Thought it used 85-II/M testbed
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
It's not quite true, actually. First ~5 years T-72 was more expensive than T-64A. Also, I can't say that 12508 T-64s aren't large number:
1st column: years
2nd column: T-72s by UVZ (Tagil)
3rd column: T-72s by ChTZ (Chelyabinsk)
4th column: T-72s went to Soviet Army (so, number of T-72s excluding export)
5th column: T-64As and T-64Bs
6th column: T-80s (all mods)
So, 17831 T-72s vs 19516 T-64s and T-80s
E: To make a correction, IIRC 99A has third-generation thermals for TG. But TC still only has second-generation thermals for CITV.
Broccoli
Senior Member
Looking at the all "beheaded" Russian tanks in Ukraine i'd argue that tank with carousel style autoloader needs APS for sure or far stronger roof armor, at least Type-15 is right path forward with it's bustle autoloader, but even it still lacks APS even thought light tank would benefit from it even more.
T-90 should have strong roof armor but doesn't seem to do much against top-attack ATGM's.
T-90 should have strong roof armor but doesn't seem to do much against top-attack ATGM's.
If the PLA continues to use the 125, I don't see bustle autoloaders becoming a possibility for Chinese tanks. They would have to develop fixed ammunition for the 125, and the turret would have to be scaled up dramatically to fit the resulting cartridges in the bustle. Hull dimensions would increase as a result, and if you want to retain a good level of protection, you'll end up with a very heavy vehicle.
The only way I can see a bustle autoloader working out practically for a 55-ton tank is if you have an unmanned turret, like the Armata. That can keep the turret compact enough, and the crew can be relocated to the hull where there should now be plenty of space since there is no carousel. Even with this design philosophy, the Armata only stores 6 rounds in its autoloader, though it's also ~7 tons lighter than a 99A so a Chinese Armata might fit a few more.
And how it could help?
Firstly, bustle autoloader is much easier target.
Secondly, and that's more important, I haven't seen any thick armor between ZTQ15's autoloader and crew compartment. So, it doesn't look much safer.
Thirdly, a lot of tanks with bustle ammo rack has another ammo rack in the hull, which can annihilate the entire tank too (e.g., Turkish Leopards in Syria). I think only M1A2 is safe for its crew, more or less (and T-14, but it's still a prototype).
well ztq-15 is taller than ztz-99a. as for bustle autoloader in turret, Type 90 seems to do fine, and 120mm is not that far off.
Broccoli
Senior Member
Type-15 has blowout panels because the bustle autoloader allows it (as far I know no ammo stored in crew compartment) while other PLA tanks don't have anything like that. Gives crew higher survival chance.