
It made sense with the sighting / FCS systems of the day. Smaller tank is harder to hit.
With digitized FCS + advanced night vision becoming common, that advantage isn't so relevant anymore. So T-14 makes sense, because size difference with T-72 series not as important anymore.
Well it is more complicated than that. The Soviets had a heavy tank program until the late 1950s. This produced the T-10 heavy tank for example. After Stalin died Khrushchev got into power. Khrushchev had an obsession with missile technology. The Soviets had a plan for a missile tank, the IT-1, but it was pretty much a failure. You still see a legacy of this until today in that Russian tanks still have optional gun launched missiles unlike most NATO tanks. Soviet tanks had more severe weight limits than US tanks because of the lackluster road infrastructure in the Soviet Union. Bridges could not support heavier tanks. This is the reason heavy tank programs like the IS-7 ended up being cancelled. You would have to cross rivers by snorkeling. I don't think this problem is nearly as acute in modern Russia. But even the T-14 Armata is much lighter than most Western tanks.
The T-14 Armata was basically impossible to build in the 1980s. The tank layout relies on a remote controlled turret. There were similar designs in the 1980s in the US but they proved to be a failure because they could never get it to work properly.
Russia's population is aging and the idea of a minimally protected tank built in massive numbers no longer makes as much sense.
I think China needs to produce a new MBT and this should happen eventually given the Type 15 tank has already been developed and the Type 99 is getting kind of old.
It always is.
Like I said, they went for the cheaper solution. Heavy armor is expensive across the board. Even the Armata is half the price of a Leopard/Abrams, and they still can't afford it.
I'll disagree that the Armata is "much lighter" than NATO tanks though. It's at 55 tons versus the 2A6's 62 tons. That's not bad. For comparison, the T-90 is 46 tons.
It would be nice if China built heavy armor, but it doesn't really need it right now. It's not staring down the Northern European Plain with NATO on the other side, nor does it share a flat plain with India. With that said, I wish China did make a heavy tank so that Pakistan could buy it (lolz.) Since we actually need it in the Northern sector. We trialed the Abrams in the 80s but it was too heavy to operate in the sand dunes of the Southern Sector. But we still should've bought a few hundred for the Northern plains. That was a big mistake by our Army. They just haven't invested much in our Armored divisions because of an infantry and artillery bias, even though we actually have a severe need for armor.
There is nothing "cheap" about the T-14 Armata. Just look at the engine it uses. Or the robotic turret. It is half the price because the ruble is undervalued and salaries in Russia are low. I doubt it is cheap in terms of man hours. But I would not say they cannot afford it. Russia can afford enough T-14 Armata tanks to totally outmatch NATO forces in Europe. Over its production lifetime I expect it, or its platform, to be produced in higher numbers than the T-90. The T-14 Armata has not entered production yet because it had severe technical issues with all sorts of things like the engine and FCS.
Well the M1A2SEPv3 is 66.8 tons and that is without Trophy APS I think. The T-14 Armata comes with the Afghanit APS built in.
Pakistan has little geographical defensive depth it can use so heavy tanks are a necessity I agree.
I can certainly understand China not making a Type 99 replacement a priority. But given the amount of spending they have available today and all other low hanging fruit seems to have been worked on already I think it is a matter of time. I think it is clear with the Type 15 entering service, the new uniforms, and the new rifles, that the PLA is now getting cash dumped into it after over a decade of really low funding levels. I suspect China is probably waiting on tank developments elsewhere before deciding which project they will push. The T-14 is still not in mass production and the next generation US tank project is still unknown. I would not be surprised if they bought some T-14 Armata tanks. To be honest I don't know what China will do. If they will go with a more conservative design as they did with the Type 15 or make a technological leap. They might even do both. You have not only the Type 99 but also the Type 96 to consider replacing.
