New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Mirabo]

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.

120mm has "only" a 5mm difference compared to the 125, but in reality it affects the design of the entire tank.

For one, NATO 120mm tank guns fire fixed ammunition (i.e. propellant and projectile is bundled together in one cartridge), but for the 125s used by Chinese and Russian tanks, the propellant and shell are kept separate. That's why some NATO tanks (or tanks using NATO guns) can use a bustle autoloader without much issue, like the Type 90 and the Leclerc.

If you want to use a bustle autoloader for a tank using a Chinese or Russian-style 125mm gun, then you first need to develop fixed ammunition for the gun. If you try to put two-piece ammo in a bustle, you would only be able to fit half the number of rounds compared to a tank using fixed ammunition, because you need two racks - one rack for the shells and one rack for propellant.

Furthermore, a bustle autoloader that takes a shell first and then a propellant charge second would be much more complex than a NATO or ZTQ-15 type of autoloader, which only needs to perform one action because the propellant and projectile are combined in one casing. This would severely affect the rate of fire, increase the difficult of maintenance, and impact mechanical reliability.

Also, it seems I was wrong about the Armata. It can store a lot more than 6 rounds in its autoloader, but that's because it uses a carousel autoloader feeding shells and projectiles separately, not a bustle autoloader. I incorrectly thought that the Russians had developed fixed ammo for their 125s, but I was mistaken.

 

[TK3600]

120mm has "only" a 5mm difference compared to the 125, but in reality it affects the design of the entire tank.

For one, NATO 120mm tank guns fire fixed ammunition (i.e. propellant and projectile is bundled together in one cartridge), but for the 125s used by Chinese and Russian tanks, the propellant and shell are kept separate. That's why some NATO tanks (or tanks using NATO guns) can use a bustle autoloader without much issue, like the Type 90 and the Leclerc.

If you want to use a bustle autoloader for a tank using a Chinese or Russian-style 125mm gun, then you first need to develop fixed ammunition for the gun. If you try to put two-piece ammo in a bustle, you would only be able to fit half the number of rounds compared to a tank using fixed ammunition, because you need two racks - one rack for the shells and one rack for propellant.

Furthermore, a bustle autoloader that takes a shell first and then a propellant charge second would be much more complex than a NATO or ZTQ-15 type of autoloader, which only needs to perform one action because the propellant and projectile are combined in one casing. This would severely affect the rate of fire, increase the difficult of maintenance, and impact mechanical reliability.

Also, it seems I was wrong about the Armata. It can store a lot more than 6 rounds in its autoloader, but that's because it uses a carousel autoloader feeding shells and projectiles separately, not a bustle autoloader. I incorrectly thought that the Russians had developed fixed ammo for their 125s, but I was mistaken.

And what stops them from using one piece munition?

 

[Mirabo]

And what stops them from using one piece munition?

It'd be too big for any of the current vehicles. The carousel autoloaders used by all modern Chinese and Russian tanks were designed to use two-piece ammunition, so even if you developed fixed ammunition for the 125, existing tanks would not be able to use them.

You'd need a brand-new autoloader and tank design, where half of the ammo will probably be kept in the bustle. The turret would be quite large, to accommodate the autoloader mechanism and the ammo storage. Modern 120mm ammunition measure around 95cm in length, where the sabot itself is over 90cm long. A fixed 125mm round could easily extend to over a metre.

The biggest reason why China selected the 125 in the first place was because China struggled to develop 120mm ammo that was on par with what NATO used. Like the Russians, China compensated simply by increasing the gun calibre to 125mm.

The PTZ-89 did use a 120mm gun firing fixed ammo (and the performance was alright), but they decided to use 125 for the Type 99 because a bigger gun stays relevant for longer, meaning that it has more development potential. At that point, there was no reason to stop designing tanks around a carousel autoloader.

If your only concern is overall survivability, then it'd be easier to just keep the carousel and transfer the crew into an armored tub, like how the Armata was designed.

 

[FishWings]

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.

Just an aside: how many of those T-90s (or even just tanks in general ) are confirmed to have been destroyed as a result of Javelin or NLAW? It seems everyone is trying to claim any kill as being the work of the weapons of their country. One of the first T-90A destroyed (while abandoned) was widely claimed as a NLAW kill, but was found out quickly to have been RPG (probably -7). Another kill on T-72B said to have destroyed by Javelin was literally filmed being shot at, and destroyed, with RPG-27. And even TB2 fans, once again, are claiming countless columns and entire battalions of tanks being wiped out by their superdrone, when only a handful of clips have been released of its action (so far at least). Most of them seem to have been destroyed after being abandoned, which can be done as simply as throwing a grenade inside the turret.

