New Type98/99 MBT thread

[plawolf]

Attach ERA blocks to the skirts, problem solved. Damn, I should charge the PLA lots and lots of money in consulting fees.

You can literally see the attachment points for added armour. What, they think China couldn’t work out how to make armour plates to hang on there or something?

This ‘pics or it didn’t happen’ mentality with western analysts is just so wilfully moronic it’s laughable.

China prefers add-on ablative armour over built-in where practical because add-on armour is much more flexible to add on or take off, upgrade and replace during combat operations.

For most combat operations, side amour adds little value. It’s only really going to make a significant difference in urban combat where you have a high chance of hidden infantry ambushing at close range with RPGs and the like.

In open field tank-v-tank combat, side armour is little more than a burden as it doesn’t add enough protection to be effective against main gun rounds, while adding weight to reduce range and speed and terrain limits.

 

[LCR34]

You can literally see the attachment points for added armour. What, they think China couldn’t work out how to make armour plates to hang on there or something?

This ‘pics or it didn’t happen’ mentality with western analysts is just so wilfully moronic it’s laughable.

China prefers add-on ablative armour over built-in where practical because add-on armour is much more flexible to add on or take off, upgrade and replace during combat operations.

For most combat operations, side amour adds little value. It’s only really going to make a significant difference in urban combat where you have a high chance of hidden infantry ambushing at close range with RPGs and the like.

In open field tank-v-tank combat, side armour is little more than a burden as it doesn’t add enough protection to be effective against main gun rounds, while adding weight to reduce range and speed and terrain limits.

Active hard kill does more to protect the tank compared to side armor.

 

[plawolf]

Active hard kill does more to protect the tank compared to side armor.

And you can have both.

 

[FishWings]

If the whole region does the same thing - there is a good chance there are very good reasons for that.

Japan will probably not be fighting a ground war before they need to retire their current tanks. Korea probably won't, either. PLA deployed these tanks where they faced off a potential hot conflict with the Indian army, and no additional armor was installed anyway.

 

[by78]

Short video about PLA tanks:

Generally speaking, Youtube channels such as this doesn't pass SDF standards of content dissemination.

 

[FishWings]

Short video about PLA tanks:

Watched it in detail, and some things stood out to me.

The FY-series includes FY-I to FY-V. II, IV, and V protect against KE.

The 59D has both FY-I and II, if I remember correctly.

The armor (at least on turret) of the 96 is not similar to 'older' i.e. early T-72s. which are Ural and Ural-1. These have a turret made of monolithic cast steel, with no composite whatsoever on turret. Even T-72A is not considered early, and since it incorporates no NERA in the armor structure, it probably isn't close to the 96 either. T-72B has base armor which is more comparable since it does use NERA (though probably still slightly inferior, as it is somewhat inefficient in comparison), and also has first-generation K-1 ERA (irrelevant against KE, but gives an advantage over the original 96 against threats such as RPG/ATGM).

And the 96A, 99, and 99A all use second-generation thermals only.

 

[FishWings]

Watched it in detail, and some things stood out to me.

The FY-series includes FY-I to FY-V. II, IV, and V protect against KE.

The 59D has both FY-I and II, if I remember correctly.

The armor (at least on turret) of the 96 is not similar to 'older' i.e. early T-72s. which are Ural and Ural-1. These have a turret made of monolithic cast steel, with no composite whatsoever on turret. Even T-72A is not considered early, and since it incorporates no NERA in the armor structure, it probably isn't close to the 96 either. T-72B has base armor which is more comparable since it does use NERA (though probably still slightly inferior, as it is somewhat inefficient in comparison), and also has first-generation K-1 ERA (irrelevant against KE, but gives an advantage over the original 96 against threats such as RPG/ATGM).

And the 96A, 99, and 99A all use second-generation thermals only.

Oh and forgot to add, there is no APS on the 99 or 99A, and certainly not anything to do with the GL-5 demonstrated in the video. There is however an laser ADS, which is mounted on a rotating turret behind the TG's hatch. The 96B also does not use a copy of T-72B3 1130hp engine. Finally, 99A (at least) does not require physical maps for navigation.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

Oh and forgot to add, there is no APS on the 99 or 99A, and certainly not anything to do with the GL-5 demonstrated in the video. There is however an laser ADS, which is mounted on a rotating turret behind the TG's hatch. The 96B also does not use a copy of T-72B3 1130hp engine. Finally, 99A (at least) does not require physical maps for navigation.

Wait are you sure about the APS part? I thought that the 99’s and 99A’s always had an APS and a laser dazzler system, and a quick search on this thread showed that both versions had such a system.

 

[LCR34]

Oh and forgot to add, there is no APS on the 99 or 99A, and certainly not anything to do with the GL-5 demonstrated in the video. There is however an laser ADS, which is mounted on a rotating turret behind the TG's hatch. The 96B also does not use a copy of T-72B3 1130hp engine. Finally, 99A (at least) does not require physical maps for navigation.

I am reserved about the capability of laser ads burning out seeker or thermal image. I've found close to no data on that. FY4E is advertised to degrade penetration from apfsds, not much info available. Unlike Ukraine who did disclose some test on their nozh era mounted on oplots. On ammunition, many report stated the gun on 99a is able to pen at least 700mm rha, which I doubt based on the apfsds I see. I've yet to see a Chinese penetrator longer than 550-600mm, which also puts it at Mango standard.

 

[LCR34]

Wait are you sure about the APS part? I thought that the 99’s and 99A’s always had an APS and a laser dazzler system, and a quick search on this thread showed that both versions had such a system.

GL5 tests are conducted from a type 69 or 79 testbed. MBT in PLA services does not have APS. APS are not mounted on Pakistani Vt4 too.