New Type98/99 MBT thread

[LCR34]

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.


You can do it just fine, there were multiple projects and prototypes.
No one did this in the end because there was already one working just fine, not because it was undoable.

Or you can try make rounds that wont go off when hit by Heat rounds. Kinda hard when they use combustible casing.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Or you can try make rounds that wont go off when hit by Heat rounds. Kinda hard when they use combustible casing.

Sounds impossible, honestly speaking. That's asking for diametrally opposing qualities.
From the 1990s onwards Russian tanks have internal split/jet armor screens around ammo storage, this is probably the extent of that is practical for carousel design.

 

[GeForce]

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.

There are rumors that Russian MoD rejected 640 because bustle autoloader was badly protected from the frontal arc.

There is pretty old requirement since... I dunno, very old requirement that protection should be more or less the same through the whole ±30° frontal angles. That's why turrets have that shape with wide frontal part and narrow rear, and that's why ERA covers only part of the hull sides

 

[LCR34]

There are rumors that Russian MoD rejected 640 because bustle autoloader was badly protected from the frontal arc.

There is pretty old requirement since... I dunno, very old requirement that protection should be more or less the same through the whole ±30° frontal angles. That's why turrets have that shape with wide frontal part and narrow rear, and that's why ERA covers only part of the hull sides

I honestly think the move to Bustle loader on ZTQ-15 is a move away soviet design. Not sure if the supposed next gen tank is still in the pipeline, since the military prioritise Air force and Navy more than the army.

 

[Mirabo]

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.

It didn't occur to me that you could just line up the propellant with the shell in the bustle. That makes a lot more sense now.

Admittedly the Object 640 is a pretty cool proof of concept, but the ammo compartment is so large and unprotected that I can't imagine it'd be practical to put it into service. A slight turn of the turret is enough to leave the bustle completely exposed. Even a hit from older RPG-7 rounds would set that thing off.

In fairness, that shouldn't be difficult to remedy. The ammo storage itself could be made narrower, and then covering the sides with spaced armour and ERA might do the trick, like the 99A turret. You'd sacrifice a few rounds (4 to 6?) in the autoloader but at least it's not a bomb waiting to go off.

 

[LCR34]

It didn't occur to me that you could just line up the propellant with the shell in the bustle. That makes a lot more sense now.

Admittedly the Object 640 is a pretty cool proof of concept, but the ammo compartment is so large and unprotected that I can't imagine it'd be practical to put it into service. A slight turn of the turret is enough to leave the bustle completely exposed. Even a hit from older RPG-7 rounds would set that thing off.

In fairness, that shouldn't be difficult to remedy. The ammo storage itself could be made narrower, and then covering the sides with spaced armour and ERA might do the trick, like the 99A turret. You'd sacrifice a few rounds (4 to 6?) in the autoloader but at least it's not a bomb waiting to go off.

The problem is less of Tank vs Tank but against top attack atgm or guided munitions from drones etc, or side shots.

 

[GeForce]

Admittedly the Object 640 is a pretty cool proof of concept, but the ammo compartment is so large and unprotected that I can't imagine it'd be practical to put it into service. A slight turn of the turret is enough to leave the bustle completely exposed. Even a hit from older RPG-7 rounds would set that thing off.

I kinda like the design of "future upgraded T-80U" with charges in the bustle and shells in the carousel:

https://imgur.com/pA2ZhBv

It's old Soviet proposal tho

 

[LCR34]

I kinda like the design of "future upgraded T-80U" with charges in the bustle and shells in the carousel:

https://imgur.com/pA2ZhBv

It's old Soviet proposal tho

Doesnt makes it better than T80

 

[Gloire_bb]

Admittedly the Object 640 is a pretty cool proof of concept, but the ammo compartment is so large and unprotected that I can't imagine it'd be practical to put it into service. A slight turn of the turret is enough to leave the bustle completely exposed. Even a hit from older RPG-7 rounds would set that thing off.

Well, some modern tanks with turret bustle(K2, Type 10) also fit this description.
The idea for 640 was to have a large (40 ready rounds iirc) bustle, which can be swapped by a crane.
I.e. full reload (and replacement of a damaged one, if possible) can be done within minutes.

I kinda like the design of "future upgraded T-80U" with charges in the bustle and shells in the carousel:

Spoiler: 292 apparently

 

[LCR34]

Well, some modern tanks with turret bustle(K2, Type 10) also fit this description.
The idea for 640 was to have a large (40 ready rounds iirc) bustle, which can be swapped by a crane.
I.e. full reload (and replacement of a damaged one, if possible) can be done within minutes.

Spoiler: 292 apparently

We are quite far from 98/99 now innit?