 

[gelgoog]

You would have to inspect all the vehicles and study each and every one of them. Someone might try to do that in an after war study but it is highly unlikely we will ever know the real numbers. The RPG-27 in Iraq disabled quite a few M1 tanks. The T-90 does have ERA but coverage isn't uniform across the whole tank. Still the T-90s I saw in the early reports were vehicles with mechanical breakdown not blown up vehicles. Are there photos of blown up ones now?

 

[GeForce]

Type-15 has blowout panels because the bustle autoloader allows it

I hope you understand that there should be armor between ammo and crew compartment to make this concept work. Right?
There is literally a hole behind crew in VT5. Dunno about ZTQ15 for sure tho.

Secondly, ZTQ15 has a lot of stuff right on the turret bustle, which could prevent "blow-out panels" to actually blow-out. Compare it with a clean roof of M1's bustle.

Thirdly, there is only one big "panel" on the top of the turret bustle, which looks more like service/assembly hatch for installing autoloader to the tank on the assembly line. There are no hatches in the bottom of the bustle and bustle looks like an integral part of the turret, so it's probably the way to install autoloader.

All in all, I'm still not convinced that VT5 or ZTQ15 has blow-out panels

 

[DeXM]

Just an aside: how many of those T-90s (or even just tanks in general ) are confirmed to have been destroyed as a result of Javelin or NLAW? It seems everyone is trying to claim any kill as being the work of the weapons of their country. One of the first T-90A destroyed (while abandoned) was widely claimed as a NLAW kill, but was found out quickly to have been RPG (probably -7). Another kill on T-72B said to have destroyed by Javelin was literally filmed being shot at, and destroyed, with RPG-27. And even TB2 fans, once again, are claiming countless columns and entire battalions of tanks being wiped out by their superdrone, when only a handful of clips have been released of its action (so far at least). Most of them seem to have been destroyed after being abandoned, which can be done as simply as throwing a grenade inside the turret.

Since I quite actively followed the course of the operation from the moment of its start, I can say that the overwhelming majority of lost tanks are a consequence of marching losses in first days - they're not "in combat".

There were few points:

a) Rushing to some "key" positions

b) some Ukrainian forces left behind

Few photos with destroyed T-80БВМ and Т-72Б3М I saw and may say that there were hits in sides or rear of tanks because of reasons described above.

So, In fact, the operation only demonstrated that, first of all, any technique is easily destroyed in the sides or rear, and, secondly, it would be possible to reduce the percentage of such losses by setting the tanks of active protection systems, like Арена-М.

 

[Broccoli]

I hope you understand that there should be armor between ammo and crew compartment to make this concept work. Right?
There is literally a hole behind crew in VT5. Dunno about ZTQ15 for sure tho.

Secondly, ZTQ15 has a lot of stuff right on the turret bustle, which could prevent "blow-out panels" to actually blow-out. Compare it with a clean roof of M1's bustle.

Thirdly, there is only one big "panel" on the top of the turret bustle, which looks more like service/assembly hatch for installing autoloader to the tank on the assembly line. There are no hatches in the bottom of the bustle and bustle looks like an integral part of the turret, so it's probably the way to install autoloader.

All in all, I'm still not convinced that VT5 or ZTQ15 has blow-out panels

There is a hole in Leclerc and K2 but it's closed after round has loaded. I don't see any reason why that design flaw couldn't be fixed in future models.

 

[GeForce]

I don't see any reason why that design flaw couldn't be fixed in future models.

Could be, I guess. But right now there is a hole for rounds and the gun rammer, which covered only by the loading tray.
Also, as I said above, the "blow-out panel" is big and obstructed by some stuff:

https://imgur.com/96FacyO

P.S. In my opinion, Stryker MGS's or Russian carousel-type autoloaders maybe aren't the safest for crew, but they're better protected overall. Because they are located in the lowest part of the vehicle, which is hard to hit in the first place.
Spectacular explosions of the Soviet/Russian MBTs are consequence of the fact that Soviet MoD wanted "hurr durr muh ammo". So, some T-72B has not only 22 rounds in relatively safe autoloader, but another 23 rounds here and there all over the crew compartment.
The same thing about ZTZ96 or ZTZ99.
Yeah, maybe 22 rounds aren't much, but at least pretty safe.

 

[Gloire_bb]

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.

To be fair, unexpectedly few of them cooked off in combat.
Most kabooms were burned down later on - and in this case it doesn't matter, burned down equipment is unrecoverable regardless of its looks.

If you want to use a bustle autoloader for a tank using a Chinese or Russian-style 125mm gun, then you first need to develop fixed ammunition for the gun. If you try to put two-piece ammo in a bustle, you would only be able to fit half the number of rounds compared to a tank using fixed ammunition, because you need two racks - one rack for the shells and one rack for propellant.

You can do it just fine, there were multiple projects and prototypes: Burlak, object 640, Yatagan, and so on.
No one did this in the end because there was already one working just fine, not because it was undoable.