New Type98/99 MBT thread

[fishhead]

All west and Chinese tank gun barrels are built with electro-slag steels. Chinese got that from Germany.

I never heard what steel used in Russian guns. But in early 1990s, India rejected 454 of 770 its tank gun barrels for its T-72, since the barrel would crack when firing in the sub continent climate.

Also the barrel length has a lot to say. It's limited by the stiffness of the steel used, too long the barrel will bend it so to impact the firing accuracy, which means the longer the barrel, the better the steel used for the same caliber.

Chinese 99 gun barrel has 6412mm length, Russian 2A46 is 6000mm, same caliber.

 

[fishhead]

Now this is getting silly...So if the chinese would theoretically have the acces to western technology and as they didn't choose it, it means that the one that they did choose to produce must be better than the western system (and naturally better than any russian system)?? Wow, man you kids can make up nice logics

It's because of the loader, ok. Chinese limits the height of its tank crew due to its smaller tank size. So their physical strength can't match with American crews, 120 shell is too big for them.

That's the reason they chose the 125.

 

[Skorzeny]

It's because of the loader, ok. Chinese limits the height of its tank crew due to its smaller tank size. So their physical strength can't match with American crews, 120 shell is too big for them.

That's the reason they chose the 125.

This is the funniest argument i`ve ever heard! Can`t lift a shell?
First the guys of the manchurian elite divisions are really tall when we try to get the length of the sabot (you or panda claimed this, dont remember), now all chinese tanker are really short. Gotta make up your mind

 

[Gollevainen]

I'm short, about 171cm and I had no proplems (Mean I was physically able to do it, it wasen't fun tough ) to lift and load the 155mm piggies which are alot heavier than 120mm tank shells and we had to raise the ammunitions higher from the ground...so your theory flops big time fishy...

 

[zraver]

Kilo, fisheads claims are not supported by the info. we have established the following facts leangth 60.6cm claimed penetration 85cm (Fishehad claims the PLA wont use its DU round so the pic is of the tungesten round) velocity 1780m/s with that info we can extrapolate the rest of the information. if it is a long rod penetrator (western style) it will come in 11.5K or so joules per mm of RHAe and weigh more and have a thinner L/D ratio (30/1). If it is a short rod then it come sin around 10.1K joule per mm of RHAe witha thicker L/D (16/1) but weigh less.

If you use the Russian model you end up with a round that is far to light to achieve the claimed results.

 

[fishhead]

LOL, it's the well-known fact in China. I am not talking about lifting, but loading the shell in the tank.

99 tank spec says the manual loading takes 1 min.

Pakistan's tank has the crew height limit of 1.7m as well. I think Chinese roughly has the same limitation, so 1.71m is not even qualified for a tank crew.

 

[Gollevainen]

You honestly say that 1 cm in height has somehting to do with...anything?

I used my height as a example of you statement not being logical. Short guys like I didn't have proplems with the shells (our battery had one guy being shorter than 150 cm and I once saw him carriyng one piggy...a hilarious sight bytehway) so the height concern isen't any factor. Pure strenght is much more reasonable factor. And there is one good and yet effective way to gain it, lifting iron's...piggies included Ofcourse taller guys did it better (if they had the strenght) but shorter guys didn't have proplems either.

I am not talking about lifting, but loading the shell in the tank.

And you assume that loading a tankgun manually doesen't require lifting? You obviosly wasen't talking about that, I agree in fact you propably don't even know what you are talking about in the first place.

Loading a tankgun or any other gun for that matter is done by using pretty much the same movements of your muscels. Only difference with 155mm field artypieces is that their breech is higher if you look at the mass-point of the gunners eg. you need to lift the ammunitions higher in order to get them inot the tubes...

 

[fishhead]

Loading a tankgun or any other gun for that matter is done by using pretty much the same movements of your muscels.

Definitely not true, in a constrained space, you need more muscle.

It's pointless to argue the reason why Chinese don't use 120 gun in their tank, it's the decision made and well known in China.

Even most western sources know it, the following is quoted in many places refering to the Chinese 125 gun:

"The main armament is a fully-stablised 125 mm 50-calibre smoothbore gun with autoloader. Despite the early reports indicating the gun was a licensed copy of the Russian 2A46, it is actually an indigenous design derived from the Chinese 120 mm smoothbore gun technology."

 

[zraver]

Fishhead, are you a tanker? I am and what Golly is saying is true. Humping shells is humping shells. I am only 5'6" (160cm) tall so your speaking out your a**.

 

[bd popeye]

I doubt if fish head is a tanker..He just turned 17 on 3 Febuary.

Pure strenght is much more reasonable factor

I agree with zaver & golly.

I never humped shells. Just bombs & missiles. You have to have the physical strenght to do the job. Any sort of lifting actually. Period. Height does not mean that much. Really.